Floor Statements

Let me thank the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota and as well his ranking member, who I hope is recognizing the importance of the work that we are doing here today, and, of course, the Members that have spoken.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to support the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008 and also to speak to the manager's amendment that incorporates my language that speaks specifically to encouraging, I hope insisting, that stakeholders, whether they be cities and counties or various transit agencies, engage the public in the question of promoting public transportation.

The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has shared a recent study that states that if Americans use public transit at the same rate as Europeans for roughly 10 percent of their daily travel needs, the United States could reduce its dependence on imported oil by more than 40 percent, nearly equal to the 550 million barrels of crude oil that we import from Saudi Arabia.

Right as we speak, Houston, Texas, the fourth largest city in the Nation, is beginning to grow its mass transit system. It started by the advocation of many of us, including our former mayor Lee P. Brown, which required,

because of the restraints here in Washington and the difficulties of our being able to get consensus, it was started by our own tax dollars. The 7\1/2\ mile transit system that was started at least 3 or 4 years ago has now become one of the fastest new starts in America and is located in my congressional district shared with my fellow colleague in the Ninth Congressional District. What it says is that new starts should be increased in months to come. And as we look to expanding opportunities for transit systems and reducing our use of oil, it is important as well that we look to collaborative efforts on efficient transportation systems.

Madam Chairman, let me ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and I hope to get time on the manager's amendment.

Madam Chairman, thank you, and thank you Chairman Oberstar for your efforts on energy conservation with H.R. 6052--``Saving Energy through Public Transportation Act of 2008.'' The Transportation and Infrastructure has once again produced legislation that will help Americans save money and develop new modes of transportation.

The primary objective of this legislation is to reduce the United States dependence on foreign oil by encouraging more people to use public transportation. The Transportation and Infrastructure has shared a recent study that states if Americans used public transit at the same rate as Europeans--for roughly 10 percent of their daily travel needs-- the United States could reduce its dependence on imported oil by more than 40 percent, nearly equal to the 550 million barrels of crude oil that we import from Saudi Arabia each year.

Rising gas prices have only added to this country's economic downturn. When we add this cost into our troubled housing markets, soaring food prices, and a war without a clear end--the importance of this legislation becomes even more apparent.

I urge transportation systems such as Houston METRO to work in greater coordination with their local community to ensure that routing lines make not only economic sense, but practical sense as well.

Community involvement is essential, which is why I offered an amendment that would state that ``public transportation stakeholders should engage local communities in the education and promotion of the importance of using public transportation in cities and counties; and in the planning, development, and design of transportation routing lines.''

I am pleased that my amendment was incorporated into the manager's amendment. However, I am disappointed that all the language was not incorporated--leaving out the key portion of community involvement in planning, development, and design of transportation routing lines.

I still support this measure and I sincerely hope that our local public transportation agencies take the communities' use into account as well as their thoughts on what routes would add value and which routes may actually do more harm than good. It is our residents who utilize the mass transit systems not the planning boards.

In my district of Houston, Texas, many residents utilize the public transit system to alleviate congestion as well as to control cost. I believe it is imperative that we have full community involvement in the discussions surrounding outreach, planning, design of mass transit.

Our parents who are trying to hold one child, guide another, balance their bags and get to work; it is our elderly who need extra time to get onto trains and buses; and our youth who are trying to get back and forth to school and activities--these are the people who can and will utilize public transportation. The incentives are there for commuters but they should be examined with community involvement so the right message is sent.

This act will add value to our public transportation by:

Authorizing $1.7 Billion of Capital and Operating Funds for Transit Agencies to Reduce Fares and Expand Transit Services. This section authorizes $850 million (General Fund) for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009 to allow public transit agencies to reduce transit fares and expand transit services. These funds will allow transit agencies to provide incentives for commuters to choose transit options, thereby reducing our nation's transportation-related energy consumption and reliance on foreign oil, as well as decreasing its greenhouse gas emissions. These funds will be distributed under current law urban and rural transit formulas. The Federal share for these grants is 100 percent and funds will only be available for a two-year period.

Increasing the Federal Share for Clean Fuel and Alternative Fuel Transit Bus, Ferry, or Locomotive-related Equipment and Facilities from 90 percent to 100 percent. The bill increases the Federal share for the alternative fuel vehicle-related equipment from 90 percent to 100 percent of the net project cost for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

Extending Transit Benefits to All Federal Employees. The bill establishes a nationwide Federal transit pass benefits program and requires all Federal agencies in the United States to offer transit passes to Federal employees.

Requiring the Department of Transportation (DOT) to Establish Specific Guidance for Implementing the Nationwide Transit Pass Benefits Program. The guidance will ensure that Federal agencies have the necessary administrative procedures to ensure that Federal employees properly use the program. It also requires the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Energy to implement a nationwide three-year pilot transit pass benefit program for all qualified Federal employees of those agencies.

Establishing a Vanpool Pilot Program. The bill establishes a two-year pilot program to allow the amount expended by private providers of public transportation by vanpool for the acquisition of vans to be used as the non-Federal share for matching Federal transit funds in five communities. The provision requires the private providers of vanpool services to use revenues they receive in providing public transportation, in excess of its operating costs, for the purpose of acquiring vans, excluding any amounts the providers may have received in Federal, State, or local government assistance for such acquisition. The Department of Transportation will implement and oversee the vanpool pilot projects, and will report back to Congress on the costs, benefits, and efficiencies of the vanpool demonstration projects.

Increasing the Federal Share for Additional Parking Facilities at End-of-Line Fixed Guideway Stations. The bill increases the Federal share for additional parking facilities at end-of-line fixed guideway stations to increase the total number of transit commuters who have access to those stations.

Therefore Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 6052, which seeks to address energy conservations through public transportation.

Amendment to H.R. 6052, as Reported

Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Page 3, after line 25, insert the following:

(10) Public transportation stakeholders should engage and

involve local communities in the education and promotion of

the importance of utilizing public transportation in cities

and counties and in the planning, development, and design of

transportation routing lines.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise again today to again commend the Transportation Committee, the full committee Chair Mr. Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica on H.R. 6052. I wanted to discuss very briefly an amendment that I offered, part of which was included in the manager's amendment, and it has to do with promoting education, but as well to address the question of involving all of those impacted.

It reads that ``public transportation stakeholders should engage local communities in the education and promotion of the importance of using public transportation in cities and counties, and in the planning, development and design of transportation routing lines.''

This is particularly of interest to constituents in Houston as we build a new metro system. Today they broke ground in the east end. I congratulate them. But as we look to make sure that we are involving all of the participants, the stakeholders need to address the question of routing.

The only way that you will provide mass transit as a system for all the people is they must buy into it. We have a situation in Houston where we are looking to reroute from Wheeler, and I hope that this bill will get this understanding. Promote education of mass transit and get the stakeholders and communities to buy into it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for those who promote democracy in Iran and stability in Iraq. In Paris, thousands of Iranians have gathered to celebrate a big victory today. It is a great day for the Iranian people and their resistance.

On Monday, the government of the United Kingdom formally removed the Iranian opposition from the U.K.'s Terror list. This happened after many years of campaign by the organization. Legislators approved the decision of the Proscribed Organization Court of Appeal, which ruled in May that the People's Mujahedeen of Iran (MEK) should no longer be listed as a proscribed group.

It is a great day for the Iranian people, for all freedom loving people of Iran who have been forced to leave Iran, and for their just resistance. It was great to hear that the British government formally removed an Iranian opposition group from the U.K.'s Black list on Monday, after many years of campaign by the organization.

As a Representative of the 18th Congressional District of Texas, I have had the pleasure, of working with a strong and vibrant Iranian population in Houston. They have contributed immensely to the cultural diversity, economic and political dynamic of Houston. As a Member of Congress, I find Iran's support of terrorist organizations, pursuit of nuclear weapons, and dismal human rights record to be extremely worrisome. However, I am also concerned by what appears to be precipitous movement by this Administration toward yet another war in the Gulf region, without having first exhausted diplomatic means of addressing any conflicts.

I have long been an advocate of a free, independent, and democratic Iran. I believe in an Iran that holds free elections, follows the rule of law, and is home to a vibrant civil society; an Iran that is a responsible member of the region and the international community, particularly with respect to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. An Iran that, unfortunately, we do not see today.

Today, the Bush Administration announced a set of new sanctions against Iran. The Administration labeled the elite Quds division of the Revolutionary Guard Corps as supporters of terrorism, and stated that the entire Revolutionary Guard Corps was engaged in proliferating weapons of mass destruction. These designations trigger unilateral sanctions designed to impede the Revolutionary Guard, and any who might do business with it. These new sanctions mark the first time that the United States has taken such a step against the armed forces of any sovereign government.

The only effective way to achieve lasting peace and prosperity in the region, along with bringing about reforms in Iran's policy, is to assist the Iranian people in their quest to achieve political, social, and religious liberty. Every government can be judged by the way in which it treats its ethnic and religious minorities, and the current Iranian government gets a failing grade for its treatment of its many and diverse minorities.

Given the government's poor record for transparency and accountability, the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) inability, despite intensified inspections since 2002, to verify that Iran's nuclear program is not designed to develop a nuclear weapon is cause for great concern. While Iran states that the intention of its nuclear program is for electricity generation which it feels is vital to its energy security, U.S. officials challenge this justification by stating that ``Iran's vast gas resources make nuclear energy programs unnecessary.''

The controversy surrounding Iran's procurement of nuclear energy is cause for great concern, however, the Administration's avoidance of any and all diplomatic relations with Iran are cause for greater alarm. Moreover, the current rhetoric from the Bush Administration regarding war with Iran is both counter productive and highly inflammatory. While full diplomatic, political, and economic relations between the U.S. and Iran cannot be normalized unless and until enforceable safeguards are put in place to prevent the weaponization of Iran's

nuclear program, these policy objectives should not constitute pre- conditions for any diplomatic dialogue.

Establishing a diplomatic dialogue with the Government of Iran and deepening relationships with the Iranian people would help foster greater understanding between the people of Iran and the people of the United States and would enhance the stability the security of the Persian Gulf region. Doing so would reduce the threat of the proliferation or use of nuclear weapons in the region while advancing other U.S. foreign policy objectives in the region. The significance of establishing and sustaining diplomatic relations with Iran cannot be over-emphasized. Avoidance and military intervention cannot be the means through which we resolve this looming crisis.

I am planning to introduce important legislation that will call for human rights and religious freedom in Iran. The Iranian people have continued to ask for democracy to reign free in their country and I intend to support the Iranian people in that endeavor. As you know, over the past few months, the people of Iran have been standing up to Iranian government. I am aware that at least 5000 acts of protest took place last year. I applaud your efforts to encourage those who have raised their voices against the extremists in Iran.

The United Nations has condemned Iran 54 times for its atrocious human rights record. Inhumane treatment of youths, women and workers by the government of Iran is further evidence of the regime's intolerance. Iranian women have shown they play a pivotal role in establishing democracy and ensuring human rights in Iran.

We all must work together for a stable and democratic Iraq. Today, there is undisputable evidence that Iran is the main contributor to the violence in Iraq which causes American casualties. The extremist government in Iran has acted to ensure the failure of Iraqi reconciliation. Iran is part of the problem in Iraq and does not wish to be part of the solution. But Iraq's tribal leaders are standing up to the Islamic extremism coming from Iran. I know that over 3 million Iraqi Shiites have signed a declaration this month rejecting Iran's meddling. They have also shown support for the Iranian opposition MEK living in Ashraf. I support their invaluable efforts for peace and stability in Iraq.

Although many disagree with the current status of this war in Iraq, all agree that we must collectively work to stop Iranian-style fundamentalism from taking root in Iraq. Let me here recognize your actions in support of democracy in Iraq as well as in Iran. With many continuing to suggest that military action in Iran is the best way to deal with our political discrepancies, it is now time to renew our efforts in strengthening our diplomatic policies in the Middle East. The same people who called for attacking Iraq now are raising the drumbeat for military action against Iran.

Despite the November 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate concluding that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program, the Bush administration is bolstering its case for war by labeling Iran one of the greatest threats to American security. Bombing Iran would bring disastrous consequences. The entire Middle East likely would descend into further violence putting the well-being of innumerable civilians at risk. U.S. standing in the world would plummet and oil prices would soar. A U.S. attack would only strengthen hardliners in Iran.

Supporting the efforts of the Iranian people who want democracy is especially important now that the UK government confirmed on June 24, that the MEK was no longer ``Concerned in terrorism'', and officially took the name of the organization off their black list. This is a great victory for the cause of democracy in Iran. In light of the recent developments, the United States must seriously consider the court's findings and also remove the limitations it has placed on the MEK.

The world community must strengthen the sanctions on the clerical regime. It must also immediately recognize and support the Iranian resistance as the democratic alternative to the regime in Iran.

Today, the mullahs are increasingly using oppression inside and terrorism outside of Iran as a foreign policy tool. The solution to the current crisis is often perceived to only have two solutions--war or appeasement. I disagree. There is a third option. The Third Option introduced by Mrs. Maryam Rajavi relies on the strength of the Iranian people and their organized resistance. This is the best and least costly alternative. Let us not continue to make the mistake of appeasing Iran. As a viable alternative, we must move to support the Iranian people and their resistance. Only you can bring about democratic change in Iran.

I have come to know the people of Iran and appreciate their thirst for freedom. My message to them is this: rest assured that it is attainable. I wish you the best in your struggle for peace, freedom and democracy.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3195, the ``ADA Restoration Act of 2007.'' I wholeheartedly support this bill and urge my colleagues to support it also. The changes embodied by this Act, that restore the with Disabilities Act of 1990, ``ADA'', to its original purpose, are long overdue. This is a civil rights bill and the rights of the disabled must be restored.

H.R. 3195, the ``ADA Restoration Act of 2007,'' amends the definition of ``disability'' in

the ADA in response to the Supreme Court's narrow interpretation of the definition, which has made it extremely difficult for individuals with serious health conditions--epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis and severe intellectual impairments--to prove that they qualify for protection under the ADA. The Supreme Court has narrowed the definition in two ways: (1) by ruling that mitigating measures that help control an impairment like medicine, hearing aids, or any other treatment must be considered in determining whether an impairment is disabling enough to qualify as a disability; and (2) by ruling that the elements of the definition must be interpreted ``strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled.'' The Court's treatment of the ADA is at odds with judicial treatment of other civil rights statutes, which usually are interpreted broadly to achieve their remedial purposes. It is also inconsistent with Congress's intent.

The committee will consider a substitute that represents the consensus view of disability rights groups and the business community. That substitute restores congressional intent by, among other things: disallowing consideration of mitigating measures other than corrective lenses, ordinary eyeglasses or contacts, when determining whether an impairment is sufficiently limiting to qualify as a disability; maintaining the requirement that an individual qualifying as disabled under the first of the three-prong definition of ``disability'' show that an impairment ``substantially limits'' a major life activity but defining ``substantially limits'' as a less burdensome ``materially restricts; clarifying that anyone who is discriminated against because of an impairment, whether or not the impairment limits the performance of any major life activities, has been ``regarded as'' disabled and is entitled to the ADA's protection.

Background on Legislation

Eighteen years ago, President George H.W. Bush, with overwhelming bipartisan support from the Congress, signed into law the ADA. The act was intended to provide a ``clear and comprehensive mandate,'' with ``strong, consistent, enforceable standards,'' for eliminating disability-based discrimination. Through this broad mandate, Congress sought to protect anyone who is treated less favorably because of a current, past, or perceived disability. Congress did not intend for the courts to seize on the definition of disability as a means of excluding individuals with serious health conditions from protection; yet this is exactly what has happened. A legislative action is now needed to restore congressional intent, and ensure broad protection against disability-based discrimination.

Court Rulings Have Narrowed ADA Protection, Resulting in the Exclusion

of Individuals that Congress Clearly Intended to Protect

Through a series of decisions interpreting the ADA's definition of ``disability,'' however, the Supreme Court has narrowed the ADA in ways never intended by Congress. First, in three cases decided on the same day, the Supreme Court ruled that the determination of ``disability'' under the first prong of the definition--i.e., whether an individual has a substantially limiting impairment--should be made after considering whether mitigating measures had reduced the impact of the impairment. In all three cases, the undisputed reason for the adverse action was the employee's medical condition, yet all three employers argued--and the Supreme Court agreed--that the plaintiffs were not protected by the ADA because their impairments, when considered in a mitigated state, were not limiting enough to qualify as disabilities under the ADA.

Three years later, the Supreme Court revisited the definition of ``disability'' in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams. In that case, the plaintiff alleged that her employer discriminated against her by failing to accommodate her disabilities, which included carpal tunnel syndrome, myotendonitis, and thoracic outlet compression. While her employer previously had adjusted her job duties, making it possible for her to perform well despite these conditions, Williams was not able to resume certain job duties when requested by Toyota and ultimately lost her job. She challenged the termination, also alleging that Toyota's refusal to continue accommodating her violated the ADA. Looking to the definition of ``disability,'' the Court noted that an individual ``must initially prove that he or she has a physical or mental impairment,'' and then demonstrate that the impairment ``substantially limits'' a ``major life activity.'' Identifying the critical questions to be whether a limitation is ``substantial'' and whether a life activity is ``major,'' the court stated that ``these terms need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled.'' The Court then concluded that ``substantial'' requires a showing that an individual has an impairment ``that prevents or, `` severely restricts the individual; and ``major'' life activities, requires a showing that the individual is restricted from performing tasks that are ``of central importance to most people's daily lives.''

In the wake of these rulings, disabilities that had been covered under the Rehabilitation Act and that Congress intended to include under the ADA--serious health conditions like epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis--have been excluded. Either, the courts say, the person is not impaired enough to substantially limit a major life activity, or the impairment substantially limits something--like liver function--that the courts do not consider a major life activity. Courts even deny protection when the employer admits that it took adverse action based on the individual's impairment, allowing employers to take the position that an employee is too disabled to do a job but not disabled enough to be protected by the law.

On October 4, 2007, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held a legislative hearing on H.R. 3195, the ``ADA Restoration Act of 2007.'' Witnesses at the hearing included Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer; Cheryl Sensenbrenner, chair, American Association of People with Disabilities; Stephen C. Orr, pharmacist and plaintiff in Orr v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Michael C. Collins, executive director, National Council on Disability; Lawrence Z. Lorber, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and Chai R. Feldblum, professor, Georgetown University Law Center.

The hearing provided an opportunity for the Constitution Subcommittee to examine how the Supreme Court's decisions regarding the definition of ``disability'' have affected ADA protection for individuals with disabilities and to consider the need for legislative action. Representative Hoyer, one of the lead sponsors of the original act and, along with Representative Sensenbrenner, lead House co-sponsor of the ADA Restoration Act, explained the need to respond to court decisions ``that have sharply restricted the class of people who can invoke protection under the law and [reinstate] the original congressional intent when the ADA passed.'' Explaining Congress's choice to adopt the definition of ``disability'' from the Rehabilitation Act because it had been interpreted generously by the courts, Representative Hoyer testified that Congress had never anticipated or intended that the courts would interpret that definition so narrowly:

[W]e could not have fathomed that people with diabetes,

epilepsy, heart conditions, cancer, mental illnesses and

other disabilities would have their ADA claims denied because

they would be considered too functional to meet the

definition of disabled. Nor could we have fathomed a

situation where the individual may be considered too disabled

by an employer to get a job, but not disabled enough by the

courts to be protected by the ADA from discrimination. What a

contradictory position that would have been for Congress to

take.

Representative Hoyer, joined by all of the witnesses except Mr. Lorber, urged Congress to respond by passing H.R. 3195 to amend the definition of ``disability.'' Mr. Lorber, appearing on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, opposed H.R. 3195 as an overly broad response to court decisions that accurately reflected statutory language and congressional intent.

Since the subcommittee's hearing, several changes have been made to the bill, which are reflected in the substitute that will likely be considered by the committee. The substitute, described section-by- section below, represents the consensus of the disability rights and business groups and is supported by, among others, the Chamber of Commerce.

Importantly, section 4 of the bill, amends the definition of ``disability'' and provides standards for applying the amended definition. While retaining the requirement that a disability ``substantially limits'' a ``major'' life activity under prongs 1 and 2 of the definition of disability, section 4 redefines ``substantially limits'' as ``materially restricts'' to indicate a less stringent standard. Thus, while the limitation imposed by an impairment must be important, it need not rise to the level of preventing or severely restricting the performance of major life activities in order to qualify as a disability. Section 4 provides an illustrative list of life activities that should be considered ``major,'' and clarifies that an individual has been ``regarded as'' disabled, and is entitled to protection under the ADA, if discriminated against because of an impairment, whether or not the impairment limits the performance of any major life activities. Section 4 requires broad construction of the definition and prohibits consideration of mitigating measures, with the exception of ordinary glasses or contact lenses, in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.

I support this bill and I urge my colleagues to support it also.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6358, ``Stop the Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens''. I would like to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Education and Labor for bringing this very important legislation to the floor.

On Capitol Hill we often debate matters that can address varying viewpoints. I believe that this legislation can only be looked at from two angles--right and wrong. I do believe that this bill must restore the spot check visits by HHS which have been deleted--the agencies in Texas are guilty of many abuses and these visits can save children's lives.

They are everybody's children, and nobody's children. They are the forgotten children in the Texas foster care and residential care system. Black, White, Hispanic, and Asian--they all need the love of a mother, the nurturing of a family, and the support of their community. Some of them find homes with caring foster parents or in treatment centers with experienced and caring providers. And some do not.

This legislation allows us to keep our children safe with:

New national standards for private and public residential programs:

Prohibit programs from physically, mentally, or sexually abusing children in their care;

Prohibit programs from denying children essential water, food, clothing, shelter, or medical care--whether as a form of punishment or for any other reason;

Require that programs only physically restrain children if it is necessary for their safety or the safety of others, and to do so in a way that is consistent with existing Federal law on the use of restraints;

Require programs to provide children with reasonable access to a telephone and inform children of their right to use the phone;

Require programs to train staff in understanding what constitutes child abuse and neglect and how to report it; and

Require programs to have plans in place to provide emergency medical care.

Prevent deceptive marketing by residential programs for teens:

Require programs to disclose to parents the qualifications, roles, and responsibilities of all current staff members;

Require programs to notify parents of substantiated reports of child abuse or violations of health and safety laws; and

Require programs to include a link or Web address for the Web site of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which will carry information on residential programs.

Hold teen residential programs accountable for violating the law:

Require States to inform the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services of reports of child abuse and neglect at covered programs and require HHS to conduct investigations of such programs to determine if a violation of the national standards has occurred; and

Give HHS the authority to assess civil penalties of up to $50,000 against programs for every violation of the law.

Ask States to step in to protect teens in residential programs: Three years after enactment, the legislation would provide certain Federal grant money to States only if they develop their own licensing standards (that are at least as strong as national standards) for public and private residential programs for teens and implement a monitoring and enforcement system, including conducting unannounced site inspections of all programs at least once every 2 years. The Department of Health and Human Services would continue to inspect programs where a child fatality has occurred or where a pattern of violations has emerged.

This legislation seeks to protect the unprotected--our children--from abuse, neglect and exploitation. Many of these children are not safe, and their futures are uncertain. The groups serving children and adolescents with mental health or substance use conditions need better regulation. The youth boot camps and other ``alternative placement facilities'' should be forced to provide greater transparency as to the policies and practices of their programs.

This legislation is a welcomed and needed response to numerous studies documenting the ineffectiveness of these programs and, in several instances, the tragic deaths as a result of child abuse and neglect as reported by the GAO in October 2007. Too many families struggle mightily in nearly every State to find placements, when appropriate, for their children that will address their complex mental health needs.

These facilities flourish, in part, because parents lack the necessary information about the operation and practices of these programs. The promise of help cannot be allowed to obscure the fact that these kinds of programs are not science-based and have not been forthcoming about the incidence of neglect or abuse.

This addresses the challenges facing many families. It seeks relief from these risks by (1) establishing standards for these programs that are consistent with current child protection laws; (2) ensuring that personnel are qualified; (3) shifting these programs to be family- centered, as well as culturally and developmentally appropriate; (4) creating mechanisms for the monitoring and enforcement of these goals; (5) calling for greater transparency and accessibility to the compliance of these standards; and (6) providing grants to States for the prevention of child abuse and neglect and for the treatment of children's mental health or substance use conditions.

Additionally, the annual report to Congress is an effective tool in ensuring that these critical issues emerge from the shadows and see the light of day. I share the vision and commitment of Chairman Miller and the Education and Labor Committee in protecting our youth from such predators.

I urge my colleagues to vote for our children, vote for our families, and vote for H.R. 6358.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to enthusiastically support the legislation that we just debated on the floor of the House. Having been detained in my Committee on Transportation Security and Critical Infrastructure during the debate, I wanted to come and support H.R. 3195, the ADA Restoration Act of 2007. This is truly a civil rights initiative, and it is important to restore the basic support and rights of those who are disabled in America.

Unfortunately, through the Supreme Court's narrow decision and definition

of the word ``disability,'' it made it very difficult for individuals with serious health conditions such as epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, and severe intellectual impairments to prove that they qualify for protection under the ADA.

The Supreme Court narrowed that definition in two ways: one by ruling that mitigation measures that help control an impairment, like medicine or hearing aids or other devices, must be considered a deserving disability; and, two, ruling that the elements of the definition must be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled.

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. The civil rights of all Americans are an important constitutional element. We hold these truths to be self- evident that we are all created equal. This legislation, H.R. 3195, restores those rights. And I would like to affirm that my vote in the Judiciary Committee was a resounding ``yes.'' The fact that I was detained, I want that to be reflected in the report.

This is an important bill. This bill is heavily supported, and I throw my support to a new civil rights law in America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6331, the ``Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act of 2008.'' I would like to thank my colleague from New York, Chairman Charles Rangel for his leadership in this important issue.

This legislation could not come at a more crucial time. Americans are in need of support. Rising gas prices, food costs at an all-time high, and a rocky housing market have pushed this great Nation towards an economic downturn. Families are clinging to basic necessities and quality healthcare is one of those essential needs.

I am pleased to see that there is no language that inhibits physician ownership of general acute care hospitals. I have worked tirelessly with Members of leadership and with the Texas delegation to support general acute-care hospitals and their future development. Physicians who have decided to build in areas

where often no other hospital will--should not be penalized for their commitment to work on the clinical and business side of health care.

General acute-care hospitals still need to be able to: maintain a minimum number of physicians available at all times to provide service; provide a significant amount of charity care; treat at least 1/6 of their outpatient visits for emergency medical conditions on an urgent basis without requiring a previously scheduled appointment; maintain at least 10 full-time interns or residents-in-training in a teaching program; advertise or present themselves to the public as a place which provides emergency care; serve as a disproportionate share provider, serving a low income community with a disproportionate share of low income patients; and have at least 90 hospital beds available to patients.

This issue is of the utmost importance to me because I, like others in the Democratic Caucus, have hospitals and hospital systems such as University Hospital Systems of Houston in my district that would have been greatly affected by this provision.

For example, 2 years ago, St. Joseph Medical Center, downtown Houston's first and only teaching hospital, was on the verge of closing its doors. However, a hospital corporation in partnership with physicians purchased it, and as a result of proper and responsible management, has made it the premier hospital in the region, with a qualified emergency room responsive to a heavily populated downtown Houston. St. Joseph Medical Center is also in the process of reopening Houston Heights Hospital, the fourth oldest acute care hospital in Houston. This hospital will be serving a large Medicare/Medicaid population.

I am committed to this issue and to the issue of health care for all Americans. Provisions that could end the expansion of truly compassionate hospital care in places like Texas, Maryland, New York and California have no place in healthcare legislation.

What I do support is legislation that seeks to aid our elderly, our disabled, our veterans, our children and our indigent populations. I stand here today to show my support not only for the physicians and medical care providers of Houston, Texas, but for all of our healthcare providers across this country. We need them to continue to be able to care for our underserved and elderly--this bill allows them to do just that.

This bill provides a delay of 18 months for the competitive bidding program for Durable Medical Equipment, DMEPOS. It also prevents the 10.6 percent pay cut to physicians that is scheduled to take place on July 1, and provides a 1.1 percent update starting January 1, 2009.

This bill also includes important beneficiary improvements such as Medicare mental health parity, improved preventive coverage, and enhanced assistance for low-income beneficiaries.

It contains provisions that will protect the fragile rural health care safety net. In my home State of Texas, we have not only great urban areas such as Houston, Dallas and Austin, we have over 300 rural areas in Texas with cities such as Rollingwood and Hamilton.

Our rural health care providers are scheduled to receive steep cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates on July 1 unless we take action now. Such cuts are catastrophic in rural America, where a disproportionate number of elderly Americans live. These seniors are, per capita, older, poorer and sicker (with greater chronic illnesses) than their urban counterparts. Additionally, recruitment and retention of providers to much of rural America is often daunting. Provider shortages are rampant throughout many rural and most frontier regions.

Additionally, H.R. 633 also includes several other critical provisions for rural providers which, cumulatively, create a rural package that will help protect both the rural health safety net and the health of tens of millions of seniors who call rural America home.

H.R. 6331 focuses on strengthening primary care and takes significant strides in protecting rural seniors' access to care by correcting certain long-standing inequities between rural and urban providers.

Thank you both for your continued concern for the health of rural Americans. So many enduring inequities in health care must be faced by rural patients and providers daily. H.R. 6331 offers critical assistance and will go far to improving the health of millions of rural Medicare beneficiaries.

Quality measures must continue to be adequately funded in order to promote quality, cost-effective health care for consumers and employers. The uncertainty of Medicare payments makes it increasingly difficult for surgeons and their practices to plan for the expenses that they will incur as they serve their patients.

The provisions included in H.R. 6331 would enable surgeons and surgical practices to plan for the rising costs that they will continue to face over the next year and a half.

By addressing payment levels through 2009, Chairman Rangel has given us more time to study the payment issues surrounding Medicare and allow us to look at the systemic reforms needed to preserve access to quality surgical care and other physician services.

As a long-time advocate for universal health care, I believe we must continue to support our essential medical providers so that they can focus on patient care. We need more physicians as we seek to expand health care for all Americans. Yet, how can we expect to grow that workforce when we continue to cut their reimbursement levels? We must support our physicians so that they may support and care for their patients. We have to continue to look at how we can save Medicare and expand it to care for those who need it most.

I am proud to cosponsor legislation that will add support for our healthcare workforce. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Let me thank Mr. Neal for his leadership and as well thank my good friend Chairman Rangel and fellow Texas friend Mr. Brady, Mr. Costello, and others who have been engaged in this legislation.

I chair the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection. We have much overlapping concerns as relates to the aviation industry. So I rise to support these extensions because I believe that we do have a challenge in not disallowing these payments to go forward.

The costs of air travel have increased rapidly in the last few months. Airlines have not only increased the price of air fare, but they have been forced to put charges on extra baggage, cut flights, and lay off hundreds of employees. But safe, secure air travel is essential, as it is beneficial environmentally, socially, and especially economically necessary. Without the ability to travel by air cheaply and easily, the flow of people, goods, and ideas would substantially decrease.

I represent Houston Intercontinental Airport and the headquarters for Continental Airlines. I see it firsthand. In order to be able to have safe secure travel, the necessary resources must be in place.

I look forward to meeting with the leadership of my hometown airline to discuss what Congress can do as it relates to jet fuel. Although we know how many of our consumers are suffering because of price per gallon for gasoline, the need for jet fuel and the cost has risen exponentially, with no relief in sight.

In fact, let me applaud Continental Airlines for its alliance with Star Alliance just last week to be able to provide more services and other necessary support matters being taken care of. It is standing independently, but as well, it has its own concerns.

If we do not extend funding to airline programs, many negative consequences will ensue, including the cutting of services, such as air traffic control, certification, and inspection, as well as the inability by the airlines to buy new equipment for aging infrastructure.

As I travel around the country on behalf of my constituents, I'm also hearing from small towns who are concerned that because of the high cost of flying, those centers will be cut off. Although I live in the fourth largest city in the Nation, I'm not interested in seeing others in the surrounding areas of Texas not have air transport.

The Airport and Airway Trust Fund was established in 1970 ``to provide for the expansion and improvement of the Nation's airport and airway system.'' It has provided funds for the Federal Aviation Administration.

And so this is an important extension because we need air travel, but we need it in the right way.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues and addressing the question of high fuel costs, of looking at ensuring the safety and security of our fellow travelers, and as well to ensure that we have opportunities for minority businesses to work on these large projects that are coming forward.

This is a necessary bill. I ask my colleagues to support it.

I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 6327, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, and for other purposes, introduced by my distinguished colleague from New York, Representative Charles B. Rangel. This important legislation will extend funding in order to

improve transportation for Americans across the Nation.

The costs of air travel have increased rapidly in the last few months. Airlines have not only increased the price of air fare, but they have been forced to put charges on extra baggage, cut flights, and lay off hundreds of employees. Air travel is essential, as it is beneficial environmentally, socially, and especially economically. Without the ability to travel by air cheaply and easily, the flow of people, goods, and ideas would substantially decrease.

If we do not extend funding to airline programs, many negative consequences will ensue, including cutting services, such as air traffic control, certification, and inspection, as well as the inability by the airlines to buy new equipment for the aging infrastructure.

It is obvious that something must be done to solve this pressing problem. It is necessary for airlines to look into alternative means in order to increase their effectiveness. However, it is also necessary for the United States to fund several programs.

The Airport and Airway Trust Fund was established in 1970 ``to provide for the expansion and improvement of the Nation's airport and airway system.'' Since then, it has provided funds for the Federal Aviation Administration. Various pieces of legislation have come before the Congess to extend this fund, and yet partisanship has stalled these bills. It is necessary for us to extend this program in order to modernize our air traffic control system. NextGen, a state-of-the-art air traffic control system, would allow control towers to pinpoint the exact locations of aircraft, making the skies less chaotic, and air travel much more efficient.

Additionally, the extension of the Airport Improvement Program is necessary in order to improve safety and efficiency in our air travel. Airports are sites used by millions and millions of Americans every single day. It is vital that airports, travelers, and air flight personnel be secure, and thus it is important to continue to fund this program.

Even though air travel is obviously important, other forms of travel contribute to the Nation as well. The Highway Trust Fund was created by the Highway Revenue Act of 1956 to ensure a dependable source of financing for the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. This is the premier fund for Government spending on highways, with approximately 45 percent of all highway spending coming from this fund. The Congressional Budget Office predicts the fund will run a deficit of $1.7 billion at the end of 2009 and $8.1 billion by the end of 2010. The Highway Trust Fund balance must be restored.

This bill will extend the taxes that fund the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, extend the expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, extend the Airport Improvement Program, and restore the Highway Trust Fund balance. This will be important to keep airports modernized and we should also ensure that minority-owned and women- owned and small businesses have equal chances for construction work. This is a vital bill for cities like Houston, Texas, which happens to have one of the top 10 airports in the Nation. I urge my fellow members of Congress to support H.R. 6327 in order to increase efficiency, safety, and functioning of our Nation's transportation systems.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5876, ``Stop the Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens.'' I would like to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Education and Labor for bringing this very important legislation to the floor.

On Capitol Hill we often debate matters that can address varying viewpoints. I believe that this legislation can only be looked at from two angles--right and wrong.

They are everybody's children, and nobody's children. They are the forgotten children in the Texas foster care and residential care system. Black, White, Hispanic, and Asian--they all need the love of a mother, the nurturing of a family, and the support of their community. Some of them find homes with caring foster parents or in treatment centers with experienced and caring providers. And some do not.

This legislation allows us to keep our children safe with:

New national standards for private and public residential programs--

Prohibit programs from physically, mentally, or sexually abusing children in their care;

Prohibit programs from denying children essential water, food, clothing, shelter, or medical care--whether as a form of punishment or for any other reason;

Require that programs only physically restrain children if it is necessary for their safety or the safety of others, and to do so in a way that is consistent with existing federal law on the use of restraints;

Require programs to provide children with reasonable access to a telephone and inform children of their right to use the phone;

Require programs to train staff in understanding what constitutes child abuse and neglect and how to report it; and

Require programs to have plans in place to provide emergency medical care.

Prevent deceptive marketing by residential programs for teens--

Require programs to disclose to parents the qualifications, roles, and responsibilities of all current staff members;

Require programs to notify parents of substantiated reports of child abuse or violations of health and safety laws; and

Require programs to include a link or web address for the website of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which will carry information on residential programs.

Hold teen residential programs accountable for violating the law--

Require states to inform the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services of reports of child abuse and neglect at covered programs and require HHS to conduct investigations of such programs to determine if a violation of the national standards has occurred; and

Give HHS the authority to assess civil penalties of up to $50,000 against programs for every violation of the law.

Ask States to step in to protect teens in residential programs--

Three years after enactment, the legislation would provide certain Federal grant money to States only if they development their own licensing standards, that are at least strong as national standards, for public and private residential programs for teens and implement a monitoring and enforcement system, including conducting unannounced site inspections of all programs at least once every 2 years. The Department of Health and Human Services would continue to inspect programs where a child fatality has occurred or where a pattern of violations has emerged.

This legislation seeks to protect the unprotected--our children--from abuse, neglect and exploitation. Many of these children are not safe, and their futures are uncertain. The groups serving children and adolescents with mental health or substance use conditions need better regulation. The youth boot camps and other ``alternative placement facilities'' should be forced to provide greater transparency as to the policies and practices of their programs.

This legislation is a welcomed and needed response to numerous studies documenting the ineffectiveness of these programs and, in several instances, the tragic deaths as a result of child abuse and neglect as reported by the GAO in October 2007. Too many families struggle mightily in nearly every state to find placements, when appropriate, for their children that will address their complex mental health needs.

These facilities flourish, in part, because parents lack the necessary information about the operation and practices of these programs. The promise of help cannot be allowed to obscure the fact that these kinds of program are not science-based and have not been forthcoming about the incidence of neglect or abuse.

This addresses the challenges facing many families. It seeks relief from these risks by (1) establishing standards for these programs that are consistent with current child protection laws; (2) ensuring that personnel is qualified; (3) shifting these programs to be family- centered, as well as culturally and developmentally appropriate; (4) creating mechanisms for the monitoring and enforcement of these goals; (5) calling for greater transparency and accessibility to the compliance of these standards; and (6) providing grants to states for the prevention of child abuse and neglect and for the treatment of children's mental health or substance use conditions.

Additionally, the annual report to Congress is an effective tool in ensuring that these critical issues emerge from the shadows and see the light of day. I share the vision and commitment of Chairman Miller and the Education and Labor Committee in protecting our youth from such predators.

I urge my colleagues to vote for our children, vote for our families, and vote for H.R. 5876.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Filner, for constantly coming down on the side of veterans, and my good friend and colleague, Congressman Rodriguez, who eloquently articulated the importance of the GI Forum on its 60th anniversary. Let me thank the ranking member for participating in this debate, and commend my colleagues to this important resolution.

I would just speak briefly of the GI Forum, that I saw just recently in a Judiciary Committee hearing, looking at the treatment of some of our soldiers who are not yet citizens, and how the burden falls on their shoulders, even though they are on the front lines of fighting for our freedom. So we do know there are inequities. But we appreciate the GI Forum for its leadership over the years, and clearly its founding member, who worked so hard and certainly is someone renowned and respected in Texas.

So let me briefly congratulate the GI Forum in its 60th year, and commend my colleagues to reading about Army Major Hector P. Garcia, who we honored just a few weeks ago by naming the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and then recently reauthorized after Mr. Garcia.

One item that comes to mind is that he moved the GI Forum, after being recognized by Lyndon Baines Johnson, Ronald Reagan as President, and former President Clinton, for his service, he began to move the GI Forum towards civil rights. He questioned some of the inequities, and used this organization with its mighty might of returning veterans to speak on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves. They did fight for education and civil rights and good health care.

One of the stories that he is well-known for is the story recounted by my good friend from Texas of the soldier who came home from World War II and was not able to be buried in a South Texas funeral home. He thought that to be an unfortunate set of circumstances, and he called then President of the United States and moved this soldier from South Texas to be ultimately buried in the Arlington Cemetery.

So that is the standard of the GI Forum. It is a helping hand for veterans. It is a respected, renowned, national organization, full of patriots who understand as they fought for freedom on the battlefields across the world that they would also fight for freedom here in the United States.

Let me applaud the Veterans Committee and my good friend Congressman Rodriguez for this very astute legislation, recognition of a valid civil rights organization, the GI Forum, and ask my colleagues to vote for this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1271, Recognizing National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States, introduced by my distinguished colleague from California, Representative Gary Miller. This timely legislation helps to highlight the importance of ownership by recognizing homeowners in the United States.

This legislation recognizes June 2008 as National Homeownership Month. We should be very proud that the people of the United States are one of the best-housed populations in the world. This phenomenon has evolved because we are anchored in the belief that owning a home is a fundamental part of the American dream and is the largest personal investment many families will ever make. Homeownership provides economic security for homeowners by aiding them in building wealth over time and strengthens communities through a greater stake among homeowners in local schools, civic organizations, and churches. Creating affordable homeownership opportunities requires the commitment and cooperation of the private, public, and nonprofit sectors, including the Federal Government and State and local governments. In 2007, Texas ranked fourth behind California, Florida, and Illinois in pre-foreclosures. Last year, Texas held the top seat for active foreclosures.

This is why it is important that we reaffirm that homeownership can be sustained through appropriate homeownership education and informed borrowers. Affordable homeownership and maintaining the confidence and morale of current homeowners will play a vital role in resolving the crisis in the United States housing market: Now, therefore, I fully support the goals and ideals of National Homeownership Month, and I recognize the importance of homeownership in building strong communities and families.

H. Res. 1271 recognizes homeowners and only homeowners, not speculators or lenders. This legislation reminds us that we cannot continue to stand by as the housing market continues to deteriorate. U.S. home prices tumbled in April at the fastest rate since a widely- followed index was begun in 2000 with all 20 metropolitan areas posting annual declines for the first time. Texas reported 13,829 properties entering some stage of foreclosure in April, a 16 percent increase from the previous month and the most foreclosure filings reported by any state. The state documented the nation's third highest state combined foreclosure rate--one foreclosure filing for every 582 households.

Many homeowners in my district are worried about missing their next house payment or their next home equity mortgage, or their interest rate going up. These families are under stress and in constant fear of loosing their homes.

This bill should not be the last word in housing legislation nor should it be restricted to the status of symbolic rhetoric. The American people need us to intervene in this housing crisis that is leaving many undeserving families homeless. This bill coupled with Congresswoman Maxine Waters' bill, H.R. 5818, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act, provides a good starting point in providing Americans with relief. We must never forget that many of the New Deal programs under President Roosevelt were considered bailouts at that time. And yet, these programs brought our country out of the Depression, rejuvenated our economy, and gave hope as we sought to deal with the War overseas.

We are spending billions of dollars on the war in Iraq. I support our troops but I am dismayed at how our support for a war that needs to become less military and more diplomatic in nature, has disrupted our ability to take care of things at home. Thank you Madam Speaker for your leadership in this area, I urge my colleagues to support recognizing American homeowners by supporting H.R. 1271.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the manager of this legislation, Mr. Lacy Clay, and my special appreciation to the chairperson of the full committee, Chairman Waxman. He expressed a great deal of appreciation and sensitivity for this legislation; and to the ranking member, Mr. Tom Davis, to the staff of the committee for their untiring work and dedication, and certainly to the manager on the minority side on this legislation.

I am delighted to see a number of Members on the floor of the House, and I am especially appreciative of the gospel singers and advocates who have helped encourage this legislation to move forward.

Let me also thank Senator Blanche Lincoln who authored this legislation in the Senate, along with Senator Hutchinson and my cosponsor, Congresswoman Bono Mack.

We understand that this Congress has an opportunity on many occasions to celebrate and commemorate important historical cultures of this Nation. Gospel Music Heritage Month is that, for it is not with respect to race, color or creed, or even religion. As I was told by one artist singing in Japan, singing gospel music borne out of the seeds of slavery, that those in Japan were celebrating and clapping to that gospel music.

Gospel music has been woven into the fabric of American society for centuries, deeply impacting hundreds of generations, from rock and roll, country, the blues, R&B, and even hip-hop. And so H. Con. Res. 370 designating the month of September is intended to offer to America an opportunity to pause for a moment and be able to celebrate gospel music.

According to the Gospel Music Channel, which has been very helpful with this legislation, gospel music sales now account for nearly 8 percent of all music purchased in the United States, selling seven CDs for every 10 purchased in country music.

Regardless of their musical styles, artists have turned to gospel music as a source of inspiration for their own music. And we recognize in this legislation a number of those cited, such as Tommy Dorsey, Mahalia Jackson, James Vaughan, Roberta Martin, and many more. And others who got their start through gospel music, Elvis Presley, Marvin Gaye, Aretha Franklin, Buddy Holly, Whitney Houston, Ray Charles, Dolly Parton, Mariah Carey, Bob Dylan, and Randy Travis, to mention a few.

We know that Mahalia Jackson reigned as a pioneer interpreter of gospel music, and I know that she will be discussed with great admiration. I loved to hear her sing.

And yes, of course, one of our other great and wonderful stars that we have here, the famous James Cleveland, someone that everyone knew, born in Chicago, Illinois, but no one can offer a voice likes James Cleveland, leading choirs, inspiring others, recognizing that choir rehearsals were the cause of the inspiration of music in our churches. As we recognize James Cleveland, we are still reminded of the great work he has done.

James Cleveland was, of course, the choir director's choir director. It was in one of these rehearsals that James was singing, and he was noticed and made a choir mascot. The choir director, Thomas A. Dorsey, wrote a song for him which launched the career of what was to be a long line of performances. Through Dorsey's teaching and directing, James was influenced in a great way, and James Cleveland became himself, the great teacher, the great choir director, the great musician, and boy, he could move your spirit. James Cleveland will be remembered, and we will be able to celebrate him and his music in this wonderful month.

Many of us know the wonderful songstress of Sandi Patty, still bursting with creative energy and magnetic talent three decades into her career. The Gospel Music Hall of Fame inductee with 39 Dove awards, 5 Grammy awards, and an armload of platinum and gold albums has seen professional peaks and personal valleys alike while in the spotlight, all of them tempered by the grace of God. Sandi Patty is one that will be a light as we honor Gospel Music Heritage Month.

And then our own hometown girl, Yolanda Adams, who debuted her song, ``Just As I Am'' in the 1980s. I remember sitting on the seats of many churches and seeing Yolanda, a tall, regal young teacher, sing in the choir. And then when she came to her own and began to sing and win all of these awards being reminded of her songs, ``Mountain High . . . Valley Low,'' and of course many other songs that she had sung, winning many awards having that wonderful regal ability to convey her spirit, and particularly her song, ``I need you now.''

Yolanda Adams, along with Mary Mary, Kurt Carr, V. Michael McKay, Kathy Taylor, and many others in and around the State of Texas and elsewhere, are well to be remembered. Brenda Ward, Carl Preacher, and Shirley Joiner, as Gospel greats of BC&S.

So many have offered a joy to this Nation. That is why I ask my colleagues to support this resolution celebrating and stopping for a moment in the month of September every year to commemorate gospel music heritage. Remember, it is not a respect of color or creed or religion; it is an opportunity to feel your spirit. So let me ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

I thank Mr. Clay for his time. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my legislation, H. Con. Res. 370, Expressing support for designation of September 2008 as ``Gospel Music Heritage Month'' and honoring Gospel music for its valuable and longstanding contributions to the culture of the United States. I am delighted to stand on the floor of the House today to honor, recognize, preserve, and promote the legacy and contributions that Gospel music has made to our society.

Gospel music has been woven into the fabric of American society for centuries, deeply impacting hundreds of generations. From rock and roll, country, the blues, R&B, and even hip hop, Gospel's musical roots can be heard throughout many musical genres that we love today. Not only has Gospel music entertained the masses, but its spiritual roots have spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ to millions, giving it the unique ability to minister to souls around the world.

It is very important that we recognize and celebrate the vital role Gospel music has played in music history and also in contemporary times. That is why I am so proud of my legislation, H. Con. Res. 370, Designating September as ``Gospel Music Heritage Month.'' This bill recognizes Gospel music's contributions in American culture by celebrating its rich heritage and artists for a full month. I urge my fellow Members of Congress to support this vital legislation.

As we know, Gospel music is an American art form that has spanned throughout hundreds of years. Its musical elements can be heard melodiously infused in many genres that we love today. It has grown beyond its roots to achieve pop-culture and historical relevance, touching audiences around the world. According to the Gospel Music Channel, ``Gospel music sales now account for nearly 8 percent of all music purchased in the United States, selling seven CDs for every ten purchased in country music.''

Regardless of their musical styles, artists have turned to Gospel music as the source and inspiration for their own music, which has blurred the boundaries between secular and Gospel music. Gospel music has provided a cultural and musical backdrop across all of mainstream media, from hit television series to major Hollywood motion pictures, including ``American Idol,'' ``Dancing with the Stars,'' ``Sister Act,'' and more.

The history of Gospel music can be traced back to African American spirituals that blended diverse elements from traditional African music, folk songs and hymns, and ultimately borrowed from other American musical styles including ragtime, jazz, and blues. Let us not forget that the legacy of Gospel music includes some of the most memorable voices and pioneers in American history, such as Thomas Dorsey, Mahalia Jackson, James Vaughan, Roberta Martin, and many more. Gospel music has paved the way for legendary recording artists such as Elvis Presley, Marvin Gaye, Aretha Franklin, Buddy Holly, Whitney Houston, Ray Charles, Dolly Parton, Mariah Carey, Bob Dylan, and Randy Travis just to name a few.

Let us now take a look at some of Gospel's most influential, recognizable artists:

Mahalia Jackson reigned as a pioneer interpreter of gospel music whose fervent contralto was one of the great voices of this century. Both gospel and rhythm and blues had their roots in the sanctified church, but whereas blues and R&B departed on secular paths that led to rock and roll, gospel stayed the spiritual course. Nonetheless, the influence of gospel on R&B and rock and roll, especially through such force-of-nature voices as Jackson's, is inescapable. Little Richard has cited Jackson as an inspiration, calling her ``the true queen of spiritual singers.''

No other Christian artist at work today is better suited to sing about life's journey than Sandi Patty. Still bursting with creative energy and magnetic talent three decades into her career, the Gospel Music Hall of Fame inductee with 39 Dove Awards, five Grammy Awards, and an armload of platinum and gold albums has seen professional peaks and personal valleys alike while in the spotlight, all of them tempered by the grace of God.

The Winans are a contemporary Christian music group formed by four brothers, Marvin, Carvin, Ronald and Michael Winans, from Detroit, Michigan, USA. The family has additionally produced two well-known solo/duo gospel performers, BeBe and CeCe Winans. After having sung in gospel choirs all their lives the brothers began their professional career in the early 80s. Staying close to their gospel roots but always maintaining a distinctive, jazzy sound, their reputation saw them work and perform with leading artists including Vanessa Bell Armstrong, Anita Baker and Michael McDonald, the latter pair both appearing on their 1987 album, Decision. Their two QWest albums of the early 90s, Return and All Out, saw the Winans attempt to convert their popularity into mainstream R&B success. Even this,

however, was motivated by moral concerns: ``The whole purpose was to win over young people who might have been on the verge of going into a life of crime or going off track,'' Ronald Winans told Billboard magazine in 1995.

Ever since her late-80s debut Just As I Am, Yolanda Adams has triumphantly carried the torch for contemporary gospel and inspirational music via 12 glorious albums. Stunningly beautiful, exceptionally educated, filled with the spirit and blessed with one of the most powerful voices in any genre of music, this Houston-native and one-time school teacher has been a stately beacon of God's light, earning numerous accolades and awards for her shining efforts; including the first American Music Award for Contemporary Gospel Artist, four Gospel Music Association Dove Awards and four National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences Grammy' Awards (including 1999's Best Contemporary Soul Gospel Album for Mountain High . . . Valley Low which featured her secular breakthrough hit ``Open My Heart,'' and 2005's Best Gospel Song for ``Be Blessed,'' for which she was a co-writer).

Since his debut, 1993's Kirk Franklin & the Family, Kirk Franklin has been one of the brightest stars in contemporary gospel music. The album spent 100 weeks on the gospel charts (some of those on top), crossed over to the R&B charts, and became the first gospel debut album to go platinum. His second album, Kirk Franklin & the Family Christmas, became the genre's first Christmas album to make it to number one, and his 1996 album Whatcha Lookin' 4 went gold as soon as it was distributed. With such phenomenal success, it is small wonder that some have hailed him ``the Garth Brooks of gospel.'' Still, despite all the adulation and brouhaha, Franklin remains a humble, devout Christian, eschewing the title ``entertainer'' in favor of labeling himself as just a ``church boy.''

The Reverend James Cleveland was born in Chicago, Illinois, on December 5, 1931, to Rosie Lee and Benjamin Cleveland during the height of the greatest depression. James' grandmother attended Pilgrim Baptist Church, where she was a member of the choir. James had no choice but to attend these rehearsals with his grandmother and found himself sitting through these choir rehearsals--bored stiff! Eventually James decided he would conquer the boredom through attempting to sing along with the choir. It was in one of these rehearsals that James' singing was noticed and he was made choir mascot. The choir director, Thomas A. Dorsey wrote a song for him which launched the career of what was to be a long line of performances. Through Dorsey's teaching and directing young James was influenced in a great way. Reverend Cleveland will never be forgotten as one of the world's foremost leaders and pioneers of gospel music and his gospel music ministry will live on. Literally every black gospel artist today has been influenced by James Cleveland.

It's not hard to divide the world of Gospel quartet music into categories. In fact, there are really only two. There's the Mighty Clouds of Joy, and then there's everybody else. After 44 years and 35 albums, three Grammys and trophy-case full of almost every award imaginable; shows that have run a gamut from the church-house to the White House, and top-billings with a dazzling roster of superstar artists from nearly every genre of popular music (the Rolling Stones, Aretha Franklin, James Brown, Earth, Wind & Fire, Luther Vandross, Ray Charles, and Paul Simon are but a few), The Mighty Clouds of Joy are more than a Gospel legend. They are nothing less than a national treasure. Still, one must choose his words carefully when describing the Clouds. ``Icons?'' Absolutely. ``Pioneers?'' Without a doubt. ``Venerable?'' Most certainly. ``Forefathers'' of modern Gospel, R&B, rock and pop? It's just the straight fact of the matter; but don't let founding member and lead vocalist, Joe Ligon, or any of the other five Clouds hear you referring to them with any synonym that even hints at greatness in the past tense.

Perhaps the most interesting story in modern Gospel music over the past few years has been the emergence from nowhere of Smokie Norful. Virtually unheard of when he released his debut album, I Need You Now, in early 2002, Norful became Billboard Magazine's #1 Gospel Artist of 2003 and also won the coveted 2003 Stellar Awards for both Best Male Vocalist and Best New Artist. It is encouraging to find new artists like Norful that are blending the rhythms and production quality of modern soul with the lyrical depth of modern Gospel. It also is encouraging that Urban Adult Contemporary radio was willing to embrace an obviously spiritual song such as ``I Need You Now.'' And while great Gospel artists such as Mary Mary and even Yolanda Adams had difficulty finding continuing broad crossover sales following their smash 2000 albums, fans of quality Soul will continue to hope that strong future material by artists such as Smokie Norful will lead to sustained mainstream success for spiritual music.

Let me speak now, of some Gospel music that is particularly important to me: The Soul Stirrers, formed by Roy Crain in 1926, which became one of the most popular and influential gospel groups of the 20th Century and was the first Gospel group inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame; Joe Ligon and The Mighty Clouds of Joy, another quartet that got their start here in Houston; Don Robey's Peacock Records, which in its 1960s' gospel heyday, featured such artists as The Dixie Hummingbirds, Rev. Cleophus Robinson, The Loving Sisters and with its subsidiary label, Song Bird Records, released recordings from the legendary Inez Andrews and other Gospel Greats; BC&S (Brenda Waters, Carl Preacher & Shirley Joiner), the nucleus of what would become Southeast Inspirational Choir, the vehicle that launched the prolific solo career of Yolanda Adams; V. Michael McKay, one of the most prolific songwriters of our time, with songs like The Potter's House, The Battle is the Lord's, and Broken, But I'm Healed; Kathy Taylor, whose anointed voice is heard from the sanctuary of Windsor Village to places all around the world; Kirk Franklin, who in a decade brought Gospel Music out of the Church and back into the streets of the young people of America and the world, while revolutionizing the genre in the process; Kurt Carr, whose artistry demands the attention of the world, while at the same time, the heart of God . . .

Psalm 150 states: ``Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heaven! Praise him for his mighty works; praise his unequaled greatness! Praise him with a blast of the ram's horn; praise him with the lyre and harp! Praise him with the tambourine and dancing; praise him with strings and flutes! Praise him with a clash of cymbals; praise him with loud clanging cymbals. Let everything that breathes sing praises to the Lord!''

Praising the Lord is at the core of Gospel music and today we honor the many Gospel musicians who have dedicated their lives to praising the Lord. Their messages of faith, hope, and wisdom continue to encourage in times of hardship, and express joy in times of prosperity. Gospel musicians use their talents to motivate listeners to live positive life styles grounded in love, patience, goodness, kindness, self-control, gentleness, peace, and joy; all of which we know as the Fruit of the Spirit.

Today, Gospel music has a vast audience around the country and around the world. This is a testament to the universal appeal of a historical American art form that both inspires and entertains across racial, ethnic, religious, and geographic boundaries.

Without a doubt, Gospel music deserves national recognition and I urge my colleagues to expediently pass this vital piece of legislation. By supporting H. Con. Res. 370, the Members of Congress will finally honor the great contributions of Gospel music artists of the yesteryears and years to come. Let us recognize the significant cultural contributions of Gospel music to the fabric that weaves together the patchwork of American society, by designating September as ``Gospel Music Heritage Month.'' I am grateful for the help of the Gospel Music Channel, the Grammys and my Gospel artists. I also appreciate the work of Gospel Music advocate Carl Davis.

I would like to thank Senator Blanche Lincoln for her great leadership in the Senate in getting this resolution passed. I am proud to support H. Con. Res. 370 and to provide Congressional support for the designation of ``Gospel Music Heritage Month'' which would recognize the contributions to the culture of the United States derived from the rich heritage of Gospel music and Gospel music artists. I strongly urge all my colleagues to do the same.

I rise to support this legislation of Mr. Terry and to offer my deep sympathy.

I serve on the board of the Boy Scouts in the Houston-Galveston area and have worked with the Boy Scouts for a very, very long time. And so I want to offer to the families of those who lost their life the deepest sympathy of those from Texas and to be able to express my appreciation for the organization of Boy Scouts that teaches character and leadership and empathy.

And listening to the testimonies of those who survived and listening to the testimony of those boys who then

helped others survive, I know that even in the loss of these young heroes other young boy Scouts will learn the lessons even better of leadership and challenge.

I'd like to add my sympathy to the families and to the community. As we look over the Midwest, this has been an enormously tragic time. Families have lost their homes. They've lost loved ones, but this was particularly heart-wrenching, and many of us know the service that Boy Scouts give across America.

And so I ask my colleagues, along with the Members who have come to the floor today to support H. Res. 1283, to recognize the great loss that we've experienced. We have to champion the organization of Boy Scouts that teaches leadership and service, but also begins to build the building blocks that allows those young men to be courageous as they were to help others in their time of need.

Mr. Speaker, I ask support of the legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4044, the ``National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act of 2008.'' This bill is important because it liberalizes the debt relief standard for those persons who are most deserving, our Nation's heroes that serve in the National Guard.

This bill is important because the President has made it more difficult for people to claim bankruptcy. Specifically, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (2005 Bankruptcy Act) was signed into law by President George W. Bush on April 20, 2005. The 2005 Bankruptcy Act is the most comprehensive overhaul of bankruptcy law in more than 25 years. The 2005 Bankruptcy Act makes particular changes to the consumer bankruptcy. The changes to consumer bankruptcy included, among other things, the establishment of a means testing mechanism to determine a debtor's ability to repay debts. Under this test, a chapter 7 bankruptcy case is presumed to be an abuse if it appears that the debtor has income in excess of certain thresholds.

H.R. 4044 would exempt certain qualifying reserve component members of the Armed Services and National Guard members from the means test's presumption of abuse. This bill responds to the fact that some who serve in the National Guard and the Reserves encounter financial difficulties and that they should not be subject to the additional proof requirements of the means test.

I am a co-sponsor of this bill and I urge my colleagues to support it. This bill makes sense because often Armed Services personnel and Reservists receive high compensation when they are away on hazardous tours or combat zones. However, when these individuals return, their income is not as high. Therefore, it is unfair to subject these individuals to the means test. Simply, the means test is whether the person has the means to pay his or her debts. Hazard pay and temporary high pay for combat work is not necessarily a good indicator of a person's means or ability to pay. These individuals are serving our country and have legitimate financial concerns. I do not believe that they should be penalized. I believe we should help our armed services personnel for giving so much to fight for and protect this country. The least we can do is help them.

I firmly believe that we should celebrate our National Guard and Reservists, and I remain committed, as a Member of Congress, to ensuring that we demonstrate our respect for them. The National Guard and Reservists have kept their promise to serve our Nation; they have willingly risked their lives to protect the country we all love.

As the great British leader Winston Churchill famously stated, ``Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.''

We must always remember the debt that we owe our National Guard and Reservists that are willing to lay down their lives for us and render the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom and security. Our gratitude must continue to be unwavering.

In the words of President John F. Kennedy, ``As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.'' It is not simply enough to sing the praises of our Nation's great veterans; I firmly believe that we must demonstrate by our actions how proud we are of our American heroes.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3546 to reauthorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne-JAG) Program at fiscal year 2006 levels through 2012. The Byrne-JAG monies are supposed to be used to make America a safer place. I support the reauthorization and I would urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Why Byrne-JAG is Necessary

Byrne-JAG allows states and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime and to improve the criminal justice system, which States and local governments have come to rely on to ensure public safety. They support: law enforcement, prosecution and court programs, prevention and education, corrections and community programs, drug treatment, planning, evaluation, technology improvement programs, and crime victim and witness programs (other than compensation). In short, they are an indispensable resource that states use to combat crime.

Recent Cuts in Byrne JAG Funding

Unfortunately, in fiscal year 2008 the Byrne-JAG program was cut by two-thirds. Although Congress authorized over $1 billion, only $520 million were appropriated for fiscal year 2007. The appropriation was then drastically reduced to $170.4 million in fiscal year 2008, and the President has proposed further cuts for the fiscal year 2009 budget.

Past Problems with Byrne JAG

The trend to reduce the grant funding may result, in part, from instances where Byrne-JAG funding has been abused. For example, in 1999 Byrne-JAG funding was used in the infamous Tulia outrage in which a rogue police narcotics officer in Texas set up dozens of people, most of them African-American, in false cocaine trafficking charges. In other instances, jurisdictions used the funding to fund task forces focused solely on ineffective, low-level drug arrests, which has put the task force concept--and the diminished standards of drug enforcement that it has come to represent--in the national spotlight.

The most well-known Byrne-funded scandal occurred in Tulia, Texas where dozens of African-American residents (representing 16 percent of the town's black population) were arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to decades in prison, even though the only evidence against them was the uncorroborated testimony of one white undercover officer with a history of lying and racism. The undercover officer worked alone, and had no audiotapes, video surveillance, or eyewitnesses to corroborate his allegations. Suspicions eventually arose after two of the accused defendants were able to produce firm evidence showing they were out of state or at work at the time of the alleged drug buys. Texas Governor Rick Perry eventually pardoned the Tulia defendants (after four years of imprisonment), but these kinds of scandals continue to plague the Byrne grant program.

These scandals are not the result of a few ``bad apples'' in law enforcement; they are the result of a fundamentally flawed bureaucracy that is prone to corruption by its very structure. Byrne-funded regional anti-drug task forces are federally funded, State managed, and locally staffed, which means they do not really have to answer to anyone. In fact, their ability to perpetuate themselves through asset forfeiture and federal funding makes them unaccountable to local taxpayers and governing bodies.

The scandals are more widespread than just a few instances. A 2002 report by the ACLU of Texas identified seventeen scandals involving Byrne-funded anti-drug task forces in Texas, including cases of falsifying government records, witness tampering, fabricating evidence, stealing drugs from evidence lockers, selling drugs to children, large- scale racial profiling, sexual harassment, and other abuses of official capacity.

Texas is not the only State that has suffered from Byrne-funded law enforcement scandals. Scandals in other States have included the misuse of millions of dollars in federal grant

money in Kentucky and Massachusetts, false convictions based upon police perjury in Missouri, and making deals with drug offenders to drop or lower their charges in exchange for money or vehicles in Alabama, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin. A 2001 study by the Government Accountability Office found that the federal government fails to adequately monitor the grant program and hold grantees accountable.

Amendment Considered But Not Offered

Because of these abuses, I would have offered an amendment when this bill was considered at the Full Judiciary Committee markup. My amendment would have addressed the responsible use of Byrne-JAG monies. Specifically, my amendment would have required that a State that receives Byrne-JAG money should collect data for the most recent year for which such funds were allocated to such State, with respect to:

(1) The racial distribution of criminal charges made during that year;

(2) The nature of the criminal law specified in the charges made; and

(3) The city of law enforcement jurisdiction in which the charges were made.

My amendment would have required a condition of receiving funds that the State should submit to the Attorney General the data collected by not later than one year after the date the State received funds. Lastly, the report should be posted on the Bureau of Justice Statistics website and submitted to the Attorney General.

My amendment is good because arrests will be transparent and the light of day and public airing of any problems will be the greatest disinfectant. My amendment is an attempt to make law enforcement more responsible, more accountable, and more just in their dealings with persons of all races and backgrounds. My amendment is but a small price to pay to rid the nation of scandals and disasters that occurred in Tulia, Texas and elsewhere.

These scandals are not the result of a few ``bad apples'' in law enforcement; they are the result of a fundamentally flawed bureaucracy that is prone to corruption by its very structure. Byrne-funded regional anti-drug task forces are federally funded, state managed, and locally staffed, which means they do not really have to answer to anyone. In fact, their ability to perpetuate themselves through asset forfeiture and federal funding makes them unaccountable to local taxpayers and governing bodies.

The scandals are more widespread than just a few instances. A 2002 report by the ACLU of Texas identified seventeen scandals involving Byrne-funded anti-drug task forces in Texas, including cases of falsifying government records, witness tampering, fabricating evidence, stealing drugs from evidence lockers, selling drugs to children, large- scale racial profiling, sexual harassment, and other abuses of official capacity.

Texas is not the only state that has suffered from Byrne-funded law enforcement scandals. Scandals in other states have included the misuse of millions of dollars in federal grant money in Kentucky and Massachusetts, false convictions based upon police perjury in Missouri, and making deals with drug offenders to drop or lower their charges in exchange for money or vehicles in Alabama, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin. A 2001 study by the Government Accountability Office found that the federal government fails to adequately monitor the grant program and hold grantees accountable.

My amendment, which I would have offered, would provide oversight and accountability. It is not burdensome. It will not prevent the States from collecting and funding programs under the Byrne Grant program. My amendment does however shed light on any maladies that might exist in the system. Once we see the problems, we can fix them. My amendment is responsible and aims to make the Byrne-Grant program a better program by ensuring that the funding is used appropriately and is used with oversight.

No More Tulias

While I support the Byrne JAG reauthorization, I would also my urge my colleagues to also support my bill, H.R. 253, No More Tulias: Drug Law Enforcement Evidentiary Standards Improvement Act of 2007. This bill also enhances accountability with respect to the use of Byrne JAG monies.

First, it prohibits a state from receiving for a fiscal year any drug control and system improvement (Byrne) grant funds, or any other amount from any other law enforcement assistance program of the Department of Justice, unless the state does not fund any antidrug task forces for that fiscal year or the state has in effect laws that ensure that: (1) A person is not convicted of a drug offense unless the facts that a drug offense was committed and that the person committed that offense are supported by evidence other than the eyewitness testimony of a law enforcement officer or individuals acting on an officer's behalf; and (2) an officer does not participate, in an antidrug task force unless that officer's honesty and integrity is evaluated and found to be at an appropriately high level.

Second, H.R. 253, No More Tulias, requires that states receiving federal funds under the No More Tulias Act to collect data on the racial distribution of drug charges, the nature of the criminal law specified in the charges, and the jurisdictions in which such charges are made. I urge my colleagues to support my No More Tulias Act so that we can quickly bring the bill to markup.

I also urge my colleagues to support Byrne JAG.