Alan Grayson

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to give notice of a question of the privileges of the House pursuant to rule IX. The form of my resolution is as follows: Resolved, That the House of Representatives shall not consider H.R. 3, the ``Northern Route Approval Act'' because: (1) it violates Rule XXI of the House, and (2) it affects the dignity and integrity of the proceedings of the House since it is unconstitutional.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 676.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill attempting to secure our nation's cyber-systems and networks from attack. This bill expands the authority of private entities and the federal government to share specified threat information and intelligence with one another. It is intended to grant authority for the government and private industry to share cyber-threat information and intelligence only in a manner consistent with the need for individual citizens to have reasonable expectations of privacy. The right of a citizen to remain ``secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures'' is unaltered. This bill largely pertains to network security, and nothing in the bill precludes or alters the requirement that the government secure a warrant before engaging in searches or seizures of information that would otherwise reasonably be expected to remain private. With respect to those provisions pertaining to the federal government's use of information shared with it under the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (``CISPA''), the intent of Congress is as follows: The only information the federal government may receive under CISPA that it heretofore was not permitted to access under law is ``cyber threat information'' (Section 3(b)). ``Cyber threat information'' is defined narrowly in section 3(g)(4) as ``information directly pertaining to'' any of the following: (1) A vulnerability of a system or network of a government or private entity or utility. (2) A threat to the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of a system or network of a government or private entity or utility or any information stored on, processed on, or transiting such a system or network. (3) Efforts to deny access to or degrade, disrupt, or destroy a system or network of a government or private entity or utility. (4) Efforts to gain unauthorized access to a system or network of a government or private entity or utility, including to gain such unauthorized access for the purpose of exfiltrating information stored on, processed on, or transiting a system or network of a government or private entity or utility. Therefore, if the actions of a user of any system or network do not expose a vulnerability; pose a threat to integrity, confidentiality, or availability; attempt to deny access, degrade, disrupt, or destroy; or attempt to gain unauthorized access, then none of the user's information, or information pertaining to the user, or information that could possibly identify the user may be shared with the federal government under authority granted by CISPA. Each of these categories must be construed as narrowly as possible in order to protect the constitutional right of citizens to privacy, and provide effect to the term ``directly.'' Restated, the use of a system or network alone does not permit any entity to share any information of a user, or pertaining to the user, unless it is currently allowed to do so under another law. The terms ``vulnerability,'' ``threat,'' ``efforts'' and ``unauthorized access'' all are to be construed narrowly, and are limited to cybyersecurity threats. Further, the government cannot use that which it cannot receive. Under this Act, should any entity share information with the federal government that is not ``cyber threat information,'' e.g., information pertaining to normal or permissible use, identifying information, etc., then the federal government must notify the entity sharing the information of its error (Section 3(c)(5)), shall not retain the information (Section 3(c)(6)), and shall not use the information (Section 3(c)(6)). The federal government may use ``cyber threat information'' shared with it only: (1) for cybersecurity purposes, (2) for the investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes, (3) for the protection of individuals from the danger of death or serious bodily harm and the investigation and prosecution of crimes involving such danger of death or serious bodily harm, (4) for the protection of minors from (a) child pornography, (b) any risk of sexual exploitation, and (c) serious threats to the physical safety of minors, including kidnapping and trafficking, and (5) for the investigation and prosecution of crimes involving 4(a) through (c) above, and (6) any crime referred to in section 2258A(a)(2) of title 18 of the United States Code (knowingly failing to report information pertaining to sexual exploitation and other abuses of children--including obscene visual representations of such acts). (Section 3(c)(6) and Section 3(c)(1)). The term ``danger of death or serious bodily harm'' is limited to acts of domestic terrorism as defined in the criminal code (18 U.S.C. Section 23331(5)). CISPA does not allow the federal government access to new information based upon the points described above, but only access to existing information. Moreover, it limits the use of appropriately shared ``cyber threat information'' solely to the purposes and crimes defined. ``Cybersecurity Purpose'' is defined in section 3(g)(8) as ``ensuring the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of, or safeguarding, a system or network, including protecting a system or network'' from vulnerability; threats to integrity, confidentiality, or availability; attempts to deny access, degrade, disrupt, or destroy; or attempts to gain unauthorized access. It is a narrow subset of the term ``cyber threat information.'' ``Cybersecurity Crimes'' is defined in section 3(g)(6) and are those crimes under federal or state law pertaining to misuse of systems or networks, as well as any federal computer crime. Only statutes limited to the misuse of computers fall within this scope. CISPA places an ``Affirmative Search Restriction'' on the federal government in section 3(c)(2)--``The Federal Government may not affirmatively search cyber threat information shared with [it] . . . for a purpose other than a purpose referred to in'' points 1 through 6, above. In order to respect the Constitutional right to privacy, this provision should be construed as broadly as possible. The only new authority CISPA creates with respect to searches is as follows: (1) Cyber threat information (which is narrowly defined, and for almost every American ensures that the sharing of their information, or information pertaining to them, is disallowed) must be appropriately shared as discussed in section 3(b). (2) The federal government may affirmatively search shared cyber threat information only for: (a) Cybersecurity purposes (which, as defined, is a threshold that must be satisfied prior to the information is even being shared with the government in the first instance). (b) Computer crimes which are already codified. (c) And only enumerated crimes pertaining to sexual exploitation and other abuses of children. No search of information may be performed without satisfying the requirements of the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Nothing in CISPA is meant to eliminate or even curtail the requirement in all applicable cases to obtain a warrant. If information is not cyber threat information, (1) the government may not have it under CISPA (Section 3(c)(6)), and (2) must obtain a warrant to search it (Section 3(c)(2)). The information of, pertaining to, or identifying any American who is using a network or system in a way that comports with the terms and conditions of a user agreement is unequivocally not cyber threat information. Any search of such information requires a warrant. Library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, book customer lists, firearms sales records, tax return records, educational records, and medical records are not records that satisfy the definition of ``cyber threat information'' under CISPA. Section 3(c)(4) explicitly bars the federal government from using these records under CISPA. This provision is to be construed liberally, and this list is not exclusive. Pursuant to section 3(d)(1), the federal government may be held liable for any use of information shared with it that is not cyber threat information. This is an explicit waiver of sovereign immunity, and is intended to be broad. And finally, CISPA, in accordance with section 3(f)(7) does not authorize any intelligence agency to engage in surveillance of any American citizen. Such action clearly would be a violation of Constitutional rights; and actionable through a private right of action. Mr. Speaker, each of the points addressed above are important. They are important to understanding the narrow scope of this law, the ways in which the federal government is prohibited from acting, and the ways in which American citizens' information remains protected and unavailable to the federal government. CISPA should be interpreted narrowly as written, and as such, it is not a document that provides sweeping new authority to the federal government either to receive or use cyber information of the general American public. In case of doubt, the letter and spirit of the body of law surrounding the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and our rights to liberty and privacy prevails.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, these statements and findings are made in support of the ``Catching Up to 1968 Act of 2013.'' In determining that it is time to raise the minimum wage to $10.50 per hour and index it to inflation, Congress makes the following findings: (1) Since 1968, the minimum wage has lost nearly one-third of its value. Had it kept pace with inflation since then, the federal minimum wage would be $10.67 today. (2) Given that the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation, more than thirty million low-wage workers are making less today than low-wage workers did 45 years ago in 1968. (3) As the cost of living increased in the past several decades, the reduced purchasing power of the minimum wage has made it more difficult for low-wage workers to pay for basic necessities such as housing, transportation, food, and healthcare. (I) Housing prices have nearly doubled; the median value of owner- occupied properties has increased by about 80 percent between 1970 and 2009. (II) The cost of a gallon of motor vehicle gasoline has increased more than 60 percent from 1978 to 2012 according to U.S. Energy Information data. (III) The average cost of health insurance premiums has skyrocketed. According to U.S. Census figures, from 1990 to 2009, health insurance costs per capita have more than doubled, increasing 102 percent. The average annual cost of employer-sponsored family health insurance premiums increased 89 percent from 1999 to 2011. Workers bore more of that load, with the average worker contribution toward employer- sponsored health insurance increasing by 94 percent. On top of this, an increasing number of medical expenses and services are not paid for by health insurance, resulting in dramatically increasing out-of-pocket expenses--27 percent from 1996 to 2009--for families. (IV) Since just 1994, the average cost for a family of four to provide food for the family has increased about 10 percent, according to figures from the USDA's monthly estimates of food plans. (4) The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, $15,080 annually, does not even meet the U.S. Census Bureau's poverty threshold for a family of two or the Department of Health and Human Service's poverty guidelines for a family of two, both of which are above $15,000 per year. (5) Worker productivity has more than doubled since the 1960s, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics' data, yet all that low-wage workers have received for their effort is the declining value of the minimum wage. (6) The failure of Congress to make sure that the minimum wage keeps pace with inflation has exacerbated income inequality in this country and placed the American Dream out of reach for many hard-working low- wage workers in this country. At the same time that the minimum wage has lost nearly one-third of its value, the average income of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has skyrocketed. The threshold for a family's annual income to be considered in the top 1 percent of taxpayers increased from about $75,000 in 1968 to over $1 million in 2011. Adjusting for inflation, the annual income of the top one percent has more than doubled in that time, increasing 110 percent. Just before the recent financial crisis, the incomes of the top one percent had nearly tripled from 1968 to 2007, increasing by 196 percent. (7) The top 100 highest paid CEOs all made over $15 million last year. The highest paid CEO made over $131 million in 2012, the equivalent of almost $63,000 per hour--$10,000 more than the median annual household income in the United States. (8) Though the United States economy has begun to recover from the recent financial crisis, the unemployment rate is still 7.7 percent and there still remain 28.6 million unemployed or underemployed. Raising the minimum wage would help stimulate the economy and create jobs. (I) Raising the minimum wage to $10.50 per hour would give a raise to more than 30 million workers, add a net increase of over $30 billion in economic activity, and create more than 140,000 new jobs. (II) According to a Chicago Federal Reserve study, for every dollar increase to the hourly pay of a minimum wage worker, the result is $2,800 in new spending from that worker's household over the year. (9) Two-thirds of low-wage workers are employed by large, profitable corporations. (10) Many large, multi-national corporations pay higher minimum wages in Canada and Europe, and still remain profitable. (11) Without raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation, it becomes more likely that low-wage workers will fall further into poverty and be more reliant on government services like food stamps, Medicaid, welfare, and the earned income tax credit. These government services are paid for by the taxpayers and other small businesses. In this sense, many small businesses that already pay their employees more than the federal minimum wage end up subsidizing the profitability of their large corporate competitors. This is a perversion of capitalism. Raising the minimum wage would not put small businesses like this at a competitive disadvantage, but could in fact help them. For instance, according to the MO Healthnet Employer Report, in Missouri during the first quarter of 2011 (the most recent data) the total cost to the state of the 50 employers whose employees rely most heavily on Medicaid was about $43.5 million. According to data from the state Department of Job and Family Services, the State of Ohio paid $111.5 million in 2007 for Medicaid costs for workers and their dependents at 50 employers statewide. (12) Nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women. A greater proportion of minimum wage workers are black (15 percent) or Hispanic (20.2 percent) than of the population as a whole (13.1 percent black, and 16.7 percent Hispanic). (13) The United States has one of the lowest minimum wages when compared with other Western, industrialized countries. Australia's minimum wage is more than double the minimum wage in the United States--at about $16 per hour. Of ten countries with minimum wages higher than the United States', eight of them have unemployment rates lower than ours, based on the most recent data available. (14) Poll after poll has shown that about 70 percent of the American public supports increasing the minimum wage.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 76--Approving the Journal, 77--H. Con. Res. 18, and 78--H. Con. Res. 19. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' I was absent because of a flight problem.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I want to share something with the Representative from Wisconsin and with the Chair. We labor here under an awful barrier, and that barrier is this: we are required to actually be original. I sometimes am unable to carry that burden, and I found something this Saturday that I think was so important, so well written, so profound that I am going to yield to an article that I read on Saturday in the Huffington Post, written by Jason Linkins and Zach Carter, called ``Dow Jones Hits `Record High' Thanks to Strong Performances from Smoke, Mirrors Sectors.'' I'd like to share that with the gentleman from Wisconsin, the Chair, and with anyone else who just might happen to be listening right now. The article reads as follows: This week, amid the hullabaloo over President Barack Obama's Deficit Dinner Diplomacy and Senator Rand Paul's 13- hour filibuster-cum-dissertation on drone strikes and civil liberties, financial news-watchers touted a milestone in their lives of Market Worship. We speak, of course, of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which on Tuesday hit an ``all- time high'' of 14,253. The good times rolled steadily on through the week, and the Dow closed Friday at 14,397. Of course, the notion that these were ``record'' highs was not, strictly speaking, true. As Jeff Cox at CNBC pointed out, ``In inflation-adjusted dollars, the Dow would need to hit 15,731 to break the record.'' Nevertheless, the exciting new ordinal number sitting on the stock market index set off a chorus of hallelujahs. After all, this was the highest mark it had hit since October 2007. (Of course, if we recall correctly, that was right around the time that all of our more recent tragic economic events began to occur.) The fluctuations of the Dow are typically pored over by the media in the same way that ancient oracles pierced through the entrails of birds, seeking for whatever path might lead to the most prosperity. And in the world of politics, partisans on both sides are quick to point to the Dow as generic confirmation that their policies are working as long as the story suits their narrative anyway. And these narratives can get wild and weird and wooly quickly. Seemingly within moments of the Dow's peak, ``Dow 36,000'' author James Glassman was on the pages of Bloomberg View, taking credit for this and crowing about how his old, failed predictions were well on the way to coming true. Of course, as Jonathan Chait points out, Glassman has to toss out the entire underlying thesis of ``Dow 36,000.'' (He and coauthor Kevin Hassett ``theorized that the stock market, circa 1999, was being so undervalued that it would have been at 36,000 in the days ahead of the massive tech-bubble burst as opposed to theorizing that ``someday, maybe the Dow would hit 36,000. Probably. You know, just watch'') in order to claim vindication now. Former Reagan domestic policy adviser Bruce Bartlett just called Glassman a ``nitwit'' and left it at that. All of which leads to an obvious point: although we recognize that the long-term trend of the stock market is that it has an overall upward trajectory--punctuated in snapshots by the susurrations of the greed/fear cycle--it is nevertheless catnip for a lot of wild-eyed prognosticators, and the over-reliance of using the stock market as evidence of economic recovery, or the proof of economic fundamentals, is acute. So what does it say about the Dow that it could hit this dizzying new height--impressive by any measure in any era, post-crash or otherwise--at a time when the overall global economic outlook is so dismal and the domestic recovery is barely felt by the citizens who sacrificed their capital to save the world from calamity? It says that we should be gravely concerned. It says that we have a two-tiered economy, one where profits flow and another where risks lurk. It says that a lot of people are being left behind, and if October 2007 is any guide, it says that this display of prosperity may simply be an illusion. The distribution of the stock market's largesse has been the most un-egalitarian aspect of American economics for years. A full 50 percent of all capital gains go not to the richest 1 percent of Americans, but to the richest 0.1 percent, according to The Washington Post. But the stock market's persistent upward climb since the spring of 2009 has revealed another massive disparity: the multinational corporate machinery that generates stock gains has become unmoored from the economic reality in which the majority of Americans live and die. The Dow hit its peak this week amid a host of gloomy global economic forecasts. Back in January, the World Bank ``sharply reduced its estimate of global economic growth in 2013, projecting that the downturn in Europe and the United States' fiscal problems will continue to weigh on investment and spending.'' The World Bank's take on U.S. growth was similarly dismal--its 1.9 percent forecast for the coming year was less than the most pessimistic estimates of our own Federal Reserve. There's no end in sight for the austerity orgy that's exacerbating Eurozone pain, despite the fact that the EU projects that their economy, ``which generates nearly a fifth of global output, will shrink 0.3 percent in 2013.'' (Analysts are currently divided on whether or not China is also experiencing a slowdown at the moment as well.) Closer to home, we received a gentle boost from this month's employment numbers: 236,000 jobs were created this past month, pending after-the-fact revisions in the months to come, which is closer to the ideal in terms of keeping ahead of labor market growth and finally digging out of the post- crash hole. The overall unemployment rate has subsequently dropped to 7.7 percent. But these numbers can mask a bevy of problems. As Matt Yglesias points out, the situation for the long-term unemployed is becoming a bona fide crisis that calls for ``targeted interventions.'' And even if the unemployment number continues to drop, there's a real concern over what sort of jobs are being added back to the economy. Will they be the quality jobs that put those entering those jobs and reentering those jobs into the labor force on a sustainable path to household prosperity? Or is everyone heading to a future of toil in Amazon shipping warehouses? It's worth being fretful, because many of those who will be entering the job market for the first time will be carrying student loans out of a period of sky-high college tuition, which taken as a whole may form the backbone of the next great financial crisis. Even as the economy has tipped and trended in the direction of what we might normally call--nominally call--``recovery,'' the answer to the question ``Who has recovered?'' reveals some stark contrast. As the University of California, Berkeley economics professor Emmanuel Saez calculated, losses in average family income during the Great Recession were felt across the board. Average real income per family declined by 17 percent. And the top income earners took it on the chin a little harder. As the bottom 99 percent experienced a 12 percent drop in average income, the uppermost percentile's income fell by 36 percent. As Saez reports, ``The sharp fall in top incomes is explained primarily by the collapse of realized capital gains due to the stock market crash.'' Of course, the top 1 percent, nevertheless, were largely sheltered from the stresses that afflicted the most vulnerable, as you would expect. What you, perhaps, didn't expect was how the recovery distributed itself across the same groups. From 2009 to 2011, average real income per family grew modestly by 1.7 percent, but the gains were very uneven. Top 1 percent incomes grew by 11.2 percent while bottom 99 percent incomes shrunk by 0.4 percent. Hence, the top 1 percent captured not 100 percent, but 121 percent of the income gains in the first 2 years of the recovery. From 2009 to 2010, the top 1 percent grew fast and then stagnated from 2010 to 2011. The bottom 99 percent stagnated both from 2009 to 2010 and from 2010 to 2011. In 2012, the top 1 percent income will likely surge due to booming stock prices, as well as the re-timing of income to avoid the higher 2013 top tax rates. The bottom 99 percent will likely grow much more modestly than top incomes from 2011 to 2012. This suggests that the Great Recession has only depressed top income shares temporarily and will not undo any of the dramatic increase in top income shares that has taken place since the 1970s. Much of the economic recovery is simply an increase in the value of financial assets--stocks and bonds. And most people just don't own stocks. In 2011, only 21 percent of American adults even had a 401(k) retirement account, according to a HuffPost analysis of data from the Investment Company Institute. Only 52 percent of all adults older than 65 receive money from financial assets at all, with half of that set receiving less than $1,260 a year, according to the Pension Rights Center. Growth that everyone relies on, like that of home values and wages, has been sluggish. At the end of 2012, the S&P/ Case-Shiller Home Price Indices were roughly where they were at the beginning of 2009 (which was roughly where they were in the fall of 2003). And even as the stock market hits this celebrated peak, the wages that average Americans are bringing home to, you know, ``put food on their family,'' as George W. Bush famously said, those are plunging into a trough, despite measurable gains in overall productivity. In fact, as Robert Reich points out, the way those productivity gains are being achieved leaves out workers altogether, and they are coming about as a result of actions taken by policymakers: ``Corporations have been investing in technology rather than their workers. They get tax credits and deductions for such investments. They get no such tax benefits for improving the skills of their employees. As a result, corporations can now do more with fewer people on their payrolls. That means higher profits.'' Reich adds: ``Joblessness all but eliminates the bargaining power of most workers, allowing corporations to keep wages low. Public policies that might otherwise reduce unemployment, a new WPA or CCC to hire the long-term unemployed, major investments in the Nation's crumbling infrastructure, have been rejected in favor of austerity economics. This also means higher profits, at least in the short run.'' In other words, the labor force is being squeezed for the very last drop of productivity, because employers know that they're holding all the cards. If the economy were approaching full employment, discontented or overworked employees would have options and leverage. Right now, they don't. If you've got a job, you need to hang on to it for dear life. That's an environment for scraping out survival, not the economic mobility we rightly celebrate during boom years. Another thing to keep in mind is that the Dow is hitting this peak at a time when everyone in the world knows that the debate over sequestration--whose cuts have awesome recession- generating powers--has gone into vapor-lock, with the GOP refusing to compromise on raising revenues, through the very tax reform proposals that formed the basis of the party's recent Presidential campaign. Everyone has been warned about the consequences of sequestration. It's just that corporate America currently has the fortunate position of being able to greet the news with a shrug, as The New York Times reported this week: ``With $85 billion in automatic cuts taking effect between now and September 30 as part of the so-called Federal budget sequestration, some experts warn that economic growth will be reduced by at least half a percentage point. But although experts estimate that sequestration could cost the country about 700,000 jobs, Wall Street does not expect the cuts to substantially reduce corporate profits, or seriously threaten the recent rally in the stock markets.'' ``It's minimal,'' said Savita Subramanian, head of United States equity and quantitative strategy at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Overall, the sequester could reduce earnings at the biggest companies by just over 1 percent, she said, adding, ``the market wants more austerity.'' Well, if that's true, the market is going to love the dire, short-term consequences that the sequestration is going to bring to many Americans closer to the ground level of the economy. Reich rounds up those who will be hit hardest and most immediately. One hundred and twenty-five thousand people are going to lose their rental subsidies. Ten thousand more will be cut off from similar subsidies intended to assist Americans living in rural areas. One hundred thousand people face getting kicked out of emergency homeless shelters, and cuts are coming to unemployment insurance, title I education programs, Head Start, and antihunger subsidies. It's not like those who bid on the stock market can't grasp the looming disaster. They're just completely unconcerned. As you may recall, the market didn't exactly take to its fainting couch as the so-called ``fiscal cliff'' loomed, either, despite dire warnings of a market spasm. That's what carting off 121 percent of an economic recovery will do for a person safely ensconced atop the income ladder. Fittingly, even as the sequestration's hammer is poised to come down, The Wall Street Journal reports that the market for luxury goods is booming. The newspaper characterizes this as evidence of economic robustness, connecting ``the economy has bounced back from recession'' to ``as a result, wealthy Americans are spending freely on expensive clothing, accessories, jewelry and beauty products.'' The Wall Street Journal quotes HSBC luxury-goods analyst Antoine Belge thusly: ``Trends in luxury consumption in the United States have continued to outperform overall consumer trends.'' This is actually evidence that you and most people you know are getting left far behind in the post-crash economy. The average participant in the overall American economy isn't fooled by any of this. They well know what Matt Phillips pointed out at Quartz, that household incomes ``haven't gone anywhere but down.'' As Phillips relates, ``Real median U.S. household income--that's ``real'' as in ``adjusted for inflation''--was $50,054 in 2011, the most recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau. That's 8 percent lower than the 2007 peak of $54,489.'' He goes on to show that consumer expectations strike a serious contrast from the mood within the Dow Jones revival tent. We are led then, inevitably, to a conclusion that we all feel but no one says aloud. And, by the way, that's my job, to say all the things that we all feel but no one says aloud. The American middle class, in other words, no longer lives in a financial economy. But the gold-standard economic metrics that we hold out as the key measurements of prosperity, the economy of Wall Street, of gross domestic product figures, of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, is purely, purely financial. For the time being, you can assume that you and everyone you care about is screwed. Congratulations.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mrs. Pura Delgado Andino, a shining example of leadership and inspiration to us all. Mrs. Delgado's distinguished career in community advocacy deserves our acknowledgement. Mrs. Delgado was born in Yabucoa, Puerto Rico on February 2, 1931. At age sixteen, she moved from Puerto Rico to New York. There Mrs. Delgado met her late husband, Jose Caraballo, and became a mother to two wonderful children. In 1967, Mrs. Delgado moved to Connecticut, where her lasting commitment to civic engagement and community participation began. Mrs. Delgado was instrumental in the creation of the Hill Health Center for Children and Youth at Yale University. Recognizing the need for a youth-oriented and minority-focused health care center, Mrs. Delgado obtained a grant to better serve these children and her community. Because of her leadership on this issue, Mrs. Delgado served as Health Education Assistant to the Center's Director. Working alongside the Dean of the Yale School of Medicine, Mrs. Delgado helped guide the school's implementation of its affirmative action program. At the time, affirmative action policies were often limited to African American students, but Mrs. Delgado encouraged the school to extend their efforts to other minority communities, such as Puerto Ricans and Mexicans. Thanks to Mrs. Delgado's involvement, the school graduated twenty-five minority students. One of these students who went on to serve his community is the Honorable Judge Wilfredo Martinez of Orlando, Florida. Drawing again on her intimate knowledge of the community and innate ability to express its needs, Mrs. Delgado obtained another grant to begin operation of the Fair Haven Health Clinic. This clinic recently celebrated its forty-third anniversary. Though Mrs. Delgado retired at age seventy-two, her record of accomplishments in the physical and mental health areas remains impressive. She has served on a variety of public service and community advisory boards, including on the Board for Progressive Action, which aimed to empower low-income communities through education, counseling, and occupational training. In 1991 Mrs. Delgado relocated to Irma Shores Lake in Orlando, Florida, where she began several small businesses and became an active member of the community. Mrs. Delgado served as a Regional Field Operator for President Bill Clinton in 1996 and helped coin the term ``I-4 Corridor''. Mrs. Delgado is a proud member of the Asociacion Borinquena de la Florida Central and currently serves as Vice Chair for the Black-Latino and Puerto Rican Alliance for Justice of Florida. Please join me in recognizing Mrs. Delgado's lifetime of civic achievement and community involvement.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 657 and 658, I was absent because my flight from Orlando had an equipment failure in mid-flight and had to return to Orlando, resulting in a lengthy delay. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, here in the House and in the Senate and with the President's pen, we make policy for America. We make foreign policy. We make security policy. We make health policy and environmental policy. And we make economic policy. And it's time to take a close look at exactly what the tax cuts for the rich have done for us for the past 9 years because now we are going to make policy for not just the next 2 years, but I believe for far longer than that. Let's simply take a look at the 9 lean years that we have experienced under tax cuts for the rich and compare them to the 9 fat years that preceded that. The first thing you'll know, which you can see from this chart here, is that in the 9 previous years before we enacted the Bush tax cuts for the rich, 23 million jobs were created. Since we enacted those tax cuts for the rich, we have lost 2 million jobs in America. The next chart shows that the average unemployment rate as a result rose from 5.5 percent approximately to well over 6 percent after we enacted the Bush tax cuts. So often I have heard that the Bush tax cuts for the rich will somehow create jobs when the record is directly to the contrary. In fact, it doesn't only affect people who work, it affects everyone. If you look at the net worth of this country, the net worth of America, the value of all of our schools, our homes, our 401(k)s, our small businesses, our cars, our furnishings, everything that we own in America, according to the Federal Reserve, in the 9 years before we enacted the Bush tax cuts, home values in America rose by 37 percent. In the 9 years after we enacted the Bush tax cuts, our home values in America rose only 13 percent. And as a result of that--because our homes are, for many of us, the most valuable thing that we own--as a result of that, our net worth as a country increased by 93 percent before we enacted the Bush tax cuts and by only 26 percent after we enacted the Bush tax cuts. Now I think that's a very important statistic. We are taking into account the rich and the poor, the black and the white, the male and the female, people all across the country. When we didn't have the Bush tax cuts, our net worth as a country increased by 93 percent. When we did, it increased only by 26 percent. Now, there's been a lot of discussion lately about the deficit, the debt. If you look at what the effect was on the deficit and on the debt, you will find that in the 9 years before we enacted the Bush tax cuts, we had on average a 2.37 percent surplus in the Federal budget. In those 9 years, we actually had a surplus on the average of 2.3 percent of gross domestic product. And since the Bush tax cuts were enacted, we have had a deficit of 8.5 percent on the average each year. We all know the dramatic effect that the decline in the economy has had on the poor and on the middle class. But let's take a short moment to look at what effect it actually had on the rich. Before we enacted the Bush tax cuts, the S&P 500 index--the most broad measure of stock market performance in the United States, 500 different companies--the S&P 500 increased in those 9 years by an amazing 285 percent. Now, since more than half of all stocks in America are owned by the top 1 percent, the most wealthy Americans, that means that the most wealthy Americans benefited by not having the Bush tax cuts to the tune of a 285 percent increase in the stock market. In contrast to that, since the Bush tax cuts were enacted, the stock market has actually gone down over the past 9 years by 11 percent. So I ask you whether you are working, whether you are not working, whether you are poor, whether you are middle class, whether you are rich, isn't it obvious what will happen if we extend these tax cuts any further? Whether it's for 1 year or for 2 years or for another 9 lean years. I think the answer is obvious. Fewer jobs, higher unemployment, a lower value to our homes, lower value to the Nation's net worth, and a drop in the stock market. That's the future that we face if we extend these pernicious tax cuts further.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Speaker, I would like to bring attention to an article written by Leticia M. Diaz at Barry University entitled ``Strengthening America.'' Dr. Diaz, who holds a PhD and a JD from Rutgers University, is the Dean of the Barry University Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law in Orlando and a member of the advisory committee for the newly formed American Bar Association Commission on Hispanic Legal Rights and Responsibilities. Strengthening America (By Leticia M. Diaz) Like millions of others, I came to America with my immigrant parents. Seizing on the opportunities and access to superior education offered by this country allowed me to not only achieve the American dream, but to give back to this nation. My story is far from unique. Like the immigrants before me, I came to the United States to seek the freedom and the opportunities unavailable in the country of my birth. Comprised of a vast immigrant population, the United States matured and expanded as a result of the great Irish and Chinese immigrations of the 1800s along with many newcomers from Europe over the years. These immigrants provided much of the labor force that built the infrastructure as our country grew into a world power. Over the years, my family and millions of other immigrants worked hard to make America into a strong, productive, and dynamic nation. Today, tens of thousands of young adults stand ready to give back to the country they call home. By opening the door to educational advancement or military service, the DREAM (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) Act before Congress benefits those youngsters who, as children, accompanied their parents to the United States. But without passage of the DREAM Act, these young people--who have already proven themselves in our schools and communities-- face a very uncertain future. The DREAM Act would grant legal status to young adults brought to the United States as undocumented immigrant children. The rigorous requirements under the Act ensure that only contributing members of society who have already proven themselves to be law-abiding citizens and dedicated students would enjoy the benefits of the Act. The stringent criterion prescribed by the DREAM Act ensures that the floodgates to illegal immigration will remain closed. Instead, the Act addresses the issue of young, undocumented children who have grown up in this country and excelled in school. As they seek to enlist in the military or continue their education and launch their careers, these motivated pro-American youngsters continue to run into unreasonable roadblocks. The DREAM Act prudently addresses those hurdles. All members of society will benefit from the DREAM Act, not just a select few. Everyone wins when we educate the youth of tomorrow, encourage them to achieve their career goals, and motivate them to become productive citizens of our great country. As an educator and a person who was born in Cuba and immigrated at an early age, I am foremost an American who recognizes the importance of providing access to education to those who are truly committed to learning and personal growth. As Americans, we have a moral obligation to address the immigration issues facing our country. The DREAM Act would be a great start to much-needed reform. As such, we urge Congress to pass the DREAM Act, blazing a trail for these young adults to become valuable, contributing members of the United States as they deserve. Madam Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to bring the DREAM Act to the floor for immediate consideration.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations on Dr. Norman Wall being honored for his many contributions to the foundation of the Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer, Israel and his continued involvement in medical advancements both in the United States and in Israel. He used his role as a medical officer in the U.S. Army during World War II to help establish what is now Israel's largest hospital and research center. Dr. Wall has not stopped giving back to the community both here and abroad. Since his move to Orlando in 1995, he has made a great impact on the Florida Hospital community. I greatly appreciate his service in the U.S. Army and his many contributions in the field of medicine. Dr. Wall has a true grasp of the concept of tikkun olam and I am inspired by his commitment to making the world a better place.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 596 on Motion on Ordering the Previous Question--H.R. 1745, I was unavoidably detained because of a transportation delay. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Speaker, we've heard endless braying from the Republicans time after time, demanding an extension of tax cuts for the rich in this country. They tell us that extending the tax cuts for the rich will somehow create jobs when we've had these tax cuts for the rich for 9 years, and I haven't noticed a whole lot of jobs being created in the last 9 years. They tell us it will dramatically boost the economy. I haven't noticed that happening for the last 9 years either. So you really have to wonder why they persist in this mania, this obsession of theirs that we need to have more tax cuts for the rich when the economy is flat on its back and unemployment is almost 10 percent. I think I have the answer. The answer turns out to be very simple. They want a tax cut for the rich because they want a tax cut for themselves. What do I mean by that? Well, let's take a look at the people who are really in charge, the ones who actually run the Republican Party. Let's start with this gentleman here, the man with the cigar, Rush Limbaugh. Doesn't he look happy? According to Newsweek, he makes $58.7 million a year, and extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich will mean that he'll have another $2.7 million. Mega dittos, Rush, and mega money. Let's look at the next one. Here's Glenn Beck. According to Newsweek, Glenn Beck makes $33 million a year as a pundit, and extending the Bush tax cuts means a cool $1.5 million for Glenn Beck's ongoing, night-by-night imitation of Howard Beale from ``Network.'' Now let's take a look at the next one. Sean Hannity. Newsweek says that Sean Hannity, this man of the people, makes $22 million a year from his act on Fox, and that means that the Bush tax cuts mean an extra $1 million for Sean Hannity. Maybe he can go now and afford some anger management classes. Let's take a look at the next one. Bill O'Reilly. He makes a modest $20 million a year from his gig on Fox. And that means that the Bush tax cuts give him not quite seven figures, merely $914,000 a year of extra cash. It's easy to see why Bill O'Reilly wants to see the Bush tax cuts extended. And I have to say he's no Pinhead when it comes to that. And now Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin has made $14 million this year from cashing in on her fame. In fact, she has done a better job of turning fame into cash than anyone in American history, $14 million. She wants the Bush tax cuts extended so she can make an extra cool $638,000. And now on to Newt Gingrich, the man who did such a great job in running America back in the 1990s that he wants a second chance in this decade. Newt, if you do to us now what you did to us then, we're going to be in big trouble. But Newt Gingrich makes $5 million a year from his punditry, which means he'll get an extra quarter million dollars a year from the Bush tax cuts being extended. And now let's go on to the Big Cheese, George W. Bush, himself, the man who got us into two endless wars, the man who brought us to the brink of national bankruptcy, the man who gave us $4-a-gallon gasoline. George W. Bush makes a cool $4.2 million a year, according to Newsweek. That means that extending the Bush tax cuts for George Bush means an extra $187,000 in his pocket every single year. I have a better idea. Instead of placating these people and letting them spew out onto the airwaves their lies about the Bush tax cuts without ever revealing the fact that they stand to gain millions, millions of dollars each year from their selfish desire to take advantage of the rest of America, let's do this: let's take that money and create jobs. All that money that the Bush tax cuts are charging us, that could create jobs for 3 million Americans a year. A $30,000 job, a fair wage for fair work, a dignified wage for dignified work, and a way to revive our economy in America. I think that's a better idea than stuffing even more money into the pockets of the rich. Because the problem in America today is not that the poor have too much money. That's not the problem at all. It's that they need jobs.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I am returning to a subject that I began yesterday. This is the second episode of what the rich are going to do with all those tax cuts that the Republicans want to give to them through extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich in lieu of the Obama tax cuts for the middle class. As I said yesterday with regard to the 1 percent top income group in this country, the high and mighty who earn more than $1.3 million a year in taxable income, according to the Republican plan each one of them will receive a tax cut, every single year, of $83,347 each year. I have given a lot of thought to what they are going do with that money. I made some suggestions yesterday, and here are some more suggestions about what they could possibly do with this windfall that the Republicans want to hand to them at a time when this country has 9.5 percent unemployment, 40 million people who cannot see a doctor when they are sick, and so many people who are in danger of losing their homes. For instance, the rich, the idle rich, the high and mighty, the ruling class, they can buy three tickets to the most expensive suite at the Super Bowl. That costs only $75,000. They will have $12,000 left over in pocket change. Here is something else that they might do with the windfall that the Republicans want to give them. They can go to the top of Mount Everest. That costs only $65,000, a luxury climb to the top of Mount Everest, with somebody holding your bag for you the whole way up. Just one thing: Make sure you don't fall down. Here is something else that they can do with the Republican tax plan to give $87,000 a year to the rich. They can take a beautiful 110-day cruise around the world. That costs only $80,000. And it is up to them what they do with the other 250 days a year, but think about that. Think about people in the middle class who struggle, save for vacation year after year, and sometimes occasionally get to go on a 3- or 4- or even a 5-day cruise. With the Republican tax cut for the rich, the millionaires can go on a 110-day luxury cruise, not just 1 year, but every single year. Here is something else that they can do. They can enjoy two nights at the Hugh Hefner SkyVilla at the Palms Casino Resort in Las Vegas. That costs only $80,000. They will have $7,000 left over for tipping the bellman. And remember, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. As I pointed out yesterday, the Republicans want to stuff so much money into the pockets of rich people in this country, the millionaires, the people who make an average of $1.3 million a year, that every single one of them, every single one of them every year for the next 10 years will be able to enjoy a luxury cigar in the morning and a luxury cigar in the evening as well, and they can light each one of those cigars with a $100 bill. Now, I don't know about you, but I'm not sure that that's the best use of $100 billion a year of tax money. I have some other ideas about what I would like to see happen. I would like to see jobs, jobs, and more jobs. If you do the arithmetic, you will find that the $100 billion a year that the Republicans want to hand over to the rich so that they can further comfort the comfortable, that could be used instead to provide a decent job, a job with a living wage, a decent day's pay for a decent day's work to 3 million Americans, and, in a single stroke, could reduce unemployment in this country from 9 percent to 7 percent; but, more importantly, take that $100 billion and make sure it actually circulates in the economy. Because what will the rich do with it? They'll keep it in their pockets; or they'll send it abroad buying luxury goods like we discussed yesterday, or they'll take a cruise around the world that adds nothing to the American economy. But if you actually did take that money and you created 3 million jobs at $30,000 a year for the American people, then you would see our economy revive overnight. When it comes down to my vote for tax cuts for the rich versus jobs, I'm going to vote for jobs.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, sometime between now and December 31 we will be discussing tax cuts--specifically, whether to extend the President Obama tax cuts for the middle class or whether to extend the George W. Bush tax cuts for the rich--and I think it is important for people to understand exactly who this money will be received by. In the case of the Obama tax cuts, like the child tax credit, it will be received by needy parents who need the money in order to pay the mortgage, pay the rent, pay their car payments, their credit card payments. And in the case of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, it will be received by the rich. In fact, for the top 1 percent of income in this country, the high and mighty, the people who make an average of $1.4 million every single year, according to these charts I am about to show, you will see the following: Mr. Speaker, the Republican plan for tax cuts is to give each millionaire, each person who makes $1.4 million a year on the average, the top 1 percent of income in this country, the high and mighty, $83,347 a year in tax cuts. $83,347 a year, according to econometric modeling by Citizens for Tax Justice. Let's give some thought as to what the high and mighty might actually do with that money. Well, here is one possibility. They can buy an $83,000 Mercedes-Benz E-Class car not just once, but every single year for the next decade. And each year when they get tired of their brand-new Mercedes-Benz E- Class car, they can just give it to somebody because they can afford another one. They can give it to a spouse, a sister, a son, a daughter, anybody. Every single year for the next 10 years, the Republican tax plan is to give millionaires enough money for a Mercedes-Benz. Here is something else they can do with it. They can buy this gorgeous Hermes bag, a Birkin, for $64,800, not once, but every single year for the next 10 years, to which they will say to the Republican party, ``Thank you very much.'' Here is something else they can do with their money. They can buy this bottle of Chateau d'Yquem wine, bottled in 1787, for only $56,588. That will leave loose change in their pocket of $25,000. They can buy a bottle of wine from 1787 every year for the next decade. Thank you, Republican Party. Here is something else they can do. They can buy 20,000 jars of their favorite mustard, Grey Poupon, 20,000 jars. That is certainly enough for them, their family, their friends, even a few poor people. Thank you, Republican party. Here is something else they can do with the $80,000 that the Republican Party wants to put in their pocket every year for the next 10 years. They can buy 800 cigars. Think about that. That is one for the morning and one for the evening, 800 luxury cigars. Then they can light each one of those cigars with a $100 bill. Thank you, Republican Party. You are letting the rich in this country enjoy two cigars each day for the next 10 years and light each one with a $100 bill. Now, I have a different idea. I think it is a better idea. These tax cuts for the rich by the Republican Party are going to cost the U.S. taxpayers $100 billion a year. Do the math. We have 14 million people in this country who are unemployed. We have 13 percent unemployment in my district. Here is an idea. Let's take that $100 billion and give 3 million Americans a job. Let's give 3 million Americans a working wage, an honest day's pay for an honest day's work, and that will revive our economy. It will immediately reduce unemployment by two points. And they will take that money and they will spend it on their rent. They will spend it on restaurants in their neighborhood. They will spend it on getting their hair cut. They will spend it on their credit card payments. They will spend it on the things they need to do to stay alive, instead of the alternative, the Republican favorite alternative, which is to have them lose their jobs, keep unemployed, and move into their cars. That is the better idea. I favor jobs, not tax cuts for the rich.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Speaker, foreclosure fraud can affect anyone, whether you have a mortgage, are paying on time, have income, or not. The average foreclosure hearing in a Florida court is 90 seconds. Mistakes are common, and fraud is rampant. Everyone is familiar with dealing with a big bureaucratic institution. What is happening is that these big bureaucratic loan servicers are charging fees inappropriately, refusing to talk to homeowners by putting calls through to call centers in India, and then foreclosing with forged documents once the homeowner has been drained of all assets and the will to fight. There is one set of rules for banks, and another set of laws for everyone else. A servicer can ask for fees, it can demand payment, it can send you to call centers in India, and it doesn't have to negotiate. And you now have virtually no rights as a homeowner. Here are four bizarre examples: (1) Last summer, Fort Lauderdale resident Jason Grodensky experienced what has tragically become an increasingly familiar process all across America: his house was sold at a foreclosure sale after a bank notified the Florida courts that Grodensky had defaulted on his mortgage. The foreclosure came as a surprise to Grodensky, according to reports from the Sun-Sentinel. Not only did Grodensky not have a mortgage with the bank that sued to foreclose against his house, he had never had a mortgage at all. Grodensky had paid cash for his home. (2) One house in Pinellas County, Florida saw two foreclosure suits brought against it because the banks didn't know who had title to the mortgage. (3) One victim with a perfect payment record of all interest and principal was foreclosed on because of a $75 contested late fee. (4) Tim and Nicole West were victims of a predatory loan. In 2005, a bank threatened to sue the couple if they didn't sign a refinancing offer. Their loan servicer subsequently raised their payments from $1900 to $5300 a month, with regular forebearance fees required in the tens of thousands of dollars. Finally, the servicer refused to accept payments from the family in the name of negotiating for a mortgage modification. Instead of modifying the loan, their servicer began foreclosure proceedings. The servicer used fraudulent documents to prove that it had the right to foreclose. Here's how it happened. Securitizating mortgages was originally a way to take the cost of a mortgage of a bank's books. From 2005 onward, the securitization chain went out of control, and Wall Street wanted as many mortgages as it could get, as quickly as possible, and as cheaply as possible. In order to allow it to pull out more fees at every link in the chain, subprime lenders, trusts, and banks decided to cut as many costs as possible, including record-keeping. They didn't keep good records, and violated the laws mandating that they had to file records with county clerks on who owned what mortgage title. Instead, banks simply digitized mortgage titles into a privatized system called the Mortgage Electronic Registry System (MERS) and did the transfers by trading Excel spreadsheets among banks and trusts rather than by endorsing the notes as required by their own contracts, state real estate law, and IRS rules. Today, MERS is the registered owner of a security interest in 60 million properties or about 60% of the mortgages in the United States. 97% of the loans originated between 2005-2008 are in MERS. It appears that on a widespread, probably pervasive basis, they did not take the steps necessary for them to own the note (a borrower IOU), which means that in 45 of 50 states, they lack the legal right to foreclose. Thus, every trust now has questionable legal standing in foreclosures in the overwhelming majority of states. In addition, the records were poorly kept, so servicers are basically guessing that they have the right to foreclose when they foreclose. Obviously, the banks do not want to grapple with the consequence of trillions of dollars of securitized mortgages having no legal standing to foreclose. So, they have simply created a system whereby servicers hire `foreclosure mill' law firms whose business is to forge documents showing that they have a legal right to foreclose. Some of these mills have been featured in the New York Times, and so-called `robo-signers', people whose names show up on thousands of affidavits, despite obvious forgeries and overt admissions that these people had no knowledge of what they were signing. The system is so organized that there is a company, Lender Processing Services, who allegedly has created the means to systemize fraud. Lawyers use the LPS system to request which affidavits and documents they need. LPS then has `document mills' where they can magically make an authorized Vice President of Whoever You Need, and send you backdated signed documents saying you have the right to foreclose. Courts at first refused to believe that this level of rampant fraud exists, but more recently, they have started to sanction fraud against loan servicers. Servicers don't make money through routine servicing; it's a break- even business. They make it at foreclosure, with a $6,000 foreclosure fee. When you combine the incentive to foreclose with systemized fraud, it's lawlessness. Fraud is now big business. And it's sanctioned in part through the government, as both Fannie and Freddie are shareholders in MERS. We're approaching the point where the easiest way to make a buck is to steal it. The only way to end this plague of foreclosure fraud is to make sure that crime does pay.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor central Florida's ``Veteran of the Month'', a local man known for his exceptional accomplishments and volunteer efforts. Former Marine Staff Sgt. Michael Sprouse is paralyzed. Despite his disability, Mike has persevered to become a world-class hand cyclist. He holds five marathon course records, and is the world record holder for speed on a downhill course. Mike also organizes and runs sporting clinics for individuals with disabilities all over central Florida and south Florida. Military service is a family tradition for Mike. His grandfather and father served in the United States Marine Corps. His father made the ultimate sacrifice in Vietnam in 1966. Mike entered the Marine Corps the day after he graduated from high school. He went on to serve 6 years as a Drill Instructor at Parris Island, the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in South Carolina. Madam Speaker, Mike Sprouse is an inspiration. Every day, he leads by example. Mike encourages others to overcome their disabilities. He is not just an exemplary veteran, he is a phenomenal person. I am proud to recognize him as Florida's 8th District Veteran of the Month.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the incredible innovations and inspiring achievements of NASA on the 52nd anniversary of their founding. As the world's space pioneers, NASA has pushed the boundaries of the possible, contributing significant scientific discovery along the way. NASA was established when President Eisenhower signed the National Aeronautics and Space Act 52 years ago today. Soon after, NASA sent the first U.S. astronaut into space through Project Mercury--Alan B. Shepard, Jr., and shortly thereafter, John Glenn became the first U.S. Astronaut to orbit the earth. NASA built upon this success with Project Gemini, collecting information on weightlessness, space docking, reentry, and executing spacewalks. Finally, in 1969, Project Apollo fulfilled President Kennedy's bold ambition to send a man to the moon before the end of the decade. We all watched as Neil Armstrong took mankind's first steps on the moon and affirmed America's place as the technological leaders of the modern world. In words that were as poetic as the occasion was meaningful, Armstrong said, ``That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.'' Buzz Aldrin quickly joined Armstrong on the moon as Michael Collins continued to circle overhead. I was 11 years old that day. I joined people everywhere in watching and celebrating this tremendous collective accomplishment. I remember it clearly. My family was on vacation, but I had persuaded my parents to let me stay in the hotel room alone all day to watch the television, so I could see these giant men take those giant steps. Their mission was a landmark moment for America, for the world, and for all time. Americans are still inspired by these men and their mission to travel over 250,000 miles of dead space to reach our closest celestial neighbor. I remember thinking then that humankind as a species is capable of true greatness. While wolves howl at the moon, humans visit it. NASA has conducted many more space flights since that historic day, and it constantly strives to contribute to humanity's knowledge of the universe and ourselves. It inspired a generation to pursue careers in science and engineering, and to believe in the power of American society. Alone in that hotel room, watching TV, I certainly felt a lasting sense of meaning--a connection to those three brave astronauts. Those astronauts represented, in that moment, America's destiny. A destiny shared by the thousands of men and women who worked to make it happen. NASA's efforts continue today, but their legacy is already assured. From inspiring children to dream to inventing the water filter, NASA has shaped American society in ways we can hardly begin to count. In this, the most competitive, technology-oriented century man has ever known, we are lucky to have an institution like NASA. An institution that will continue to spur us to achieve what was once thought impossible. Central Florida is proud of NASA and all that it has done. As a member of the Science and Technology Committee, I have great respect and admiration for NASA's contributions to space exploration. NASA has been, and continues to be, a positive and productive force for the advancement of our Nation's interests. I look forward to watching as they continue to carry us into the future.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 473 and ``no'' on No. 474. I was unable to vote on these rollcall votes because of a personal issue concerning one of my children.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Dr. Robert N. Butler, the father of modern gerontology. Dr. Butler, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, researcher, and psychiatrist, died at the age of 83 on July 4th at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York. Dr. Butler was known for coining the phrase ``ageism'' to describe the discrimination against the elderly. He made it his life work to help create a health care system in which Americans would grow old with dignity and respect. I was honored to be a co-founder and to serve on the Alliance for Aging Board with Dr. Butler. It is truly a privilege to recognize the leading advocate for the treatment and care of the elderly. Dr. Robert Butler was born in 1927 in New York, and raised by his grandparents on a chicken farm in southern New Jersey. His close bond with his grandparents sparked his passion and interest in the strength and determination of the elderly. After serving in the U.S. Maritime Service, Dr. Butler attended Columbia University, where he received his undergraduate degree in 1949 and medical degree in 1953. He studied psychiatry and neurology as a resident at the University of California; later joining National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Maryland as a research psychiatrist. He studied the central nervous system in elderly people, and helped investigate problems in nursing homes. Dr. Butler was a U.S. Public Health Service surgeon from 1955 to 1962. During the 1960's he maintained a private practice, while he was a researcher and gerontologist at the Washington School of Psychiatry. He also taught at several medical schools, including Georgetown, Howard, and George Washington Universities. In 1976, Dr. Butler became the founding director of the National Institute on Aging at the National Institute of Health. During his time there, he successfully pressed Congress to increase research funding, particularly for Alzheimer's disease. Later, he established and led one of the first comprehensive geriatrics departments at an American medical school at Mount Sinai Hospital. His efforts lead to an overhaul in the treatment of the elderly by improving the education of doctors. Throughout his career, Dr. Butler authored hundreds of articles and various books about the biology and sociology of aging. He wrote his most famous book in 1975 titled, ``Why Survive? Being Old in America'', which won him the Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction. Since its founding in 1986 until his death, Dr. Butler was the Vice Chair and served on the Board of the Alliance for Aging Research. This non-profit based in Washington, DC is the nation's leading citizen advocacy organization for promoting a broad agenda of medical and scientific research to improve the health and independence of older Americans. Madam Speaker, Dr. Butler's accomplishments are very personal to me. I help found the Alliance for Aging Research and served as an officer for 22 years. I worked closely with Dr. Butler, as he provided guidance and inspiration for the organization's mission. I am deeply saddened by the loss of a true medical pioneer, and a true friend. Dr. Butler always believed that if you love what you do and can contribute to society, then there is work to be done. He worked until three days before his death. He will be remembered for his groundbreaking work in the field of gerontology, which has changed the medical landscape and will greatly impact the lives of every American.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. My grandfather, in the 1930s, spent several years of his life, every single day, going to the dump looking for things there that he could sell, looking for things that he could take to the market and sell, because there was no other way for him to survive the 1930s and the Great Depression. There was no unemployment insurance back then. There was no State benefits back then. There was no help for the people who had no jobs. All they could do, like my grandfather, in desperate straits, supporting a family of seven, was to go to the dump and desperately try to find something he could sell. That, my friends, is the America that the Republicans are trying to revive. The America of desperate straits, and for them cheap labor. The America where people have nothing, hope for nothing, and are desperate to live to the next day. That is what the Republicans are trying to resurrect by blocking unemployment insurance day after day, week after week, and now month after month. I've got news for my Republican friends. Every single person who's going to receive unemployment insurance under this bill is unemployed. Every single one of them doesn't have a job. And that's why they need this money. Now, I know what the Republicans are thinking. They're thinking why don't they just sell some stock. If they're in really dire straits, maybe they could take some of their art collection and send it off to the auctioneer. And if they're in deep, deep trouble maybe these unemployed can sell one of their yachts. That's what the Republicans are thinking right now. But that's not the life of ordinary people, the 99 percent of America that actually has to work for a living, that doesn't just clip coupons and live off of interest and dividends like my Republican friends do. That's why we need this bill to pass, because of the 99 percent of America that deals with reality every day, the people who will lose their homes if this bill doesn't pass, the people who will be living in their cars if this bill doesn't pass. That's why we need this to pass. And I will say this to the Republicans who have blocked this bill now for months and kept food out of the mouths of children, I will say to them now, may God have mercy on your souls.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. I speak tonight in support of peace. The hardest thing that we often do as human beings is this, to admit that we are wrong. It's not easy. We all know it. We don't look forward to it. And sometimes we feel bad afterward. But we have to admit we are wrong when we are wrong, because if we don't we keep hurting ourselves. And that's exactly what we see in Iraq and Afghanistan. At this point, we are hurting ourselves. We are hurting ourselves extremely deeply. We have spent over $3 trillion pursuing these wars. That's over $10,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country. We have put our whole national economy at risk, bringing it to the brink of national bankruptcy. We have killed thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Afghans, and of Iraqis. We have shed blood all over the Middle East at this point. And in addition to that, we have done lasting damage to ourselves as a country on a moral level, on an economic level, and on a level of the health of the young men and women who serve us. A quarter of a million of them left with permanent brain abnormalities. We are hurting ourselves. We are a strong country. We decide when wars begin and when wars end, and we have to decide to end this one right now.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dedication and community leadership of Linda Sutherland in honor of Children's Awareness Month. As executive director of the Orange County Healthy Start Coalition, Mrs. Sutherland helps provide nutritional education and counseling services to pregnant woman and mothers with infants in order to ensure healthy pregnancies and babies. For 10 years, under Linda Sutherland's direction, new and expecting mothers in Central Florida have had access to support and important resources that will ensure their child receives the highest quality of health care. Children's Awareness Month focuses on bringing attention to the emotional, physical, and mental health needs of our children and youth. Linda Sutherland's leadership with the Healthy Start Coalition encourages the strengthening of maternal and child health by ensuring that all Florida families have access to a continuum of affordable and quality health and related services. Mrs. Sutherland is a graduate of Marymount College where she graduated with a degree in Business Administration. She was then elected and served for the next 12 years as an Orange County School Board Member. Over the past two decades, Mrs. Sutherland has been given numerous awards for her professional and personal achievements and contributions. The Who's Who of International Women, Orange County Public Health, and the Florida School Board Association are just a few of the organizations who have recognized her outstanding leadership and active involvement in the Central Florida community. Linda Sutherland also serves as a peer reviewer for The Maternal Child Health Journal and contributes to the State of Florida March of Dimes Planning Committee. Madam Speaker, Mrs. Sutherland's advocacy on behalf of women and children in the Central Florida community simply cannot be measured. Throughout the last 25 years, Mrs. Sutherland has demonstrated that a single person can make a difference in many lives. The Healthy Start Coalition transforms families every day by working together to reducing infant mortality and low birth weight babies. It gives me pleasure to honor Mrs. Linda Sutherland who deserves this recognition for her incredibly charitable work and philanthropy in the Central Florida community.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the amazing accomplishments and life-long dedication of Dr. Sally Ride on the anniversary of the 1983 Challenger journey that established her as the first American woman to travel into space. Since that journey, Dr. Ride, a distinguished educator and scientist, has dedicated her life to improving science education. Dr. Ride received her bachelor's degree, Master's and PhD in Physics from Stanford University. In the Stanford University paper, she saw an advertisement that NASA was seeking astronauts. Out of thousands of applicants, she was one of 35 candidates chosen for the space program. On June 18, 1983, Dr. Ride joined the crew aboard the space shuttle Challenger and, twenty-seven years ago on this date, became the first American woman to travel into space. After two journeys to space, she was preparing for her third mission when the Challenger exploded in 1986. Dr. Ride continued to work with NASA by serving as a member of the Presidential Committee investigating the Challenger accident, and went on to serve as Special Assistant to the Administrator for long- range planning at NASA headquarters. Dr. Ride continued her life-long commitment to promoting the fields of science, math, and technology, especially among young women by founding the Sally Ride Science Company in 2001. Dr. Ride wanted to share her passion and encourage young women to pursue careers in these fields. The company creates school programs and educational materials aimed at engaging young people's interest in these fields and changing society's perceptions of women in the math, science, and technology workforce. Madam Speaker, Central Florida is so proud of the space program and we recognize that its success would not be possible without the dedication of Dr. Ride. As a member of the Science and Technology committee, I have great respect and admiration for her contributions, not only to the space program, but also her work to motivate young people's interest in science. While Dr. Ride will always be known as the first American woman to travel into space, her commitment to advancing the education of future generations of young women ensure there will be many to follow.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to call for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. On June 25, 2006, exactly 4 years ago this Friday, Gilad was kidnapped by Hamas terrorists within Israeli territory, near the Karem Shalom crossing. This kidnapping was a part of an unprovoked and organized military operation by Hamas terrorists who continue to hold Gilad captive in Gaza. Throughout Gilad's captivity, the International Red Cross has requested to send representatives to assess his conditions of detention and treatment, as well as to provide medical attention to Gilad. Just recently, Hamas once again refused to give the Red Cross access to check on Gilad's well being in accordance with international law. Pierre Dorbes, deputy head of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Israel and the Territories stated that, `` . . . we have been able to visit nearly everyone detained in connection to this conflict, with the exception of Gilad Shalit.'' As negotiations for his release continue, it is important to recognize the efforts of Gilad Shalit's family and friends, particularly his mother Aviva and his father Noam to secure his release. I can only imagine the heartache and frustration that they feel as they work to help secure their son's freedom. Madam Speaker, I along with my colleagues continue to call for the unconditional release of Gilad Shalit. I urge President Obama to continue to make Gilad's release a priority for his administration as he works with all parties to resolve the ongoing conflict in the region.