John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, there are very few instances where I have had a Member of Congress persist in the search for justice with the same zeal as my friend from North Carolina, and I commend you. I recall that I had an opportunity to meet the widow of the slain officer, and I have talked to the gentleman from Virginia, Bobby Scott, chairman of the Crime Subcommittee, and his ranking member about the importance that we pursue at the earliest possible moment a complete and total investigation and hearing about the matter that the gentleman and other colleagues that have now joined you have persisted in. I congratulate you, and recommit publicly once again to our search and pursuit of justice, because if we don't protect our border agents and law enforcement officials generally, I can only shudder to think how the safety of this country will deteriorate.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support for H.R. 1873, the Small Business Fairness in Contracting Act and join my colleagues in efforts to ensure that small businesses are given a fair opportunity to compete for Federal contracts. I recognize that government agencies have recently been bundling hundreds of small contracts into single mega-contracts, which are awarded to only the largest contractors. H.R. 1873, the Small Business Fairness in Contracting Act, will un- bundle many of these contracts and level the playing field for small businesses. The bill addresses the major problems that have resulted in limited opportunities for small businesses in the Federal marketplace. The bill ensures that more contracting opportunities are available to small firms, fights fraud in the contracting process and raises the Federal small business government-wide contracting goal. H.R. 1873 implements changes that will remove a number of the barriers facing entrepreneurs in accessing Federal contracts, creating a more level playing field for this Nation's 26 million small businesses. I want to thank Chairwoman Nydia Velazquez for bringing this legislation to the committee and to the floor. The Detroit region's 420,000 small businesses account for 99.2 percent of all firms; this includes almost 300,000 sole proprietors. Small businesses with employees other than themselves employ 915,000 people or 47 percent of the region's employees. While big businesses have consolidated a large portion of their services and number of employees they hire, small business has helped mitigate the pain with modest but steady employment gains. The continued growth in the small business sector, especially in the formation of fair contracting for the diverse population not only in Detroit, but throughout Michigan, will create much-needed jobs and assist in the diversification of our region's economy. By law, Federal organizations are required to support small businesses. However, contract bundling has resulted in less small business participation in Federal contracts. It is essential to help remove the barriers blocking small businesses from entering the nearly $400 billion per year Federal marketplace. I believe in the value of small businesses as the number one job creators in this country and strongly support this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the ``No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2001'' (``NOPEC''), legislation that would effectively force OPEC to begin pricing in a competitive, free market manner or face the possibility of being prosecuted for civil or criminal antitrust violations. This legislation will establish that OPEC's activities are not protected by sovereign immunity and that the Federal courts should not decline to hear such a case based on the ``act of state'' doctrine. I am joined by Representatives Chabot and Lofgren, as original cosponsors of this bill. For the past year, American consumers have paid exorbitant prices at the pump, as gas prices have hit their highest levels since the first gulf war. For the past several months, oil prices have remained stubbornly high, sitting above $65 at the end of last week. Since January of this year, oil prices have climbed more than 20 percent, driving gasoline prices in the United States to record levels while producing budget surpluses in nations like Saudi Arabia. And as of May 8, 2007, the average U.S. price of a gallon of gasoline was $3.036, just 2 cents short of the record high reached in September 2005 after Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast. The group of 12 nations comprising OPEC represent the classic definition of a cartel, and they hold all the cards when it comes to oil and gas prices. OPEC accounts for two-thirds of the world's oil reserves, and over 40 percent of the world's oil production. Most significantly, OPEC's oil exports represent about 70 percent of the oil traded internationally. This affords them considerable control over the global market. Its net oil export revenues should reach nearly $395 billion this year, and its influence on the oil market is dominant, especially when it decides to reduce or increase its levels of production. The OPEC nations have for years conspired to drive up prices of imported crude oil, gouging American consumers. Their price-fixing and supply-limiting conspiracy is a clear violation of U.S. antitrust laws, yet we have no recourse for action against these nations. The international oil cartel continues to avoid accountability, shielding itself behind the veil of sovereign immunity by claiming that its actions are ``governmental activity''--which is protected under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (``FSIA''), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1602 et seq.-- rather than ``commercial activity.'' This legislation, the ``No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act'' (``NOPEC''), is simple and effective. It exempts OPEC and other nations from the provisions of FSIA to the extent those governments are engaged in price-fixing and other anticompetitive activities with regard to pricing, production and distribution of petroleum products. It makes clear that the so-called ``Act of State'' doctrine does not prevent courts from ruling on antitrust charges brought against foreign governments and that foreign governments are ``persons'' subject to suit under the antitrust laws. It authorizes lawsuits in U.S. Federal court against oil cartel members by the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission. We do not have to stand by and watch OPEC dictate the price of our gas without any recourse; we can do something to combat this conspiracy among oil-rich nations. I am hopeful that Congress can move quickly to enact this worthwhile and timely legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2237, the legislation offered by Mr. McGovern that would provide for the redeployment of United States Armed Forces and defense contractors from Iraq. H.R. 2237 would significantly reduce the U.S. military presence in Iraq over a 9-month period. It requires that the Department of Defense begin redeployment of armed forces and military contractors no later than 90 days after the date of enactment, allowing the Department the time necessary to plan, prepare and execute the process of drawing down troops. The redeployment would be completed within 6 months, at which point further funding for an increased presence in Iraq would be prohibited. H.R. 2237 respects the decision-making powers of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and U.S. military commanders in the field. It specifically leaves decisions about where U.S. troops should be redeployed in the hands of the Pentagon. Troops drawn down from Iraq may be redeployed to neighboring countries, to Afghanistan, to other U.S. bases abroad, or back to the United States in support of homeland security and other national needs. This legislation also recognizes and respects Iraqi sovereignty by ensuring that the present conflict will not provide for the establishment of permanent American military bases in Iraq. H.R. 2237 provides for the orderly transfer of bases and facilities constructed or occupied by the U.S. military to Iraqi control. Nothing in this bill precludes the United States from negotiating base rights or shared use in the future, as is our practice with other sovereign nations. H.R. 2237 provides strong support for the Iraqi people by continuing assistance for social, political and diplomatic reconstruction. Additionally, aid is permitted, at the request of the Iraqi government, for assistance or equipment to the Iraqi Security Forces or multinational forces providing security or training in Iraq. U.S. military forces would be authorized to remain in Iraq to complete the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, pursue foreign terrorist networks operating inside Iraq, and provide protection to U.S. citizens and embassy and diplomatic personnel. Recent news reports indicate that two days ago, a majority of Iraqi parliamentarians signed a petition calling on the United States to establish a timeline for our military to withdraw from their country. Poll after poll indicates that a large majority of Iraqis believe the large-scale presence of U.S. military forces inside Iraq is fueling, rather than abating, both the Iraqi insurgency and an increasing presence of foreign jihadists. Reducing our footprint in Iraq provides that country, its neighbors, and the international community with a new opportunity and a new environment in which to pursue reconciliation and a political solution to the violence currently devastating Iraqi society. I applaud Speaker Pelosi for allowing this bill to come to the floor, and join with members of the Out of Iraq and Progressive Caucuses in supporting it.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2206, the U.S. Troops Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007. The revised Iraq Accountability Act supports our troops while holding President Bush and the Iraqi Government accountable. After vetoing the April supplemental bill that was supported by a majority of the American people, President Bush is once more asking for a blank check to continue his escalation of our military involvement in Iraq. Once again, the President has chosen confrontation over cooperation by threatening to veto the bill we are considering today. After a meeting during which lawmakers from his own party told him he had lost the confidence of the American people, the President issued a statement claiming to support ``benchmarks'' for progress in Iraq. But, unlike congressional Republicans, the President will not support consequences for failure to meet those benchmarks. It should be obvious to all that benchmarks without consequences are nothing but meaningless window dressing. This Congress will not provide the President the blank check that he has requested. In last November's election, the American people demanded a new direction in Iraq, and we will continue to fight to responsibly wind down this war. Our revised bill will fully fund the troops, honor our commitment to veterans, hold the Iraqi Government accountable, and continue to press the President to change course and stop the bloodshed in Iraq. It also provides funding for urgent domestic needs that are emergencies in their own right and appropriate to include in this emergency supplemental legislation. These include a minimum wage/small business tax relief package, $6.8 billion for Hurricane Katrina recovery, $3.5 billion more than the President's request, $400 million for the Low Income Heating Assistance Program, LIHEAP, and $396 million for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, S-CHIP. I voted earlier today in favor of Congressman McGovern's bill providing for the redeployment of United States Armed Forces and American defense contractors from Iraq. That measure was defeated, but attracted far more support than many observers had predicted, indicating a growing momentum inside Congress for redeployment. I remain confident that as the tragedy in Iraq wears on, even more Members of Congress will join in demanding withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and prohibiting the further use of funds to continue President Bush's war. In the meantime, however, I will join with my colleagues in the Democratic Caucus to send the President a supplemental funding bill that demands accountability and guarantees further congressional consideration of war funding in just a few short months. H.R. 2206 fully funds the troops over the next 2 to 3 months, ensuring that they have everything they need to conduct their mission. The bill also includes additional funding for the troops not requested by the President, including increased funding for military health care and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, MRAP, vehicles in Iraq. It includes funds to improve military readiness as well as $1.8 billion to meet our veterans' health care needs. The bill would fence off $52.8 billion of the $95.5 billion provided to the Defense Department until it is released by subsequent legislation. It requires the President to submit a report to Congress by July 13 of this year regarding the success of the Iraqi Government in meeting key security and political benchmarks. Within 7 legislative days of receipt of the report, Congress would have the opportunity to evaluate the situation in Iraq and vote on whether or not to continue to fund the war. Expedited procedures are included in the bill to guarantee that this vote will take place in both the House and Senate by the end of July. I would have preferred not to be taking this vote today, but the President has brought us to this point with his stubborn refusal to accept the will of the American people. I will continue to support any Iraq-related legislation that holds the President's feet to the fire. The inferno raging in Iraq is one of his own making, and he should be forced to feel the heat.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Madam. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of a man who may be little known to the Nation, but one who is a treasure to the City of Detroit. Elisha Z. Gray, born on May 1, 1917 in Arlington, TN, right outside of Memphis, celebrated his 90th birthday last week. At the age of 18, Mr. Gray left Arlington in search of a new life in bustling Detroit. For the next 9 years, he worked on the automobile assembly lines of the famous Packard Plant on East Grand Boulevard. On many occasions during those years, he served as a butcher in Detroit's historic Eastern Market. It was not until 1944 when Elisha received his barbers' license from Michigan Barber College, that he evolved into his true calling. Since black subjects were not allowed at his school, his first opportunity to cut a black man's hair came in 1945 when he opened the Family Barber Shop on the corner of Hazelett and Milford. In fact, I remember my father John Conyers, Sr. being one of his loyal customers when we lived around the corner from his shop on Colfax. The Family Barber attracted some of Detroit's most powerful and influential citizens, most of whom came from the west side of Detroit. Mr. Gray not only served his more distinguished clientele, but he was equally inviting to his everyday customers from the neighborhood. The Family Barber was the centerpiece that allowed the two worlds to intersect. His shop was also used as a training ground for other young black African-American barbers who would have their first experience cutting hair for blacks. In addition, he sponsored various athletic teams which enabled the neighborhood youth to get involved in constructive recreational activities, and encouraged them to stay off the streets and out of trouble. I was sad to hear that Elisha sold the Family Barber in 1972, but it came as no surprise that he was already pursuing a new venture. Soon, he became a real estate agent, then a broker and soon after, he established E.Z. Gray & Sons Realtors on Puritan in Detroit. Although he has long retired from the real estate business, he still continues to work in the field even today. He has been instrumental in inspiring and encouraging youth, and especially the young men of Detroit to follow their dreams and overcome life's challenges. He is still engaged in a lifelong passion of getting all citizens registered and voting in all elections, both local and national. Elisha Gray is married to Mrs. Labada Elizabeth Gray with whom he celebrated 65 years of marriage with on May 5, 2007. They have three children, seven grandchildren, and seven great-grandchildren. He also currently serves as Chair of the Deacon Board at the Northwest Church of God in Detroit. So, Madam Speaker, I am deeply honored to celebrate the 90th birthday of a friend, a brother, and a living Detroit legend, Mr. Elisha Z. Gray.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 890, The Student Loan Sunshine Act of 2007. Over the last few decades the costs of a postsecondary education in our country has increased exponentially. Now, more than ever our nation's students and families are relying on student loans to help pay for a college degree and yet, thanks in large part to the investigative reporting New York Times, we now know that egregious conflicts of interest and corrupt practices among lenders, schools, and public officials are undermining the student loan programs on which millions of borrowers depend. This is unacceptable, and I am pleased that the Education and Labor Chairman George Miller has decided to address this situation so promptly. The Student Loan Sunshine Act cleans up the student loan industry and ensures that students and families will encounter a more trust-worthy student aid system in the future by requiring institutions and lenders to adopt strict codes of conduct that adhere to specific guidelines, banning all gifts, participation on advisory boards, and revenue- sharing agreements between lenders and schools, mandating institutions disclose all relationships with lenders, only allowing ``preferred lender lists'' on campuses with strict assurances that the list was created with the students' best interest in mind, ensuring that students have access to all lenders of their choice (including those not on the preferred lender lists), prohibiting staffing of school financial aid offices. We need to pass this legislation here and now to send a message to all stock holders that Congress and the American public will not abide abusive lending practices and that we are entitled to transparency in student loan programs.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of ``H.R. 1684, the Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act of 2008.'' One of our greatest responsibilities is the protection and security of our citizens and they deserve a vigorous and accountable homeland security policy. H.R. 1684 will now provide just such a policy that will allow us to address the weaknesses that were apparent in the administration's previous attempts at providing Homeland Security. This legislation, which was developed through bipartisan support, is a proactive step in making our country a much safer place to live, work and play. The bill authorizes $39.8 billion for the Department of Homeland Security for Fiscal Year 2008--which is $2.1 billion more than President Bush requested in his budget and funds many much needed programs to keep America safe. The bill restores funding to the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which supports first responders in their mission to prevent, prepare for and respond to acts of terrorism. This bill also restores the President's 55-percent cut in firefighter assistance grants and restores the elimination of the Local Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program. H.R. 1684 will also provide funding for vital first responder programs and provide resources for a number of other critical homeland security activities that were reduced in the President's budget. The Department of Homeland Security has been faced with management and oversight issues since its inception. A July 27, 2006 article by the Washington Post stated that, ``The multibillion-dollar surge in Federal contracting to bolster the Nation's domestic defenses in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks has been marred by extensive waste and misspent funds, according to a new bipartisan congressional report.'' This bill will help to refocus and provide the necessary training and resources to help the Agency achieve its goals and address mismanagement issues. H.R. 1684 will require the Department of Homeland Security to consider past performance of a firm before deciding whether to award a new contract. As a part of a contract bid, each firm seeking the contract must submit information regarding its past performance of Federal, State, local, and private sector contracts. I am committed to ensuring that we are prepared to protect our families, our homes, and our Nation against any and all terrorist threats. So, I am honored to support this legislation.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, would he yield for a unanimous consent request that the bill be amended as follows: Page 12, line 5 after ``orientation'' insert ``status as a senior citizen who has attained the age of 65 years; status as a current or former member of the armed services.'' Would the gentleman yield for a unanimous consent request on that?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, the proponent of the motion to recommit, yield for a unanimous consent request that the motion be amended by striking the word ``promptly'' and inserting the word ``forthwith?''

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I notice that the motion being offered by the gentleman provides the bill be reported back to the House ``promptly'' rather than reported back ``forthwith.'' Is it true, as I believe to be the case, that the effect of the word ``promptly'' is that the House is not being asked to amend this bill, but to send it off the Floor and back to the Judiciary Committee?

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I do.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am not inclined to at this time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the motion to recommit, which would not operate as a simple amendment, but, listen to me, would instead send the bill back to the Committee on the Judiciary, in essence killing the bill for the remainder of the Congress. The categories of individuals included in the amendment, seniors and members of the armed services, are entitled to protection under the law, and in point of fact they have protection under the law at both Federal and State levels. I note that it is already a Federal crime to kill or attempt to kill any member of the armed services under 18 U.S.C. 1114. We also have programs in the law to provide assistance to prosecutors and law enforcement in the enforcement of crimes against elders, as well as a variety of senior services that will help them in their homes, safety and elder care. The purpose of the bill is to protect classes of individuals who have been and are the group-wide victims of systemic violence: hanging a man because of his race, dragging someone to death because they are disabled. These are crimes that are designed to target and intimidate entire groups of individuals, and we all know it. That is why they are labeled hate crimes and why this legislation is before us. As much as any Member here, I believe we can and should do more to protect other members of society. That is why our Committee on the Judiciary approved a COPS bill yesterday, reauthorizing a program to provide for 100,000 local police on the beat and other safety officials. That is why I have in the past pushed for an Elder Justice Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 364, I call up the bill (H.R. 1592) to provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1592.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the hate crimes bill, H.R. 1592, will provide assistance to State and local enforcement agencies and amend Federal law to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of violent, bias-motivated crimes. Last Congress, this legislation passed with a bipartisan vote, and it also passed in the 108th Congress and the 106th Congress. So we have the same bill before us that we had in the 109th Congress. This legislation has attracted the support of over 211 civil rights organizations, educational institutions, religious organizations, civic groups; and importantly, virtually every major law enforcement organization in the country has endorsed the bill, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the Police Executive Research Forum and 26 State attorneys general. Hate crimes are disturbingly prevalent and pose a significant threat to the full participation of all Americans in our democratic society. It just so happens that we documented 113,000 hate crimes by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and in the year 2005, the most current data available, the FBI compiled reports on law enforcement agencies across the country, identifying 7,163 bias-motivated criminal incidents. The fact of the matter that is known to law enforcement is that hate crime incidents are notoriously underreported; and so we come here today to take the civil rights laws that we have passed across the years to the last, final extent, to crimes of violence based on the hate of the individual, intended to intimidate the class or group that that individual comes from. We have a strong bill. We have more supporters than ever in the Congress and in the national community, and we know that the current law limits Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin, but only when the victim is targeted because he or she is engaged in a Federal protected activity, such as voting. Further, the existing statutes do not permit Federal involvement in a range of cases where the crimes are motivated by bias against the victims' actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. This legislation, identical to the version approved in the 109th Congress, will strengthen existing Federal law in the same way that the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 helped Federal prosecutors combat church arson, by addressing the rigid jurisdictional requirements under Federal law and expand the jurisdiction to crimes motivated by bias against the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. This bill only applies to bias-motivated crimes of violence. It does not impinge on public speech or writing in any way. In fact, the measure improves two explicit first amendment free speech protections for the accused, and we want you to know that there are no first amendment disabilities about this measure in any way. As a personal advocate of the first amendment, I can assure you that that would be the last thing that would be allowed to be in this bill. What we are saying now is that a vote for this bill is not a vote in favor of any particular sexual belief or characteristic. It is a vote, rather, to provide basic rights for and protection for individuals so that they are protected from assaults based on their sexual orientation. But the majority of incidents reported on racially motivated crimes, 54 percent, are based on racially motivated crimes, 17 percent on religious bias, and 14 percent on sexual orientation bias. The time has come for the Congress to finally deal with this whole subject of hate crimes. It is a blot on our constitutional understanding of what democracy is all about, and it is so important that today we debate and pass finally the hate crimes law that has been here and approved in three different Congresses. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the committee, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. First of all, I want to assure my friend Mr. Lungren, the former attorney general of California, that we have no opposition about dealing with the definition of which he complained. I also take this opportunity to remind him that 26 State attorney generals, just like you were, approved this bill. Now I turn to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Bobby Scott, and I yield him 2 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). (Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Jerry Nadler, for 2 minutes.

Mr. CONYERS. I yield 1 minute now to a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Ellison of Minnesota.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1429, The Improving Head Start Act of 2007. As a key initiative in President Johnson's ``Great Society,'' Head Start has been one of our Nation's most important educational programs. Since its creation in 1965, Head Start has served more than 20 million children and has focused and redefined its approach to assisting disadvantaged children in their social, physical and educational growth. As one of two remaining Members of the House who helped pass the original Head Start bill, I am pleased that after 4 years of deadlock between the House and Senate this program finally will be reauthorized. Democrats are once again showing the American public that Congress is back at work addressing our Nation's critical domestic needs. Americans know what a huge difference early childhood education can make in a child's development; they understand that early childhood education needs to be a national priority. Evidence of this can be seen in the congressionally-mandated Impact Study that found that after less than one school year, Head Start narrowed the achievement gap by 45 percent in pre-reading and by 28 percent in pre-writing. The long-term impact of these programs is also clearly demonstrated in the high percentage of low-income children who participated in Head Start and were subsequently more likely to be developmentally on par with their peers in kindergarten, to behave well in class, succeed in school and ultimately to graduate. By passing H.R. 1429 today, we will also increase classroom and teacher quality and make use of the latest science to strengthen Head Start. The new teacher qualifications in the Improving Head Start Act require that 50 percent of Head Start teachers nationwide have a minimum of a baccalaureate degree in early childhood education or a related field by 2013. It also directs the majority of new funds in the bill to program improvement activities, including significant new funds to increase teacher salaries. Furthermore, this reauthorization will require that all Head Start programs use research-based practices to support the growth of children's pre-literacy and vocabulary skills and improve professional development and classroom practices to better support children's cognitive, social and emotional development. Our Nation has long recognized that education should be a universal right to all, regardless of race, religion or socioeconomic status. I am pleased to stand with Chairman Miller, Subcommittee Chairman Kildee and Subcommittee Ranking Member Castle in improving America's education system by voting for H.R. 1429.