Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 1014, I was speaking to a group of students from my own district on the Capitol steps. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to come to the floor in support of this great legislation. I want to say I am so proud of the Chair of the Small Business Committee. She was my first ranking member when I came to the Congress back in 1999, and I had the opportunity to serve on the Small Business Committee along with Financial Services.

We have all been talking about small businesses and how important it is, and it is all right to talk about it. But if you don't do anything about it, that presents a problem.

I think about the district that I represent, the greater Cleveland area, and the need we have to do economic development in the City of Cleveland. I am so glad this legislation focuses in on some of those areas. I represent a district that is 52 percent African American, and it is important that African American businesses in my congressional district have an opportunity to sit at the public too and receive some of those dollars in terms of developing their businesses.

One of the things that has happened over the years is being a minority business has gotten so good, there are people who perpetrate. That means they pretend they are a minority business. They will get a minority to stand in the front of their business, and the business is really a majority business. Or they will get a woman to stand in front, and it is really a majority business. And this legislation focuses in on the fraud.

I am so happy because there are so many businesses that deserve an opportunity to do business with the Federal Government. In addition, there are so many other areas of focus that this chairwoman has put a focus on around small business.

If we really believe that small business is the engine that pushes and grows America, let's give small businesses the train to push it. I thank her for her leadership. I thank her for an opportunity to speak this afternoon. I encourage all of my colleagues from the Democrats, as well as the Republican, who truly believe that small business needs a leg up to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 1017 I was meeting with representatives of the Turkish community. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman, John Tanner, for yielding me time. I just came from a memorial service for one of our former colleagues from Ways and Means, Charlie Vanik.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of legislation calling on the President of the United States and the international community to take immediate steps to respond to and prevent acts of rape and sexual violence against women and girls in Darfur, Sudan, eastern Chad, and the Central African Republic.

For many years now we have seen the devastating atrocities taking place in the Darfur region of Sudan. With the support of the Sudanese Government, the janjaweed militia has ravaged the people of Darfur, raping, torturing, murdering, and forcing thousands of Darfuris to flee to refugee camps in neighboring Chad and the Central African Republic. Today, we highlight some of those most vulnerable of these victims in Darfur, women and girls.

We saw the same devastation in Rwanda over a decade ago, where it is estimated that between 250,000 and 500,000 women and girls were raped during the genocide in Rwanda. The American people have made their voices heard on this issue, vowing never again to remain silent when humanity is threatened. To date, there have been numerous reports of rape. On July 19, 2004, Amnesty International reported that it collected the names of 250 women who have been raped in Darfur and information on 250 additional rapes.

On January 25, the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, in a report to the U.N. Secretary General, reported numerous cases of mass rape throughout Darfur. This is just the tip of the iceberg. We must do all that we can to ensure that no more women and girls are violated.

So today we give voice to the voiceless. Today we speak up for those who are often overlooked and ask that in this country we do all within our power to stop the rape and sexual violence against the women of the Darfur region.

I would like to add my support to the other pieces of Darfur legislation discussed today and applaud all the groups who have truly been on the front line of this issue, particularly the students, who have been so passionate in their support. It is my hope that we will be able to work with the people in the 11th Congressional District and across this country to continue to let our voices be heard on the issue. I encourage my constituents to contact me with your ideas and resources.

I know that I'm speaking on another piece of legislation, but they all affect Darfur, and it gives me an opportunity to be heard.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record on the topic of my Special Order.

Madam Speaker, another opportunity to be here on the floor on Monday night during the Congressional Black Caucus message hour, and you are in the chair. What a privilege.

I rise tonight, Madam Speaker, during this message hour to pause to address an ongoing crisis in Darfur. For many years now we have seen the devastating atrocities taking place in the Darfur region of Sudan. With the support of the Sudanese Government, the janjaweed militia has ravaged the people of Darfur, raping, torturing, murdering and forcing hundreds of thousands of Darfuris to flee to refugee camps in neighboring Chad and the Central African Republic. We saw the same devastation in Rwanda over a decade ago; and the American people have made their voices heard on this issue, vowing never again to remain silent when humanity is threatened.

The Congressional Black Caucus has been a leader on this issue. I, along with many of my Congressional Black Caucus colleagues, were some of the first Members of Congress to speak out about this issue. We have been to the Sudanese embassy to protest. Many were arrested. We have visited the region numerous times and we have repeatedly addressed this issue with President George Bush in meetings, asking him to take immediate action. Yet, once again, we come to the House floor to challenge this administration to take a stand in Darfur.

Madam Speaker, today's Washington Post had this to say about our progress in Darfur: ``A year and a half later, the situation on the ground in Darfur is little changed. More than two million displaced Darfuris, including hundreds of thousands in camps, have been unable to return to their homes. The perpetrators of the worst atrocities remain unpunished. Despite a renewed U.N. push, the international peacekeeping troops that Bush has long been seeking have yet to materialize. Just this weekend, peace talks in Libya aimed at ending the 4-year conflict appear to be floundering because of a boycott by key rebel groups.

``Many of those who have tracked the conflict over the years, including some in his own administration, say Bush has not matched his words with action, allowing initiatives to drop because of inertia or failure to follow up, while proving unable to mobilize either this bureaucracy or the international community.''

I continue to quote from the Washington Post: ``The President, who famously promised not to allow another Rwanda-style mass murder on his watch, has never fully chosen between

those inside his government advocating more pressure on Sudan and those advocating engagement with the Islamist government. So the policy has veered from one approach to the other.''

Today, I am pleased to say that the House passed three resolutions on Darfur, which I will discuss as I come back to the microphone. I am pleased to be joined again this evening, Madam Speaker, by one of my colleagues and good friends, Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California. She has been out front, particularly on this issue. We have had an opportunity to have press conferences with several leading Hollywood- types who have really been with us on the issue.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield such time as she may consume to the great woman from the great State of California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Speaker, I include for the Record from today's Washington Post, October 29, 2007, this first part of the article entitled, ``U.S. Promises on Darfur Don't Match Actions'' by Michael Abramowitz.

[From the Washington Post, Oct. 29, 2007]

U.S. Promises on Darfur Don't Match Actions

(By Michael Abramowitz)

In April 2006, a small group of Darfur activists--including

evangelical Christians, the representative of a Jewish group

and a former Sudanese slave--was ushered into the Roosevelt

Room at the White House for a private meeting with President

Bush. It was the eve of a major rally on the National Mall,

and the president spent more than an hour holding forth,

displaying a kind of passion that has led some in the White

House to dub him the ``Sudan desk officer.''

Bush insisted there must be consequences for rape and

murder, and he called for international troops on the ground

to protect innocent Darfuris, according to contemporaneous

notes by one of those present. He spoke of ``bringing

justice'' to the Janjaweed, the Arab militias that have

participated in atrocities that the president has repeatedly

described as nothing less than ``genocide.''

``He had an understanding of the issue that went beyond

simply responding to a briefing that had been given,'' said

David Rubenstein, a participant who was then executive

director of the Save Darfur Coalition, which has been sharply

critical of the administration's response to the crisis. ``He

knew more facts than I expected him to know, and he had a

broader political perspective than I expected him to have.''

Yet a year and a half later, the situation on the ground in

Darfur is little changed: More than 2 million displaced

Darfuris, including hundreds of thousands in camps, have been

unable to return to their homes. The perpetrators of the

worst atrocities remain unpunished. Despite a renewed U.N.

push, the international peacekeeping troops that Bush has

long been seeking have yet to materialize.

Just this weekend, peace talks in Libya aimed at ending the

four-year conflict appeared to be foundering because of a

boycott by key rebel groups.

Many of those who have tracked the conflict over the years,

including some in his own administration, say Bush has not

matched his words with action, allowing initiatives to drop

because of inertia or failure to follow up, while proving

unable to mobilize either his bureaucracy or the

international community.

The president who famously promised not to allow another

Rwanda-style mass murder on his watch has never fully chosen

between those inside his government advocating more pressure

on Sudan and those advocating engagement with its Islamist

government, so the policy has veered from one approach to

another.

Meanwhile, a constant turnover of key administration

advisers on Darfur, such as former deputy secretary of state

Robert B. Zoellick and presidential aide Michael Gerson, has

made it hard for the administration to maintain focus.

``Bush probably does want something done, but the lack of

hands-on follow-up from this White House allowed this to

drift,'' said one former State Department official involved

in Darfur who did not want to be quoted by name criticizing

the president. ``If he says, `There is not going to be

genocide on my watch,' and then 2\1/2\ years later we are

just getting tough action, what gives? He has made

statements, but his administration has not given meaning to

those statements.''

Since the United States became the first and only

government to call the killing in Darfur genocide, Bush and

his aides have grappled with how to provide security for

civilians in a large, remote area in the heart of Africa.

While almost everyone involved in Darfur policy agrees that

an African Union peacekeeping force of just 7,000 troops is

not up to the task, the United States has refused to send

troops and, despite promises of reinforcements, has yet to

secure many additional troops from other countries. At the

same time, it has been unable to broker a diplomatic

resolution that might ease the violence.

Even Bush has complained privately that his hands are tied

on Darfur because, with the U.S. involvement in Iraq and

Afghanistan, he cannot be seen as ``invading another Muslim

country,'' according to people who have spoken with him about

the issue.

``It's impossible to keep Iraq out of this picture,'' said

Edward Mortimer, who served as a top aide to then-U.N.

Secretary General Kofi Annan and says resentment over Iraq

caused many countries to not want to cooperate with the

United States on Darfur.

Bush advisers argue that the lack of success reflects the

limitations of working through institutions such as the

United Nations, NATO and the African Union. They cite the

billions of dollars of U.S. relief aid that has kept millions

of Sudanese alive. They say U.S. pressure has kept the issue

on the world's agenda.

``If there was ever a case study where the president sees

the limitations and frustrations of the multilateral

organizations, it is the issue of Darfur,'' said Dan

Bartlett, former White House counselor. ``Everybody for the

most part can come to a consensus: Whether you call it

genocide or not, we have an urgent security and humanitarian

crisis on our hands. Yet these institutions cannot garner the

will or ability to come together to save people.''

There is no doubt that responsibility for inaction on

Darfur can be spread around. The Sudanese government has

resisted cooperation at every step in the saga and has been

shielded at the United Nations by China, its main

international protector. Few other Western nations, with the

notable exception of Britain and some Nordic countries, have

shown much interest in resolving the crisis. The process of

raising peacekeepers from U.N. members has proved tortuously

slow.

``There's an enormous stain on the world's conscience,''

said Mitchell B. Reiss, former State Department policy

planning chief. ``We collectively stood by and let it happen

a decade after it happened in Rwanda.''

A President's Passion

In late 2005, Bush gathered his most senior advisers to

discuss what to do about Darfur. He wanted to know whether

the U.S. military could send in helicopter gunships to attack

the militias if they launched new attacks on the refugee

camps. Could they also shoot down Sudanese military aircraft

if necessary? he asked. His aides worried that the United

States could get involved in another shooting war, and the

president backed off.

``He wanted militant action, and people had to restrain

him,'' said one senior official familiar with the episode.

``He wanted to go in and kill the Janjaweed.''

The meeting underscored both Bush's personal investment in

Sudan, dating back to the beginning of his administration,

and his instinct, which aides have kept in check, to take

direct action.

Many close to Bush believe that this intense interest in

the issue was heavily influenced by American evangelicals,

who have adopted the cause of Christians in southern Sudan.

Even before the crisis in Darfur, in western Sudan, one of

Bush's foreign policy goals was to try to end the civil war

between the Muslim government in Khartoum and rebels in the

south, a conflict that had lasted more than two decades and

cost more than 2 million lives.

Former Senator John C. Danforth (R-Mo.), whom Bush

appointed as his special envoy for Sudan, said the

president's interest in the country is rooted in a larger

sense of morality. ``This isn't a country that has much

strategic interest for the United States,'' he observed.

Bush's initiative to broker a north-south deal worked.

Despite difficult negotiations, Sudanese President Omar

Hassan al-Bashir agreed in January 2005 to a plan to share

power and oil revenues with the rebels--and even gave the

south the right to secede in six years if the leadership

could not reconcile their differences.

But by then a separate conflict had exploded in Darfur, as

long-standing conflicts between African farmers and Arab

herders over land, and a failure by the Khartoum government

to redress local grievances, boiled over into armed

rebellion.

The government turned to a tactic it had employed in

fighting the southern rebels: arming local Arab militias, the

Janjaweed, to carry out a counterinsurgency on its behalf.

The militias rampaged throughout Darfur starting in mid-2003,

burning hundreds of villages, raping women and summarily

executing African villagers, according to numerous human

rights reports. More than 200,000 people have died in Darfur

since the crisis erupted, according to U.N. estimates. Some

estimates place the figure as high as 450,000.

Many familiar with Sudan believe that Bush and his aides

initially averted their gaze to the flaring violence in

Darfur because raising the issue might interfere with the

difficult negotiations with Bashir. Some U.S. officials saw

another reason for the reluctance to get involved: preserving

a burgeoning intelligence relationship with Khartoum, which

had begun sharing critical information about al-Qaeda and

other Islamic extremists.

``There was a tendency not to see Darfur initially for what

it was,'' said Gerard Gallucci, who served in 2003 and 2004

as the top U.S. diplomat in Khartoum. It was well known among

Western governments, he said, that Sudan ``was using terror

to cleanse black Muslim Africans from land that they had

promised the Janjaweed.''

Such claims are vigorously contested by Danforth and other

Bush advisers, who say the president repeatedly warned Bashir

about the consequences of sending Arab militias after

defenseless civilians.

Over time, Bush has become increasingly outspoken about the

situation in Darfur, raising the issue with foreign leaders

and meeting privately with dissidents and other little-known

political players in Sudan to encourage a solution. In recent

months, he has singled out Bashir for harsh condemnation,

accusing him of subverting efforts to bring peace to Darfur.

Meeting with the Darfur activists, Bush acknowledged that

Sudan had cooperated in anti-terrorism initiatives--but he

insisted that Khartoum could not ``buy off'' the United

States, Rubenstein said.

Last spring, when the White House worked on a new plan to

try to press Sudan's government to accept international

peacekeepers, it was the president himself who was the

driving force in the interagency process, many officials

involved the debate said. According to national security

adviser Stephen J. Hadley, Bush refused to accept a program

developed to confront Sudan because he was concerned that it

was not tough enough. He kicked it back to the bureaucracy.

``I've had it with this incrementalism,'' Hadley quoted the

president as saying in the Oval Office. ``We're going to

lead, and if people don't want to follow us, they're going to

have to stand up and explain why they are willing to let

women continue to be raped in Darfur.''

At one point, one senior official said, Bush wanted action

to crimp Sudan's booming oil business, a move that would have

severely aggravated relations with China--and that no one

else in the government favored.

There was stunned silence in the room, the official said,

when Hadley disclosed Bush's idea to other government

officials. Hadley made clear he was not interested in having

a discussion, but the administration never went as far as the

president seemed to be demanding. Instead, Treasury officials

came up with a sanctions plan aimed at tracking and squeezing

key individuals and companies in the Sudanese economy,

including the oil business.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from California, my good friend Barbara Lee, for her leadership on so many issues. As we come to the floor tonight, I want to thank her for her work that she has done in Darfur and thank her for joining me again in this hour.

As has been said previously, there were three pieces of legislation on Darfur that were voted on on the floor today, and one of those resolutions happened to be a resolution authored by my colleague and good friend Sheila Jackson-Lee from the great State of Texas.

She has had many great opportunities to take the lead on some of these issues as well. I have to say she and Barbara Lee have been wonderful about helping me with this CBC message hour every week.

I am happy to yield to my colleague and good friend Sheila Jackson- Lee of Houston, Texas.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank both of my colleagues for their leadership. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee, all that you've done around this issue and so many other issues, thank you so much and again for joining me as we do this Congressional Black Caucus message hour.

I'm so pleased today that the House passed the three resolutions on Darfur. One of them, H. Res. 573, recognizing and commending the efforts of the United States public and advocacy groups to raise awareness about and help end the worsening humanitarian crisis and genocide in Darfur, Sudan, and for other purposes.

H. Res. 726, calling on the President of the United States and the international community to take immediate steps to respond to and prevent acts of rape and sexual violence against women and girls in Darfur, Sudan, eastern Chad and the Central African Republic.

And, finally, H. Res. 740, condemning in the strongest terms the attacks on African Union peacekeepers that occurred in Haskanita, Darfur, Sudan, on September 29, 2007.

I want to reference back for a moment to the person that Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee mentioned and that was my friend from ECOWAS, and ECOWAS is an acronym for the Economic Commission of West African States, and my friend who went to Case Western Reserve Law School as I did is Dr. Muhammad Chambas. Was there something else you wanted to say about Dr. Chambas?

The Congresswoman is referencing H. Res. 573, and I want to add my comments to encourage the young people on the college campuses across this country. Many of us recognize in the history of the United States many of the great movements were begun by young people, by students sitting at lunch counters and just the involvement of so many young people.

One of the things that people often have said about young people these days is that they're self-centered and only concerned about what's going on in their own lives. I found that not to be true, and I had the opportunity even as recently as this weekend, I happened to be in Iowa campaigning for my candidate for President.

And while I was campaigning there, campaigning for Senator Clinton, I met with a group of young University of Iowa students who were complaining about the fact that nothing has happened in Darfur and that they are expecting this government to step up on their behalf.

So I want to join my colleague in commending college students, as well as all of the nonprofit organizations across the world who are trying to focus a light or shine a light on what's happening in Darfur.

I want to talk for a moment about the whole issue of sex crimes against women and girls in Darfur. One of the worst things to happen to a woman, and particularly a young woman, is for her to be sexually abused or raped.

We recognize in this country the impact that this has had. In fact, we recognize it such that we passed the VAWA Act which is the Violence Against Women Act, to help address the issue of violence against women.

When you begin to think about the fact that there are thousands of women and girls in these various refugee camps and the things that happen, all we need do is to focus on what happened with Katrina. We had people of the United States of America in a football stadium, and the stories about what happened to young women that were raped right there in Louisiana, in New Orleans, being raped. So you can imagine, if you exponentially take a look at that and see how many thousands of women and children are there, and these women venture out just to get things to help themselves and to continue to live and the fact that they would be subjected to rape and others does not make sense.

I can only think about that movie, ``Time to Kill,'' where that young girl in the South who was like 7 or 8 years old got raped by three men and raped her such that she was never able to have any children. It just makes no sense that we would not focus, and let me give you a few statistics.

During war, rape and sexual violence are often used systematically as a weapon of intimidation, humiliation, terror and ethnic cleansing. We know right here in America that generally rape is not about sex. It really is about being in control, being in charge. It has nothing to do with the sexual act itself. I won't say ``nothing.'' In many instances, when you're involving children, it does in fact have to do with the sexual act, but it means being in charge.

It's estimated that between 250,000 and 500,000 women and girls were raped during the genocide in Rwanda. On September 2, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda found Jean-Paul Akayesu guilty of rape and held that rape and sexual assault constitute crimes against humanity.

On October 31, the United Nations Security Council adopted Security Council Resolution 1325, calling on all parties to an armed conflict to take special measures to protect women and girls from gender-based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual abuse.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which entered into force July 1, 2002, states that rape and any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity may constitute both crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Since 2003, mass rape committed by members of the Sudanese armed forces and affiliated militia with the support of the Government of Sudan has been a central component of the Government of Sudan's violence and ethnic cleansing in Darfur.

Can you imagine this is the army, the militia of a country just having their way, going into camps and violating women and girls, thousands of women and girls who have been violated as a result.

Women and girls leaving internally displaced persons camp in Darfur and refugee camps in Eastern Chad to seek firewood, water or outside sources of income are often attacked and subjected to rape. My colleague already spoke to that issue. It is just outrageous that this could continue to happen.

On March 9, 2007, members of the United States-United Nations High Level Mission on the Situation of Human Rights in Darfur reported that rape and sexual assault have been widespread and systematic, terrorizing women and breaking down families and communities and that women are also attacked in and around refugee camps in eastern Chad.

Think about this: systemic, widespread, terrorizing of women and girls. Systemic. That is just something that I can't even imagine that we would continue to allow happen in another country. We know how great the impact of rape and sexual assault on women and girls in our country over time, and imagine what it would be in a country where they don't have available to them what our women and girls have available to us. Be it counseling, medical care, long-term mental health counseling, it just doesn't happen.

So I'm just so happy that the House passed by way of suspension bills today three resolutions around Sudan.

Finally, I think that what I would say at this point is that the people of America and all of these nonprofit organizations and the children across this country, women and children and students, must stand up. They must speak up about what's going on in Darfur, and you all know that old statement, that piece of speech that someone gave, and I can't think of the author, and it said, if you're quiet when they come for other people, who's going to speak up when they come for you? And that is what we should all be thinking about, that we need to speak up on behalf of the people of Darfur and say enough is enough; we're not going to have this happen anymore.

The United States, under the leadership of George Bush, who's been talking loud and saying nothing on this issue and not moving forward, should move forward to make sure that there are people and peacekeepers going into this area and making sure that these people are taken care of.

With that, I would again commend the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, for her leadership and thank her for giving me the opportunity to lead the Congressional Black Caucus message hour every Monday evening and to give us the opportunity to step up, speak out, and really shine a light on issues that the Congressional Black Caucus is concerned about and that the people of America, regardless of their color, are concerned about.

Again, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It's always good to be leading a Special Order when you're in the chair. I thank you for your leadership as well.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Audubon Ohio Urban Conservation Crew Summer Camp at the Rockefeller Park Greenhouse in Cleveland. The Ohio program of the National Audubon Society is working hard to ensure that children in the central city have the opportunity to connect with nature and, in doing so, improve both their educational achievement and their sense of community and self-esteem.

During the recent August recess I had the good fortune to visit the Ohio program of the National Audubon Society which is also a program in my own district. The program, a free summer camp for neighborhood children ages 8 to 11, is known as the Urban Conservation Crew. Through this program, Audubon Ohio, in less than five weeks, has succeeded in developing a group of budding scientists who have mastered the fine points of bird identification and behavior, focusing on the birds and plants of their own neighborhood.

Audubon Ohio chose as its location for the camp the Rockefeller Park Greenhouse. The Greenhouse is located in the heart of Cleveland's historic Glenville neighborhood. Owned and operated by the City of Cleveland, the Greenhouse's official function is to develop plants for indoor and outdoor use at other city properties. But the facility includes classroom space, extensive gardens (including a community garden), and a large meadow ringed with mature trees that makes an excellent habitat for birds.

I grew up near the Greenhouse, yet during my visit I learned a lot of new things about it. Chief among these was the fact that the Greenhouse property immediately adjoins an ``Important Bird Area,'' or ``IBA.'' IBAs are part of an international network of areas that are important to the survival of migratory birds. This network was created by a European-based organization, Birdlife International. Audubon is the Birdlife partner responsible for designating and protecting IBAs in the United States.

The Greenhouse sits next to one of 63 IBAs that Audubon has designated in Ohio. Specifically, it is next to the ``Doan Brook/Dike 14 IBA,'' a key migratory corridor that connects the coast of Lake Erie with the upland Shaker Lakes on the western edge of the Appalachian Plateau. In practical terms this means that a lot of interesting birds pass through the area, with many species nesting in it. This in turn creates an opportunity for children in Glenville to explore an important natural area right near where they live.

From what I saw of the camp, Audubon Ohio is taking full advantage of the location of the Greenhouse and the convergence of a central city neighborhood with an interesting natural area. During the first four weeks of the camp, children walked the Greenhouse grounds and the surrounding neighborhood with Audubon instructors who taught them how to identify birds both by sight and by sound. Audubon also took advantage of the plant life inside and outside of the Greenhouse to teach the children about what plants they could grow in their neighborhood and how the birds of the neighborhood would both help the plants survive by eating pests and, in turn, benefit themselves from the seeds and berries produced by the plants.

During my visit the children showed off the knowledge that they had picked up in only a few weeks. They explained to me the concept of ``field marks'' of birds and how I could use field marks to distinguish different species. They identified the various body parts of birds and explained how I could distinguish the sexes of different species, such as the Northern Cardinal. They told me what kind of food birds could find around the neighborhood and how people could help birds by supplying this food. And they explained how to protect birds from man- made threats, such as plastic ``six pack'' holders that, they said, I needed to cut up so that birds would not get their necks stuck in them and choke.

Beyond the knowledge and conservation values that the children were displaying, I was impressed by the passion with which the children were discussing the birds and plants of their neighborhood. I kept having to remind myself that these children were all less than 12 years old, some as young as eight, had no previous interest in birds, let alone experience in identifying them. These children were learning complex fundamental scientific techniques, including observation, distinction, grouping by similarities, understanding food chains and identifying threats and barriers. Introducing children to birds and plants was a great way of teaching them science by drawing on children's inherent desire to explore and understand the natural world around them.

Cleveland is blessed with a number of outstanding institutions that have offered nature-based education to children over the years. These include our fabulous Metro Parks network as well as stand-alone institutions such as The Nature Center at Shaker Lakes, the Lake Erie Nature and Science Center and the Cuyahoga Valley National Park Education Center. These institutions have gone to great lengths to reach out to the central city by bringing children out to their suburban and exurban facilities. I appreciate all of the efforts they have made over the years, and I hope they continue.

What distinguishes Audubon Ohio's Urban Conservation Crew is that it is being conducted right in the neighborhood where the children live. Given the enthusiasm I saw in the children during their visit, I am confident that they will continue to explore Rockefeller Park, looking for birds, plants and other animals, long after the camp is over.

After my visit I learned that Cleveland is not the only location where Audubon has been offering programs like the Urban Conservation Crew to central city children. In Columbus, Audubon is developing the Grange Insurance Audubon Center, a nature-based education center slated to open in 2009 in a central city neighborhood just a mile south of downtown. Audubon already has similar facilities at Prospect Park in Brooklyn and in Debs Park in East Los Angeles. Another urban center, known as ``the Rio Salado Center,'' is under development in the heart of Phoenix.

It is notable that Audubon Ohio produced the Urban Conservation Crew program almost

entirely with private funds. Support came from the Cleveland Foundation, the Kent H. Smith Charitable Trust, and the Shaker Lakes Garden Club. Audubon Ohio did, however, receive a small amount of federal money, specifically a $5,000 grant from the U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service. It goes to show how a relatively small amount of federal dollars can be leveraged to produce great results.

I commend Audubon, Ohio for helping to re-connect children with nature, particularly in the central city. Audubon and its Ohio program deserve high marks for their creativity and skill in doing so at the Rockefeller Park Greenhouse in Cleveland and elsewhere. They provide great hope for the future.

There is a piece of poetry that starts like this, ``I'd rather see a sermon than to hear one any day, I'd rather one should walk with me than just to show the way.

``The eye is a better pupil and more willing than the ear; Advice may be misleading, but examples are always clear. And the very best of teachers are the ones who live their creeds.''

It goes on to talk about how you can deliver lectures, but I would rather get a lesson by observing what you do.

I am saying to my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, the children of America are listening to us gibe at one another about whether they deserve health care. They deserve health care, and we could give it to them today.

They deserve health care because many of them are spending so many hours in an emergency room, costly, many of them are spending times at home when they could be educated. Many parents are not at work because they are staying home with their children. Health care should be a right in America, and our children are saying they would rather see a sermon than to hear one. They want us to walk and give them health care and stop talking about it.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague and good friend from the Ways and Means Committee, Allyson Schwartz, from the great State of Pennsylvania.

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 1 minute to one of our new Members from the great State of Florida, Mr. Tim Mahoney.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we continue to reserve our time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I wish to submit a letter from the Congressional Budget Office, dated October 25, 2007, to Speaker Pelosi. And it specifically says under current law individuals who apply for Medicaid and claim to be U.S. citizens are required to provide certain documents, passport or birth certificate, in order to receive any such health care.

``Section 211 would allow States the option to either use the requirements created in the DRA for citizenship documentation under Medicaid or instead verify an individual's name and Social Security number with the Social Security Administration. Some States have reported a drop in enrollment since implementation of the DRA because some Medicaid applicants have had difficulty satisfying the documentation requirement. Available evidence, based on State reports and other information provided by State officials, suggests that virtually all of those who have been unable to provide the required documentation are U.S. citizens.''

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC., October 25, 2007.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, October 25, 2007.

Dear Madam Speaker: As you requested, I am providing

additional information on CBO's estimate of the budgetary

impact of section 211 of H.R. 3963, the Children's Health

Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, as introduced

on October 24, 2007.

Under current law, individuals who apply for Medicaid and

claim to be U.S. citizens are required to provide certain

documents (such as a passport or birth certificate, and, in

certain circumstances, a driver's license or other

documentation that establishes identity) to demonstrate that

they are citizens. That provision was enacted in the Deficit

Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, Public Law 109-171), and has been

effective since July 1, 2006. (Before the DRA provision took

effect, those individuals were permitted to attest to their

citizenship, under penalty of perjury.)

Section 211 would allow states the option to either use the

requirements created in the DRA for citizenship documentation

under Medicaid or instead verify an individual's name and

Social Security number with the Social Security

Administration. Some states have reported a drop in

enrollment since implementation of the DRA because some

Medicaid applicants have had difficulty satisfying the

documentation requirement. Available evidence, based on state

reports and other information provided by state officials,

suggests that virtually all of those who have been unable to

provide the required documentation are U.S. citizens.

Under H.R. 3963, CBO expects that most states would use the

option to rely on the Social Security Administration to

verify eligibility. CBO estimates that change would result in

an additional 500,000 enrollees in Medicaid in fiscal year

2008 and an additional 200,000 enrollees in subsequent years.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be

pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Matt

Kapuscinski and Eric Rollins.

Sincerely,

Peter R. Orszag,

Director.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I seek unanimous consent to have the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the Chair of the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, manage the balance of the time on this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Audubon Ohio Urban Conservation Crew Summer Cap at the Rockefeller Park Greenhouse in Cleveland. The Ohio program of the National Audubon Society is working hard to ensure that children in the central city have the opportunity to connect with nature and, in doing so, improve both their educational achievement and their sense of community and self-esteem.

During the recent August recess I had the good fortune to visit the Ohio program of the National Audubon society which is also a program in my own district. The program, a free summer camp for neighborhood children ages 8 to 11, is known as the Urban Conservation Crew. Through this program, Audubon Ohio, in less than five weeks, has succeeded in developing a group of budding scientists who have mastered the fine points of bird identification and behavior, focusing on the birds and plants of their own neighborhood.

Audubon Ohio chose as its location for the camp the Rockefeller Park Greenhouse. The Greenhouse is located in the heart of Cleveland's historic Glenville neighborhood. Owned and operated by the City of Cleveland, the Greenhouse's official function is to develop plants for indoor and outdoor use at other city properties. But the facility includes classroom space, extensive gardens (including a community garden), and a large meadow ringed with mature trees that makes an excellent habitat for birds.

I grew up near the Greenhouse, yet during my visit I learned a lot of new things about it. Chief among these was the fact that the Greenhouse property immediately adjoins an ``Important Bird Area,'' or ``IBA.'' IBAs are part of an international network of areas that are important to the survival of migratory birds. This network was created by a European-based organization, Birdlife International. Audubon is the Birdlife partner responsible for designating and protecting IBAs in the United States.

The Greenhouse sits next to one of 63 IBAs that Audubon has designated in Ohio. Specifically, it is next to the ``Doan Brook/Dike 14 IBA,'' a key migratory corridor that connects the coast of Lake Erie with the upland Shaker Lakes on the western edge of the Appalachian Plateau. In practical terms this means that a lot of interesting birds pass through the area, with many species nesting in it. This in turn creates an opportunity for children in Glenville to explore an important natural area right near where they live.

From what I saw of the camp, Audubon Ohio is taking full advantage of the location of the Greenhouse and the convergence of a central city neighborhood with an interesting natural area. During the first four weeks of the camp, children walked the Greenhouse grounds and the surrounding neighborhood with Audubon instructors who taught them how to identify birds both by sight and by sound. Audubon also took advantage of the plant life inside and outside of the Greenhouse to teach the children about what plants they could grow in their neighborhood and how the birds of the neighborhood would both help the plants survive by eating pests and, in turn, benefit themselves from the seeds and berries produced by the plants.

During my visit the children showed off the knowledge that they had picked up in only a few weeks. They explained to me the concept of ``field marks'' of birds and how I could use field marks to distinguish different species. They identified the various body parts of birds and explained how I could distinguish the sexes of different species, such as the Northern Cardinal. They told me what kind of food birds could find around the neighborhood and how people could help birds by supplying this food. And they explained how to protect birds from man- made threats, such as plastic ``six pack'' holders that, they said, I needed to cut up so that birds would not get their necks stuck in them and choke.

Beyond the knowledge and conservation values that the children were displaying, I was impressed by the passion with which the children were discussing the birds and plants of their neighborhood. I kept having to remind myself that these children were all less than 12 years old, some as young as eight had no previous interest in birds, let alone experience in identifying them. These children were learning complex fundamental scientific techniques, including observation, distinction, grouping by similarities, understanding food chains and identifying threats and barriers. Introducing children to birds and plants was a great way of teaching them science by drawing on children's inherent desire to explore and understand the natural world around them.

Cleveland is blessed with a number of outstanding institutions that have offered nature-based education to children over the years. These include our fabulous Metro Parks network as well as stand-alone institutions such as The Nature Center at Shaker Lakes, the Lake Erie Nature and Science Center and the

Cuyahoga Valley National Park Education Center. These institutions have gone to great lengths to reach out to the central city by bringing children out to their suburban and exurban facilities. I appreciate all of the efforts they have made over the years, and I hope they continue.

What distinguishes Audubon Ohio's Urban Conservation Crew is that it is being conducted right in the neighborhood where the children live. Given the enthusiasm I saw in the children during their visit, I am confident that they will continue to explore Rockefeller Park, looking for birds, plants and other animals, long after the camp is over.

After my visit I learned that Cleveland is not the only location where Audubon has been offering programs like the Urban Conservation Crew to central city children. In Columbus, Audubon is developing the Grange Insurance Audubon Center, a nature-based education center slated to open in 2009 in a central city neighborhood just a mile south of downtown. Audubon already has similar facilities at Prospect Park in Brooklyn and in Debs Park in East Los Angeles. Another urban center, known as ``the Rio Salado Center,'' is under development in the heart of Phoenix.

It is notable that Audubon Ohio produced the Urban Conservation Crew program almost entirely with private funds. Support came from the Cleveland Foundation, the Kent H. Smith Charitable Trust, and the Shaker Lakes Garden Club. Audubon Ohio did, however, receive a small amount of federal money, specifically a $5,000 grant from the U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service. It goes to show how a relatively small amount of federal dollars can be leveraged to produce great results.

I commend Audubon, Ohio for helping to re-connect children with nature, particularly in the central city. Audubon and its Ohio program deserve high marks for their creativity and skill in doing so at the Rockefeller Park Greenhouse in Cleveland and elsewhere. They provide great hope for the future.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable man, a 26-year veteran of this distinguished body and an outstanding American.

The Honorable Charles Albert Vanik worked tirelessly to promote the civil rights of all people. His dedication to this cause extended further than the boundaries of our country and touched countless lives. The Congressman felt it necessary that every individual throughout the globe should fully enjoy the natural rights of mankind.

This commitment was most evident in his decision in 1968 to shift to the 22nd Congressional District following redistricting to allow a then up and coming African American politician by the name of Louis Stokes to run for and ultimately win the 21st Congressional District seat.

Charles Vanik was a native of Cleveland, Ohio. He represented my city and my extended community in a distinguished fashion. Serving as a councilman, a judge and a member of the state legislature before joining the United States Congress, he developed a reputation as a caring individual.

Congressman Vanik was wholeheartedly a representative of the people. As a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, he felt that both individuals and enterprises alike should equally contribute to society. The respect that his friends and fellow Members of Congress held for him, presented several opportunities for his policy objectives to be adopted in statutes relating to both taxes and trade.

Most importantly, this son of immigrants personified all that is great about our Nation and our people. He cared for his neighbors, he was passionate about freedom and he wanted to help those in need.

I had many opportunities to personally speak with Representative Vanik. The most memorable of these meetings was when the National Institutes of Health dedicated their new laboratory facility in honor of my predecessor Congressman Louis Stokes.

It is with great respect and admiration that I ask this esteemed body to keep his wife, Betty, and children, John and Phyllis, in our hearts and prayers. May we all rejoice in having known such a great man and cherish both our memories and his legacy.

Mr. Speaker, over the past 9 months, the Congressional Black Caucus has been at the forefront of many major issues here in Congress, from raising the minimum wage, to the Don Imus debacle, to the upcoming Southwick nomination vote that will be taken up in the Senate this week. We have been at the forefront of raising the issue about the need to cover 10 million children under SCHIP. And we've been at the forefront as well raising issues with regard to the war in Iraq and the number of people who have been killed, as well as the recent Jena Six situation.

Tonight, however, we will be focusing in on the Southwick nomination. And as we focus in on that nomination, we always remember that for people of color the court has been the place of last resort. Many of the opportunities that we've had to raise issues with regard to school desegregation, civil rights, economic opportunities, equal employment opportunity, have come through the courts. And it is that reason that we are particularly raising our voices with regard to this nomination.

I am joined this evening by my colleague and good friend, the Chair of the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. BENNIE THOMPSON. And Judge Southwick, the nominee, actually is a resident of Mississippi and being considered for that seat which oversees Mississippi and several other States where the population of people of color is significant.

I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague and good friend, the Chair of the Homeland Security Committee, BENNIE THOMPSON.

Mr. Chairman, just for a moment, I recall only a few months ago that you and the Chair of our Congressional Black Caucus, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, were actually over at the Senate side when this was in committee.

Can you recount for us briefly what you encountered in that hearing?

I want to thank you, Chairman Thompson, for your leadership not only in the State of Mississippi but also here in the Congress. Recently, I had a chance to be in Greenville, Mississippi, with you with an elementary school friend of mine, Jaribu Hill. I am just so happy to see the kind of leadership you are showing, and I thank you for joining me this evening for this Special Order.

It gives me great pleasure at this time to call upon my sister, my good friend, the gentlewoman from California, and she happens to be from the State of the Senator who voted this, whose vote was determining in voting this nomination out of the committee. But I will leave for her the discussion on that issue. I give you the great gentlewoman from California, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who has been a leader on so many, many issues that I can't even recount them all at this time. And I will yield her such time as she may consume.

Before you leave, Congresswoman Lee, how many African American members are there in the California delegation?

To your knowledge, did Senator Feinstein even bother to contact you, any of you, with regard to this particular nomination and her vote?

In addition to the four African American members of the California delegation, how many Hispanic members of the delegation are there?

In fact, a significant number of the issues that the African American community raises around civil rights are some of the very issues that the Hispanic community raises around civil rights issues as well.

I thank you very much for your time and your attention and your leadership around so many issues, Congresswoman Barbara Lee.

Once again, I have an opportunity to invite another one of my wonderful colleagues to join me this evening for the CBC Message Hour under the leadership of our Chair, Congresswoman Carolyn C. Kilpatrick. The next colleague that I call upon is a former judge. She has been serving on the Judiciary Committee for the past 13 years. She has shown leadership around so many issues. I want to compliment you this evening, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee, on your presentation and the work you did during the Judiciary Committee hearing last week around the Jena Six. Unfortunately, I couldn't be at the hearing, but over the weekend I watched the replay of the C-SPAN presentation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Chair, our good friend from Detroit, Michigan (Mr. Conyers), but I also want to commend you on the work that you do in and around that area. I will yield you such time as you will consume.

I thank Ms. Jackson-Lee for her leadership on these issues and for joining me during the Congressional Black Caucus hour.

Let me talk about Judge Southwick for just a few minutes, and then I would like to review some of the progress that has been made under the leadership of our Chair, Ms. Kilpatrick, in the 110th Congress.

As we were talking about Judge Southwick, you have to understand this will be the first controversial judicial nomination considered by the Senate since Democrats took the majority. It has been 10 months since the Senate changed hands, and the people expect a difference in the way judicial nominations are handled. We don't want to go back to the way they were handled under the Republican leadership.

The Congressional Black Caucus and the civil rights groups warned the Senate about Roberts and Alito, yet they were both confirmed. The first full Supreme Court term of the Roberts court showed that we are able to predict how judges will act or respond on civil rights cases once confirmed.

To confirm a lower court judge in the face of a bad record on civil rights will simply be too much to bear. Let me step aside for a moment, and I heard my colleague Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee talk about there being a white judge and an all-white jury and a white prosecutor. I served as a judge for 10 years in the Common Pleas Court, a general jurisdiction court, in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. I served for 3 years as an assistant county prosecutor and 8 years as an elected prosecutor. I have been in courtrooms where there have been all-white juries, and I will not say that an all-white jury cannot be fair. But what the law says is you should have a jury of your peers. And the law also says that people should not be excluded from a jury just because of their race. I have seen an attempt for that to happen in other cases.

It is so very, very important that if we expect people to follow the law and be a part of the law and be a part of the judicial system, that they have a belief that the judicial system will be fair. Once you have that perception and belief, then you can succumb to the rule of law. In this country, so often we see instances where young men and women have come before the court and they have not had fairness, and that is when it is important to have a circuit court where you can appeal your decision in a trial level court to the circuit court for relief.

The fight in the Fifth Circuit is a fight worth having. It has the highest percentage of minority residents, black and brown, of any circuit. At the same time, the civil rights jurisprudence is far to the right. We have already talked about the Jena Six.

There is a history with this seat. President Bush is intent on placing someone who has a history adverse to civil rights in Mississippi sit on this court. Charles Pickering and Michael Wallace were nominated, but couldn't get confirmed because of their civil rights records. This is the third try by the administration, and the pattern is very clear. We believe that the President, if he was really paying attention to the people of America, what he would in fact do is withdraw this nomination and go on and allow us to have someone who would be fair and honest.

We may not win this battle on a sound bite or our debate on the floor of the House of Representatives, but we believe that the Senate, we believe that this Senate under the majority, Democratic majority, is going to step up to the plate and make the right decision. We expect that they will take a look at his background and experience and make that decision.

So I am pleased, as I said, having been a judge, and it is a difficult job being a judge. You have to have the right temperament. You have to give people the opportunity to present their evidence, and you make decisions and rulings on evidence and admissibility and whether it is probative, whether it can be prejudicial. And if it is prejudicial, is it outweighed by the probative value. And be familiar with the rules of evidence such that when you sit in the chair as the judge making a decision, and the reason, and it is symbolic, under the law, the reason judges wear robes, the robe is supposed to cover the human frailty of a judge and allow the judge to step up and be fair and set aside any of their background or experience that would be adverse.

So we are concerned about this judge, Judge Leslie Southwick, and we implore the U.S. Senate to not confirm his nomination.

I am going to close on a few of the accomplishments that the Congressional Black Caucus has been involved with over the first 9 months. We are pleased to have an opportunity to be in the leadership role. We fought for minimum wage. Nearly 13 million people will enjoy the benefit of an increase in the minimum wage.

We fought for stem cell research which provides Federal funding for research that has the potential to treat sickle cell anemia, diabetes, paralysis, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. And many of these diseases are prevalent in the African American community, and we have been fighting for them.

We fought about student loans. I heard on the news today that George Washington University will be the first university to publish that their tuition and room and board is $55,000, and that the largest increase in tuition is actually going to be in public universities, not private universities. And we all know that most working-class folks send their children to public universities, so we are happy to be in the forefront of fighting for student loans.

We have also been pushing for disadvantaged businesses, disaster eligibility in light of what happened with Hurricane Katrina. We fought for the Katrina Housing Tax Relief Act of 2007.

We fought for United States Troop Readiness, Veterans Health and Iraq Accountability Act because we understand that there are young men and women of all colors fighting over in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is very, very important that they have the ability to have the kind of health care they need and that this government be held accountable for their conduct.

We have fought for the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act because so many people were left out as a result of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita.

We fought for accountability in contracting because all of us have learned that many of the dollars that have

been squandered over these past few years under this administration have come as a result of contractors not being held accountable.

We fought for the Hate Crimes Act which provides legal protection for churches, synagogues, and mosques against hate crimes.

We fought for the Farm Nutrition and Bioenergy Act addressing the issues around that.

We stood up on behalf of the Children's Health Insurance and Medicare Protection Act, CHAMP. It was defeated in the Senate, and so it really didn't get anywhere; and that brought us back to SCHIP, which recently was vetoed by the President.

We want everyone to know that Democrats are going to continue to fight to be assured that 10 million children in the United States of America have health care coverage.

We fought on behalf of the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act, and the list goes on. I am so proud to be in the U.S. Congress. I often tell people the story that my father was a skycap for 38 years for United Airlines and my mother was a factory worker. And for them to have the opportunity in a generation to see their daughter serve as a judge, a prosecutor, and then have an opportunity and the ability to be in the U.S. Congress is just something wonderful.

I always tell people if I am judged, and we always talk about honor thy father and thy mother, that if I am judged on honoring thy father and thy mother, I am probably going to get to heaven. Now some of the other conduct I've engaged in may keep me out of heaven, but I want to say I am pleased and proud to be the daughter of Andrew and Mary Tubbs and to represent the Congressional Black Caucus and represent the country in the U.S. Congress.

Lastly, I will say, the first time I had the opportunity to sit in that chair where you are, Mr. Speaker, I looked up to my mom and dad and said: ``Mom and Dad, look at me now, I am in charge of Congress and I'm swinging the gavel.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank you on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, let me seek unanimous consent that my colleagues will have 5 days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject matter of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once again to host the Congressional Black Caucus message hour on Monday, the first hour of the week.

In the past weeks we have talked about all kinds of issues affecting the American people and have focused on issues particularly affecting African American families. Once again, however, we are compelled to this week focus in on the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which the President chose to veto a couple weeks ago.

This week on the floor of the House we will again be debating SCHIP and the President and our effort to override that veto. I am confident that my colleagues will join me in overriding that veto because they understand the importance of children in the United States having health care.

I am joined this evening by several of my colleagues who will be speaking on this very issue. And I also want to say on behalf of the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, who appointed me to lead this message hour, I want to thank the American public for listening in to our messages.

I am pleased at this time to yield to my colleague, my good friend, and my sister from Oakland, California, Congresswoman Barbara Lee.

I want to engage in a conversation with you just for a moment, Congresswoman Lee.

The cost of providing health care to children is $3.50 per child. Now, those of us who drink expensive coffee spend more than that on a cup of coffee every day. And wouldn't it just make sense? With all due respect to President Bush, but on this issue he is just totally incorrect. And all the newspapers and organizations are saying just that, that he is incorrect.

Mr. Speaker, the amazing thing is he is trying to talk about this whole piece of being conservative, fiscally conservative in the dollars he is expending, but this President has put us in greater deficit than all the Presidents predating him. From George Washington on up to Bill Clinton, he has spent more money. So being fiscally conservative really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Thank you, Congresswoman Lee, for leadership in this area but also in the whole HIV/AIDS area. You are a beacon of light for the Congressional Black Caucus and for the Nation. So I thank you for joining me this evening, and I hope you have a great evening.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that we all know is that the Children's Health Insurance Program, the acronym which is SCHIP, State Children's Health Insurance Program, has always been a bipartisan piece of legislation. We have seen Governors from both parties across this country in strong support of the bill. Senate Republicans and Democrats have joined together on a veto-proof vote that the President has ignored. In the House we have strong bipartisan support as well.

I am pleased at this time to yield to my colleague and good friend from Brooklyn, New York, and I hate that we beat the Yankees, but my good friend from New York, Yvette Clarke.

The people of Brooklyn need to know that this congresswoman has come in here, put her running shoes, we call them high-heeled sneakers, put those running shoes on and really has done a fantastic job. We're so very proud of what she's doing, the leadership she's showing; and I thank you for joining me for this message hour this evening.

SCHIP, one of the best ways to deliver health care to America's children. SCHIP, one of the best ways and cost- effective ways to deliver health care.

You know, I was stunned when I heard President Bush tell the people of America, well, these children have health care already; all they have to do is go to an emergency room. I don't know how many of you had the opportunity, just very recently, to see the news show talking about how the emergency rooms in this country are overladen and overburdened by so many people coming into emergency rooms across the country.

In my efforts of obtaining earmarks over the past 4 years in my congressional district, I have sought money for improving the emergency rooms in several hospitals in my congressional district. I've been in the emergency room. I've been there, and the pictures show it, where there are people laying on gurneys in the hallways because there are not enough private spaces for them to use. There are children, seniors, people of all ages in these hospitals and using the emergency room as their primary care. Emergency rooms were created just for that, emergencies, not for the delivery of ongoing preventative care.

And the only way that we can make sure that our children are more healthy, the only way that we can ensure that children who are being educated, they have to be healthy in order to get a good lesson. That's why we started Head Start and we started lunch programs and breakfast programs at school so that children could go to school and they wouldn't be hungry. So now that we're feeding them and they go to school and they're not hungry, we ought to make sure they have health care coverage so they go to school healthy.

And I don't know how many of you there are listening, but I know you've heard the story where your granddaughter or your niece or your nephew or your child goes to a day care facility for the first time and they come home with all kinds of whooping cough or something, running noses, and it's because a lot of young children come to day care without having received any health care. It will make a real difference in the lives of a lot of people if we provide health care to our children, and particularly preventative health care.

The other reason it becomes so important is that an unhealthy child is not going to be able to pay attention in school. An unhealthy child who is not paying attention in school, is not doing well, is unlikely to do well in junior high school, unlikely to do well in high school, unlikely to make it to college. It may be the precursor to dropping out for a number of children here in the United States of America. And that is why this issue becomes so very important and vital to all of our communities.

Let me just read to you some of the things that some of the national newspapers have said about SCHIP. The Miami Herald said: ``Vote to Override the Veto of Children's Health Bill.'' ``President Bush's veto of the children's health insurance bill is like Imelda Marcos denying a barefoot child a pair of shoes.'' That makes me laugh because I think about all my girlfriends who have lots of shoes, and they're much like Imelda Marcos. ``The President complains that expanding health care coverage for low-income children will cost too much and lead to socialized medicine. Neither assertion is true. Now it's up to Congress to override this veto. We urge the Representatives who voted against the bill, most of them Republican, to reconsider. Instead of supporting the questionable priorities of a lame-duck President, they should vote to improve the health prospects of low-income children.''

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch said: ``Some People, All the Time.'' ``Caring for and protecting children is among the highest values of society, and one of its most crucial obligations. On Wednesday, President Bush vetoed a bill to renew and extend the reach of a program that provides health insurance to American children whose families can't afford it or can't get it at any price. Congress now must stand up for children's health and override the President's veto. Mr. Bush's misleading rhetoric calls to mind the warning about gullibility made by a very different Republican President, Abraham Lincoln. As Congress prepares to override the President's veto, those who voted against the SCHIP plan should take care to ensure that they're not fooled all the time.''

The Philadelphia Inquirer: ``The SCHIP Veto: Children Last.'' ``There was no convincing reason for President Bush to deliver on his long- standing threat of veto for the SCHIP bill other than that he hoped to score political points. Bush's stated reason for opposing the congressionally approved $35 billion increase in the program was that somehow it was a step towards socialized government-run medical coverage benefiting low-income families. That doesn't square with the facts, since most of the kids helped by the program are in working- class households. And it doesn't jive with the widespread support for SCHIP among the American public, not to mention the impressive number of Republicans who backed the veto measure. So it's difficult to see how the President's strategy on SCHIP puts any more children first.''

The Columbus Post-Dispatch: ``Veto Lament.'' ``President Bush's veto yesterday of the expansion of SCHIP not only leaves millions of children without health care coverage; it can leave many of Bush's fellow Republicans exposed to political attacks in next year's election. Bush said the expansion passed by Congress would cost too much. At $35 billion over 5 years, it certainly is expensive, but this investment in the health of America's children will pay big dividends. Healthy children do better in school and in life. And those who get well-child care in a doctor's office take some of the burden off the Nation's crowded emergency rooms, saving on medical costs overall. Congress' plan, which has the support of the public and backers from both sides of the aisle, would add 4 million children to the rolls.''

The Seattle Post Intelligencer: ``Children's Health: Overturn the Veto.''

It said: ``In vetoing a much-needed expansion of children's health coverage, President Bush distorted the issues, put partisanship over compassion, and defied the goodhearted will of the public.''

And finally, in terms of newspaper endorsements, Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier of Iowa: ``Bush Should Have Compromised on SCHIP Program.'' ``President Bush's veto Wednesday of a bill that could have dramatically expanded children's health insurance came as no surprise. He had promised to do so even before a compromise was hammered out in Congress. Bush's determination, in the face of bipartisan support for the bill and with polls showing the bill is favored by nearly two- thirds of Americans, is troubling.''

All of these newspapers have said pointblank that President Bush is wrong on this issue, that President Bush should not use this as a political partisan dagger, that he should move forward and allow the children of America across the board to have access to health care coverage.

The other reason this bill becomes so very important is because a lot of employers no longer are providing health care coverage for their employees. A number of employees can't afford the health care coverage that employers provide. So it is particularly important for these young children to have access to well care, as well.

Let me tell you what Senator Charles Grassley, Republican, said, ``The President's understanding of our bill is wrong. I urge him is to reconsider his veto message.'' Senator Orrin Hatch, another Republican, said, ``We are talking about kids who basically don't have coverage. I think the President had some pretty bad advice on this.'' I want to echo that. I think whoever is advising President Bush on this issue is doing a detriment to the President as well as a detriment to the people of America. Senator Susan Collins, a Republican, has said, ``I can't believe the President would veto a program that benefits low-income children.'' I couldn't believe it either, Senator Collins. He should not have vetoed it. But he did. So our job, as Members of Congress, is to override this veto on Thursday of this week.

Today, 50 million Americans have no health insurance. That includes more than 8 million children. Eight out of the 10 uninsured Americans either work or are in working families. Jesse Jackson, when he was running for President, Rev. Jackson, used to use the term the ``working poor.'' They get up every morning. They go to work. They work 40, 50 hours a week. They come home every evening. The kind of money that they are receiving, even with the increase in minimum wage, still puts them below or within 200, 250 percent of poverty. So not only do we have poor people who are with no income or low income, we have working poor who need health care coverage.

My colleague, Barbara Lee, spoke to earlier the whole issue of disparity in health care. The studies say that an African American male and a Caucasian male can have the same health care coverage but that the delivery of that health care to the African American male is less than the delivery to the Caucasian male. There are all kinds of disparities in what is going on in health care in our Nation, and this is one of the ways that we can level the playing field. We can get rid of some of the disparities within our support of SCHIP.

Being uninsured means going without needed care. It means minor illnesses become major ones because care is delayed. Tragically, it also means that one significant medical expense can wipe out a family's life savings. Right now, everybody is talking about the problem with the mortgage industry, and one of the reasons there are a significant number of foreclosures and bankruptcies is because there are families who have had to pay for health care coverage, and as a result of being required to pay for health care coverage, they are losing their houses. That should not be happening. There are millions of working uninsured Americans who go to bed every night worrying what will happen to them and their families if a major illness or injury strikes.

In Ohio, my home State, there are currently 1,362,000 uninsured. It is an increase of 18,000 people since 2003. We have also seen this drain on many of the local hospitals in my district when people are forced to use emergency rooms. The problem is getting worse. As the price of health care continues to rise, fewer individuals and families can afford to pay for coverage. Fewer small businesses are able to provide coverage for their employees, and those that do are struggling to hold on to the coverage.

It is a problem that affects all of us. We cannot sit idly by while the people of this country continue to go without health care coverage. We must continue to push. And today is Monday. On Thursday, this House will vote to override the veto of SCHIP. Those of you who are listening across this country, if you have not contacted your Member of Congress, if you have not contacted your Senator and said to them that they need to vote to override this veto, I encourage you to fax, call, e-mail, stop by the office, whatever you need to do so that we can advocate on behalf of our people. This will be an opportunity this week for the people of America to stand up and say to this President that health care is a priority for us. But more importantly, health care coverage for our children is our highest priority.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work on the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee. I wanted to get on that committee because that is an opportunity for me to be engaged in long- term policy development of health care in this country. In my congressional district, the largest employers are the health care industry. We have a large number of hospitals. I want to work to assure the people of the 11th Congressional District that they are going to have access to health care. I want to work to assure that people of America, black, white, brown, yellow, that we are working in order to make sure that they have health care coverage.

It has been a privilege to serve on the Health Subcommittee with my good colleague, Pete Stark, from California and a privilege to serve on the Ways and Means Committee under the leadership of Charles Rangel. I have the privilege of leading this Special Order, this message on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus and our leader Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick. It is so very, very important that we continue, the Congressional Black Caucus continues to lead on these issues. I am pleased to have the opportunity to lead this message hour in and around SCHIP this week.

Again, everyone needs to pay attention to this issue and pull out all the stops and say to President Bush that we are going to override your veto. We understand that you have chosen to go down the wrong path, that you are reaching out to the wrong people and supporting the wrong people. And you are overlooking the most important group of people in our country, and that is our children.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have been granted this message hour, and I am very pleased to yield back my time early so that the next Special Order can begin.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3648, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, a much-needed bill that will provide relief to homeowners facing foreclosure on their homes. I appreciate the leadership of the Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Charlie Rangel. I also applaud the Members from both sides of the aisle who are supporting this critical piece of legislation for homeowners. I cannot think of a more bipartisan issue than basic shelter.

It comes as a surprise to most Americans that when debt is forgiven by a lending institution in a foreclosure, that this amount must be included as income on their tax statement. In a time of rising foreclosures I cannot imagine anything more upsetting to a family than this scenario. The situation usually occurs when the family cannot pay their mortgage and then must give up their home. Then they must pay tax on phantom income when the lender forgives some part of the homeowner's mortgage.

In my home State of Ohio, the foreclosure epidemic went from bad to worse last year as the number of new cases grew by nearly 24 percent from 2005. Cuyahoga County led the state in new cases with 13,610 new filings last year. This ranking has attracted national attention with Ohio's foreclosure rate currently at 18 percent which is higher than the national average of 17 percent.

I must also point out that predatory lenders often target low-income and minority communities. Subprime loans are three times more likely in low-income neighborhoods than in high-income neighborhoods and five times more likely in minority neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods. This is an outrage.

Nothing is more symbolic of the American Dream than the ownership of our homes. Almost all of us dream of the day when we can have a place of our own. For most Americans, home ownership is the single biggest investment they will ever make. That is why the loss of one's home is also one of the most humiliating and debilitating experiences that anyone can go through. It is, at its core, an issue of humanity.

That is why I am pleased to rise in support of this piece of legislation that will allow taxpayers to exclude from their income debt that was forgiven by a financial institution or lender. We cannot sit by as a Congress and add insult to injury to our most vulnerable taxpayers.

Many of the homeowners in my district in Cleveland--which has some of the highest foreclosure rates in the Nation--need relief, not rhetoric. This is the same relief all Americans see and to which we must provide access. This bill provides some relief, but need I remind my colleagues that much more must be done on this front, and I look forward to working on other legislative initiatives that 5 will help to address the plight of the American homeowner.

Madam Speaker, Members of the House that are still here this afternoon, and people of America, I ask you to join with me in a moment to say prayers for the families of the victims from the Cleveland shooting this afternoon.

It is unfortunate that we as a Nation once again face a shooting in a public schoolhouse. It is unfortunate that we once again face children who have access to guns in an educational environment.

I ask you to pray for the family of the young man who was the shooter. I ask you to pray for the families of the persons who were injured in this shooting.

Day after day we will get all kinds of questions about what happened and how it happened and what we could have done. But today is a day when we should stop and just for a moment say prayers on behalf of all those families.

The city of Cleveland is my home. I grew up there. I currently represent it, and I ask you to hold us in your thoughts and prayers and pray that God will give us the strength and the ability to work through this difficult time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today as a proud sports fan from the City of Cleveland, Ohio. Yes, I have said it. What about those Indians? It has been years since Clevelanders can stand up and say they are proud of their professional sports teams and can actually point to success. Yet just this year the Cavaliers made the NBA finals for the first time in franchise history and on the back of our young superstar, Lebron James. After a strong draft in the spring, the Cleveland Browns looked competitive for the first time since the franchise returned in 1999, save one season.

But the main reason I stand today is to congratulate the Cleveland Indians for their first trip to the ALCS since 1998. Cleveland fans have been through a lot of disappointment in our sports history. Two losses for the Browns in the 1980s in the AFC championship by a drive and a fluke fumble. Losses to Michael Jordan's Bulls by the Cavs in the Eastern Conference finals in the early 1990s, and most recently in a heartbreaking loss in Game 7 of the 1997 World Series in the 9th inning to the Florida Marlins.

As a lifelong Clevelander, it has been difficult to live through so many near misses, and it makes you yearn for the days of Jim Brown and Bob Feller. The Indians displayed such a consistent level, failures during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, that the movie ``Major League'' was made depicting a fictional Indians team that was supposed to be the worst ever in baseball. However, all this disappointment changed in the 1990s when the Indians moved to their current home, Jacobs Field.

It was not so long ago that the Indians were competing for the World Series every year. Throughout the 1990s, the Indians made the World Series twice, in 1995 and 1997, and made the playoffs 5 straight years from 1994 to 1999. After a few bad years, the Indians were rebuilding through the early part of the 2000s, and I must credit General Manager Mark Shapiro for putting together a young, talented team that looks poised to become the class of the AL Central for years to come.

This year, the Indians won the AL Central crown and tied for the best record in baseball with the Boston, what are they called? Boston Red Sox. I must say, this team is exciting to watch. We have a rising star in center fielder Grady Sizemore, the best one-two pitching punch in baseball with CC Sabathia and Fausto Carmona.

I want to give a special shout out to veteran outfielder Kenny Lofton. Kenny is the only player on the roster who played with the Indians during

their playoff runs in the 1990s. Kenny has played for 11 teams in his 17-year baseball career, including nine different teams in the last seven seasons. He played nine of those seasons with Cleveland, and I was so happy to see him return during this season. He provides veteran leadership in the Indians lineup, and his performance in the ALDS is one of the main reasons the Indians have moved on to the ALCS. Cleveland is proud to have him back, and hopefully he can help lead the Tribe to the World Series victory he has worked for.

The Indians have been very impressive so far this postseason, defeating the vulnerable--veteran, excuse me, vulnerable now, New York Yankees in four games and closing out the series this past Monday in New York. I can't wait to see them take on the Boston Red Sox this Friday and hopefully win the series to get into the World Series.

It has been a tough few decades for Cleveland sports fans, but this year is providing hope for success in the future. This success is so wonderful and cherished by a community that has experienced so much economic loss. So I am grateful that our sports serve as a beacon of pride for Cleveland. I want to thank the owners, the management, and most of all the hard-working, young players, the Browns, the Cavs and the great Indians. And I want to say they do a good job in representing the City of Cleveland.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and I just want to close with one more thing. Go Tribe! Go Indians! Go Cleveland!

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleagues, both on the Democratic and Republican side, for introducing this legislation.

I rise today in support of H.R. 3648, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Act of 2007.

It comes as no surprise to most Americans that when debt is forgiven by lending institutions in a foreclosure, this amount must be included as income in their tax statement. In a time of rising foreclosures, I cannot imagine anything more upsetting to a family than this scenario. The situation usually occurs when the family cannot pay their mortgage and then must give up their home. Then they must pay tax on phantom income when the lender forgives some part of the homeowner's mortgage.

More than 8 years ago, I introduced a piece of legislation called the Predatory Lending Reduction Act of 2001, I believe it was. And in that legislation, I suggested that we needed to monitor or regulate mortgage brokers.

The reason I raised the issue is because most of the subprime lending that occurs in America comes through brokers who are brokering subprime lending mortgages.

The reason I'm so concerned about the statement of my colleague before about this taxation should not be permanent, the reality is, for many families who lose their homes as a result of the situation we're in, it's permanent. It's permanent loss of assets that would pass from one generation to the next. And they can never recover from it. It's permanent loss for communities

where the tax duplicate is reduced because they don't have that money upon which they can build a rating so that that community could then borrow money on a bond. It's a permanent loss for public school systems that no longer receive the tax that you allow them to be able to support that public school system. So this legislation is very, very important.

And whatever happens in the housing market, and hopefully we're going to get a hold on these subprime lenders who have devastated permanently our communities across the United States of America, we're going to get a hold on that. But in the interim, let's give the people who are in this position a break.