Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman, and I thank the distinguished ranking member. If I might inquire of Mr. Hall, your amendment does not cut funds, it just refines the use? That is what I was trying to understand. Does your amendment cut funds?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank you. I know this is not in the bill, but I just wanted to mention a school district I have been working with where I tried to draw in private interests in helping with math and science labs. I know that as you look at the Innovation Agenda, I want to make sure we do not frighten away the private financiers as well. This happens to be a large energy company, and I am going to openly say to them, I hope you have not abandoned the commitment to the North Forest Independent School District where we were committed to science labs and math labs and math scholar teachers. So it is tracking the same innovativeness of this particular bill, and I think we can work together as a partner. I want to support the gentleman's amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Science Committee, as well as the ranking member. We have had a long and I like to think of it as a productive relationship, and it is an honor to come and acknowledge that we are finally listening to the voices of the 21st century. I want to hold up this document that claims the 110th Congress is a Congress that will move the innovation agenda. As a former member of the Science Committee I remember, as the century turned in 2000, listening to CEOs who indicated the crisis in both teaching, understanding and creative in math, science and technology. Let me rise and belatedly say I have certainly supported the last legislative initiative dealing with 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds that we just passed, and I am delighted to be able to support the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act of 2007 and to say this: Science is in fact the work of the 21st century, but we are falling behind. We don't need to hear the statistics again of how many engineers China graduates, for example, compared to the United States. This workforce cannot be prepared for the 21st century without actual investment by this country, and understanding that without researchers and scientists and engineers, we do not create work. Clearly, even though these might be considered passe and simple, but the light bulb, the typewriter, the car, all innovative aspects of our work, the airplane, created eons and years and decades of work. This legislation in particular provides an opportunity for research, and the amendment provides an opportunity for research for undergraduate scholars. At Texas Southern University, we have a transportation study program. It has a pharmacy school, all small aspects of science. It has a solar energy project that I was proud to take Members of Congress to in 2001. There are budding opportunities all over America, but what must we do to ensure that it works? We have to invest and provide the resources. We have to encourage not only students, but teachers, and then researchers that their work is valued. NASA and our move to the moon all concentrate on having those who will be researchers, technologists, readers of software, and yes, we hope, astronauts. I applaud this legislation for what it does for engineers and scientists and physicians who are pioneers of the work of the 20th century and now can be pioneers of the work of the 21st century. I believe that we have a step further to go. We need geologists. As we look at global warming, we must find ways to be efficient in the securing of energy, balancing what we call the resources of the ground as well as nuclear as well as solar. I think this is an outstanding bill, and I ask my colleagues to support it. I thank the distinguished chairman. I rise in strong support of H.R. 363, the ``Sowing the Seeds Through Science and Engineering Research Act,'' of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. This bill is the second component of the new Democratic majority's Innovation Agenda, which is designed to make our nation more able to compete successfully in the global economy. Mr. Chairman, it is essential that we invest in a workforce ready for global competition by creating a new generation of innovators and make a sustained commitment to federal research and development. We need to spur and expand affordable access to broadband, achieve energy independence, and provide small business with tools to encourage entrepreneurial innovation. H.R. 363 a critical first step. Charles Drew, Benjamin Banneker, Clarence Elder, and David Crosthwait, Jr. are only a few of the names associated with great American scientific history. These engineers, scientist, and physicians were pioneers in their respective fields, and have touched all our lives in ways that we probably never consider. Whether it is enjoying the comfortable atmosphere of Radio City Music hall, navigating the streets of Washington, DC, or having a loved one receive a blood transfusion these men have all made significant contributions to America and the world. Yet, the beautiful thing about science is its' evolutionary nature. Innovation never sleeps, and great minds are always at work. Therefore to continue the legacy of these great men, and to ensure that America is at the forefront of new technological and scientific discoveries, I rise in support of H.R. 363. Representing Houston, I realize the importance of institutions like NASA and the sense of national pride that NASA can produce when they are leading the global effort in advancing science and technology. Mr. Chairman, according to the National Academies, the most important thing we can do for our future economic health is to increase the nation's expertise in science, technology, math, and engineering. H.R. 363 represents a critical down-payment toward achieving this goal. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Ms. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 362, the ``10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act,'' of which I am proud to be a co-sponsor. This bill is the first component of the new Democratic majority's Innovation Agenda, which is designed to make our nation more able to compete successfully in the global economy. Mr. Chairman, it is essential that we invest in a workforce ready for global competition by creating a new generation of innovators and make a sustained commitment to federal research and development. We need to spur and expand affordable access to broadband, achieve energy independence, and provide small business with tools to encourage entrepreneurial innovation H.R. 362 is a critical first step. It will place highly qualified teachers in math, science, and technology K-12 classrooms, based on the recommendations of the National Academies. It will invest in 10,000 new science and math teachers, totaling some 25,000 over five years, by increasing the number of scholarships for students majoring in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields and who are committed to pursuing teaching. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 362, will also strengthen the skills of math, science and technology of up to 250,000 teachers by improving education and training opportunities for math and science teachers and expanding professional development, summer training institutes, and graduate education assistance. This important, bipartisan legislation seeks to advance science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, or STEM, education by providing for improved recruitment, training, mentoring, and professional development of teachers. The establishment and maintenance of a capable scientific and technological workforce remains an important facet of U.S. efforts to maintain economic competitiveness. Pre-college instruction in mathematics and scientific fields is crucial to the development of U.S. scientific and technological personnel, as well as our overall scientific literacy as a nation. The value of education in scientific and mathematics is not limited to those students pursuing a degree in one of these fields, and even students pursuing nonscientific and nonmathematical fields are likely to require basic knowledge in these subjects. In particular, there is a need to extend access to mathematics and scientific education to a number of specific groups. Even as certain minorities, including African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, comprise an increasingly large proportion of the U.S. population, they continue to be underrepresented in science and engineering disciplines. Together, these three groups comprise over 25 percent of the population, but earn only 16.2 percent of the bachelor degrees, 10.7 percent of the masters degrees, and 5.4 percent of the doctorate degrees in these fields. This legislation amends the National Science Foundation (NSF) Authorization Act of 2002 by revising the requirements for the Robert Noyce Scholarship program. This important program provides scholarships, stipends, and teacher training to science, mathematics, and engineering students and professionals, in exchange for a commitment to service as elementary or secondary school teachers following graduation. H.R. 362 also provides for summer institutes and graduate programs through the Mathematics and Science Education Partnership program. It authorizes $195 million from FY 2008 to FY 2012 for the operation of an already existing NSF program to provide summer workshops for teachers. It authorizes additional funds to establish a new grant program aimed at encouraging the development of graduate degree programs for math and science teachers. This bill provides increasing funding for fiscal years 2010 through 2012 for the NSF STEM Talent Expansion program, and authorizes the NSF to create pilot programs to award grants to improve laboratories in secondary schools. Mr. Chairman, according to the National Academies, the most important thing we can do for our future economic health is invest in our science and math teachers. A number of highly publicized studies have shown that the mathematics and science achievement of American students is poor by international standards. In 2005, 39 percent of 12th graders lacked even basic high school math skills. H.R. 362 has been endorsed by a broad range of businesses and universities as well as industry and education groups, including the Business Roundtable, Association of American Universities, Council on Competitiveness, the College Board, Semiconductor Industry Association and the Business Software Alliance. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from California for convening us this evening and providing such leadership to the issue of health disparities. And also I believe it is enormously important to emphasize the collaborative work between the Asian Pacific Caucus, of which I am a member, the Hispanic Caucus, of which I am an adopted daughter, and the Congressional Black Caucus. I am also very pleased to be on the floor with our chair of the Congressional Black Caucus health brain trust, which I have been a Member on, I believe, for as long as I can remember, to join us for what is really an indictment of American society. It is an indictment of this government, frankly, and the correction that is due is long overdue. That is the whole question of health disparities. We have heard an eloquent presentation by Hilda Solis on the question of diabetes. We heard from the distinguished gentlewoman from Guam who spoke about the Pacific illnesses that impact the Asian Pacific community, and I rise to speak holistically about the health crisis in America that does not address the longstanding question of disparities in health care. I am reminded of an African American gentleman in a Florida hospital just a few years ago who was to go into surgery and hopefully had all the T's crossed and I's dotted. Lo and behold, the wrong leg was amputated. He obviously suffered from, as we call in our community, sugar diabetes, and rather than be cured, unfortunately, his situation was made worse by amputating the wrong leg. There is extensive documentation that indicates that the question of health access or access to health care falls heavily on minorities, and particularly African Americans. In fact, there is data to suggest that African Americans, when given access to the Nation's hospitals and other health facilities, that the care is less than it is for other populations. That, in itself, does not speak to the greatness of this Nation and the fact that this Nation is considered a world power. If you want to speak to inequities of language, you will find in Hispanic communities, in particular, that before we started moving on community health clinics and really making a push to have culturally sensitive treatment, you will find in many instances that there was a lack of ability to communicate with Hispanic populations because of the language barrier. These, my friends, were citizens, people who were permanent legal residents, who could not get the proper health care. Today, I rise to acknowledge the importance of National Minority Health Month, but really to give us a challenge that we maybe have come this far by faith, as many of us have been known to say, but we have a mighty long way. Let me just share some of the indictments of poor health care in America. African American adolescents accounted for 65 percent of new AIDS cases reported among teens in 2002, although they only account for 15 percent of American teenagers. We also recognize that the leading cause of death of young African American males between the ages of 15 and 24, that cause is not disease or accidental death, but homicide. We recognize, as has been already noted, that obesity is an increasing dilemma for America. It certainly is a dilemma for minority populations and African Americans. Let me express appreciation for joining Congressman Donald Payne a few weeks ago for a very exciting conference on obesity, so much so that it was contagious. Those of us, as Members of Congress who were able to attend, with the University of New Jersey medical and dental school, are going to repeat that conference around the country. I know that we in Houston look forward to hosting a conference on obesity. A few weeks ago, the Congressional Children's Caucus hosted, with the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, a briefing on obesity, where we focused on what happens to obese children and obese infants as well. Just a couple of days ago, I believe Friday, I was very gratified to participate with the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and the CBC Health Brain Trust on the status of African American men, questions of mental health, the question of homicide, HIV/AIDS, domestic violence, abuse, and the preservation of the good health of African American men. Every time I rise to speak about this question, I pay tribute to my father, my late father, a man who worked hard for his family, who believed that no job was beneath him to support his family, a man who was a brilliant artist. But because of segregation, the work that he had, he was, if you will, replaced when men came back who happened to be white, from World War II. But even with all of those trials and tribulations, he kept his hand involved in art, and in the later part of his life, he got another chance to work 10 years for one of the comic book companies in New York. Who would have thought that he would have been a victim of prostate cancer. When I say a victim, not diagnosed, so much so that ultimately it metastasized to his lung and his brain. My most visual memory of him was him laying in a fetal position in a hospital bed, way before the time, and he died of that dastardly disease. But I think one of the challenges was that in the male line of our family, that cancer is prevalent, but not being diagnosed, or having access to health care that would inform us, we saw uncles pass without really knowing what they were dying of. So today, now, 2007, a tribute to my father, Ezra Jackson, and relatives across America who have died undiagnosed, whose families were not aware of, maybe, the DNA or their characteristics for these diseases, because of the poor access to health care. We stand today, one, wanting a universal access to health care system; two, passing the Congressional Black Caucus and the bill that went to the Senate, dealing with disparities in health care, that, as I understand, Dr. Christensen, we never got passed. We need to get it passed in this Congress. Then I would just simply say that each of us must hold forums in our districts on the question of disparities in health care. As I do the obesity one, we look forward to putting together an advisory committee on black males that talks about health care as well. Let me close by simply saying that I could recount for you any number of statistics on health care. I think my colleagues have accurately pronounced these challenges. But let me give a roll call to show you where we have these devastating, if you will, disparities, so that you won't think that we are limited, hypertension, high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, gall bladder disease, osteoarthritis, asthma, bronchitis, sleep apnea and other respiratory problems, cancer, which is breast, colon and endometrial. We expect that we will do a better job of trying, if you will, of trying to improve the health conditions in America. We must do so. It is a civil rights issue. I want to thank you so much for highlighting and provoking us to be part of the change of creating opportunities for better health for all Americans, and particularly those experiencing these health disparities. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor and recognize the importance of National Minority Health Month. National Minority Health Month is a very important time to bring awareness to the many health concerns facing minority communities. My colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus and I understand the very difficult challenges facing us in the form of huge health disparities among our community and other minority communities. We will continue to seek solutions to those challenges. It is imperative for us to improve the prospects for living long and healthy lives and fostering an ethic of wellness in African-American and other minority communities. I wish to pay special tribute to my colleague, Congresswoman Donna Christensen, the Chair of the CBC Health Braintrust, for organizing an important conference last week on the health and wellness of African-American males. I thank all of my CBC colleagues who been toiling in the vineyards for years developing effective public policies and securing the resources needed to eradicate racial and gender disparities in health and wellness. Let me focus these brief remarks on what I believe are three of the greatest impediments to the health and wellness of the African-American community and other minority communities. The first challenge is combating the scourge of HIV/AIDS. Second, we must reverse the dangerous trend of increasing obesity in juveniles and young adults. Finally, we must confront the leading cause of death of young African- American males between the ages of 15-24; that cause is not disease or accidental death, but homicide.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentlelady from California (Ms. Watson) for her dedicated commitment and Mr. Calvert, two Californians who have come together on this sad but really commemorative time. Madam Speaker, I want to lift my voice a little bit, because there are some things that we say in the church about home-going services or memorials, is that they are, in fact, a celebration of life. I clearly believe that as I have listened to my colleagues, and as I will continue to listen to my colleagues, we really are celebrating Juanita Millender-McDonald's life. We are celebrating our friendship and how we care for her, how she cared for us. My first remarks are that our mayor has fallen, the mayor of our city, the City of Congress, the comings and goings of Members and staff, traffic and various personnel, law enforcement. This was her love, as she first started as a ranking member of the House Administration Committee and then had the honor of being appointed by the new Speaker of the House, a woman, to be the chairwoman of the House Administration Committee. But I do want to say, before I comment further, that Juanita had a bigger smile when she was around her husband, Jim, her five children and her grandchildren. She sparkled when she brought her grandchildren to the floor of the House and made sure that everybody knew those beautiful and lovely children who, in fact, seemed to have a very strong and proud bond with their grandmother. They were proud of this regal woman who came to the floor of the House as a Member of the United States Congress. Juanita was a doer, and she used to often speak of her beginnings with a Baptist father, preacher, a close-knit family, and her deep roots in Birmingham, Alabama, knowing what a segregated South was all about, a segregated America. Though she fought against it, she didn't let it bring her down, discourage her. Off she went to California, and she became a true daughter of California, with all of the attributes that great State allows you to have. She did things to make life better. She had a great sense of hope and spirit about her women's march against AIDS, and each year the numbers kept growing up and up and up. She would tell me, coming back, thousands of women marched against HIV/AIDS to find a cure, to stop the devastation in women. We were so proud when, for the first time, she was able to bring us together around women in the military. The last time I was there, the curator of that museum said, you know, Juanita started this. We now have become so important because of Juanita. Then, of course, she worked with the library and those workers over there. Juanita was someone who believed in getting things done, not for herself, but for others. As I close, let me thank Marcy Kaptur for giving this very special commemoration that has Nancy Pelosi's name on it, the votes that Nancy won by, Marcy's name as an elector or counter, tally person, and there is Juanita Millender-McDonald, who had, as her final work, the true integrity and transparency of elections all over America. Truly, we want to thank her, we love her. We love you, Juanita. This is a celebration of your life.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a national treasure and American icon on the occasion of her 95th birthday. I am speaking, of course, of the incomparable, irrepressible, and legendary Dorothy Irene Height. For more than half a century, Dorothy Irene Height has played a leading role in the never ending struggle for equality and human rights here at home and around the world. Her life exemplifies her passionate commitment for a just society and her vision of a better world. Dorothy Height was born in Richmond, VA, on March 24, 1912, and educated in the public schools of Rankin, PA, a borough of Pittsburgh, where her family moved when she was four. She established herself early as a dedicated student with exceptional oratorical skills. After winning a $1,000 scholarship in a national oratorical contest on the United States Constitution, sponsored by the Fraternal Order of the Elks, and compiling a distinguished academic record, she enrolled in New York University where she earned both her bachelor and master's degrees in just 4 years. She continued her postgraduate studies at Columbia University and the New York School of Social Work. In 1933, Dorothy Height joined the United Christian Youth Movement of North America where her leadership qualities earned her the trust and confidence of her peers. It was during this period that she began to emerge as an effective civil rights advocate as she worked to prevent lynching, desegregate the armed forces, reform the criminal justice system, and provide free access to public accommodations. In 1935, Dorothy Height was appointed by New York government officials to deal with the aftermath of the Harlem riot of 1935. As Vice President of the United Christian Youth Movement of North America, Dorothy Height was one of only ten American youth delegates to the 1937 World Conference on Life and Work of the Churches held in Oxford, England. Two years later she was selected to represent the YWCA at the World Conference of Christian Youth in Amsterdam, Holland. It was in 1937, while serving as Assistant Executive Director of the Harlem YWCA, that Dorothy Height met Mary McLeod Bethune, founder and president of the National Council of Negro Women (NCNW). Mrs. Bethune was immediately impressed with young Dorothy Height's poise and intelligence and invited her to join the NCNW and assist in the quest for women's rights to full and equal employment, pay and education. In 1938, Dorothy Height was one of ten young Americans invited by Eleanor Roosevelt to Hyde Park, NY, to help plan and prepare for the World Youth Conference to be held at Vassar College. For the next several years, Dorothy Height served in a dual role: as a YWCA staff member and NCNW volunteer, integrating her training as a social worker and her commitment to rise above the limitations of race and sex. She rose quickly through the ranks of the YWCA, from working at the Emma Ransom House in Harlem to the Executive Directorship of the Phyllis Wheatley YWCA in Washington, DC, to the YWCA National Headquarters office. For 33 years, from 1944 through 1977, Dorothy Height served on the staff of the National Board of the YWCA and held several leadership positions in public affairs and leadership training and as Director of the National YWCA School for Professional Workers. In 1965, she was named Director of the Center for Racial Justice, a position she held until her retirement. In 1952, Dorothy Height lived in India, where she worked as a visiting professor in the Delhi School of Social Work at the University of Delhi, which was founded by the YWCAs of India, Burma and Ceylon. She would become renowned for her internationalism and humanitarianism. She traveled around the world expanding the work of the YWCA. She conducted a well-received study of the training of women's organizations in five African countries: Liberia, Ghana, Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Nigeria under the Committee of Correspondence. Dorothy Height loved and led her sorority, Delta Sigma Theta. She was elected National President of the sorority in 1947 and served in that capacity until 1956. She led the sorority to a new level of organizational development, initiation eligibility, and social action throughout her term. Her leadership training skills, social work background and knowledge of volunteerism benefited the sorority as it moved into a new era of activism on the national and international scene. In 1957, Dorothy Height was elected the fourth National President of NCNW and served in that position for 40 years, when she became Chair of the Board and President Emerita. In 1960, Dorothy Height was the woman team member leader in the United Civil Rights Leadership along with Martin Luther King, Jr., Whitney H. Young, A. Philip Randolph, James Farmer, Roy Wilkins and John Lewis. In 1961, while Dorothy Height was participating in major Civil Rights leadership, she led NCNW to deal with unmet needs among women and their families to combat hunger, develop cooperative pig banks, and provided families with community freezers and showers. In 1964, after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, Dorothy Height with Polly Cowan, an NCNW Board Member, organized teams of women of different races and faiths as ``Wednesdays in Mississippi'' to assist in the freedom schools and open communication between women of different races. The workshops which followed stressed the need for decent housing which became the basis for NCNW in partnership with the Department of Housing and Urban Development to develop Turnkey III Home Ownership for low-income families in Gulfport, MS. In 1970, Dorothy Height directed the series of activities culminating in the YWCA Convention adopting as its ``One Imperative'' to the elimination of racism. That same year she also established the Women's Center for Education and Career Advancement in New York City to prepare women for entry-level jobs. This experience led her in 1975 to collaborate with Pace College to establish a course of study leading to the Associate Degree for Professional Studies (AAPS). In 1975, Dorothy Height participated in the Tribunal at the International Women's Year Conference of the United Nations in Mexico City. As a result of this experience, NCNW was awarded a grant from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to hold a conference within the conference for women from the United States, African countries, South America, Mexico and the Caribbean. This was followed with a site visit with 50 of the women to visit with rural women in Mississippi. Under the auspices of the USAID, Dorothy Height lectured in South Africa after addressing the National Convention of the Black Women's Federation of South Africa near Johannesburg (1977). Since 1986, she has worked tirelessly to strengthen the Black family. Madam Speaker, under the leadership of Dorothy Height: NCNW achieved tax-exempt status in 1966; NCNW dedicated the statue of Mary McLeod Bethune in Lincoln Park, Washington DC in 1974--the first woman to be so honored on public land in the Nation's Capital; developed model national and community-based programs ranging from teenage parenting to pig ``banks''--which addressed hunger in rural areas; established the Bethune Museum and Archives for Black Women, the first institution devoted to black women's history; established the Bethune Council House as a national historic site; transformed NCNW into an issue-oriented political organization, sponsoring ``Wednesdays in Mississippi'' when interracial groups of women would help out at Freedom Schools organizing voter registration drives in the South and fostering communications between black and white women; and established the Black Family Reunion Celebration in 1986 to reinforce the historic strengths and traditional values of the black family. Among the major awards bestowed upon Dorothy Irene Height in gratitude and appreciation for her service to our Nation and the world are the following: Presidential Medal of Freedom presented by President Bill Clinton; Congressional Gold Medal presented by President George W. Bush; John F. Kennedy Memorial Award; NAACP--Spingarn Medal; Hadassah Myrtle Wreath of Achievement; Ministerial Interfaith Association Award; Ladies Home Journal--Woman of the Year; Congressional Black Caucus-- Decades of Service; President Ronald Reagan--Citizens Medal; Franklin Roosevelt--Freedom Medal; Essence Award; and the Camille Cosby World of Children Award. Dorothy Height was also elected to the National Women's Hall of Fame and is the recipient of 36 honorary degrees from colleges and universities as diverse as: Tuskegee University, Harvard University, Spelman College, Princeton University, Bennett College, Pace University, Lincoln University, Columbia University, Howard University, New York University, Morehouse College, and Meharry Medical College. Madam Speaker, Dorothy Height has witnessed or participated in virtually every major movement for social and political change in the last century. For nearly 75 years, Dorothy Height has fought for the equality and human rights of all people. She was the only female member of the ``Big 6'' civil rights leaders (Whitney Young, Jr., A. Philip Randolph, Martin Luther King, Jr., James Farmer, and Roy Wilkins). Her vision and dedication made NCNW the premier organization in advocating for the health, education and economic empowerment for all women of African descent around the world. Thank you, Dorothy Height, for your service to our Nation. You have made America a better place for all persons of all races, religions, and backgrounds. You have mentored hundreds, been a role model to thousands, and a hero to millions. You are an American original. I am glad to count you as a friend.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished Speaker, the distinguished chairman of the full committee, and certainly my colleagues who are here, because I believe that there should be a sense of honesty and integrity that is attributed to all of my colleagues, despite their positions on this issue. I rise today, Mr. Chairman of the full committee, acknowledging that my full statement will be put into the Record. But I really want to engage in a dialogue and a discussion because I am grateful that this committee, looking at Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton's legislation and Congressman Davis' legislation was thoughtful as it relates to the Constitution. And that is what the American people ask us to do: they want us to be thoughtful as it relates to the Constitution; they want us to be fair. Many people have heard of this as the D.C. Voting bill, but they may not be aware of the provision that deals with Utah, people there who have not had an opportunity to cast their vote, one person-one vote. That is what this is all about. It is a simple question of allowing those who pay taxes, whose blood rains on the front lines around the world for our freedom, to have the constitutional privilege of voting. Now, you will hear those who oppose suggest that there is a provision in the Constitution that indicates the word ``States,'' and that voting is, if you will, attributable to the word ``States.'' We have already heard the historical perspective, you have already been told to ask the people of Maryland, but there is another constitutional provision. And so you have interpretations that will allow scholars to have a scholarly debate. The other constitutional provision indicates that this Congress does have the authority to provide, if you will, a balance of power, a sense of fairness to the nonvoting people of the District of Columbia. I would hope that we, who are constitutionally grounded, a democracy that has lasted now 400 years-plus, would err on the side of giving rights to people who are deserving of those rights, their birthright being that they are American citizens. That is why I come to the floor of the House to challenge and to chime these words: We all are created equal, with certain inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is a declaration of independence, and the Constitution says we formed this body to create a more perfect Union. Can we be in a perfect Union if there are citizens of the United States who are not able to cast their vote? I ask my colleagues to consider that, and I ask us to support enthusiastically H.R. 1905, to err on the side of the birthright of American citizens and the right to vote. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1905, the ``District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007,'' and thank the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his leadership in shepherding this important piece of legislation to the floor. Today we remove a stain that has blighted our Nation for more than 200 years. Today, we vote to end 2 centuries of shame and correct an injustice to the citizens of the District of Columbia. H.R. 1905 permanently expands the U.S. House of Representatives from 435 to 437 seats, providing a new, at-large seat to Utah and a vote to the District of Columbia. Based on the 2000 Census, Utah is the state next in line to enlarge its Congressional delegation. The bill does not give the District statehood, nor does it give the District representation in the Senate. Rather, in H.R. 1905 Congress is simply treating the District as a Congressional district for the purposes of granting full House representation, as it can pursuant to the grant of plenary power over the District of Columbia conferred by the Constitution in Article I, section 8, clause 17. At the outset, let me address the claim that H.R. 1905 is a weak foundation upon which to base the District's voting rights in the House because it is a statutory rather than a constitutionally based remedy. The argument should be rejected for the simple reason that it makes the perfect the enemy of the good. It is like asking a person to remain homeless while she saves to buy a house even though she has enough money to rent an apartment. Mr. Speaker, let us not lose sight of one indisputable and shameful fact: nearly 500,000 people living in the District of Columbia lack direct voting representation in the House of Representatives and Senate. Residents of the District of Columbia serve in the military, pay billions of dollars in Federal taxes each year, and assume other responsibilities of U.S. citizenship. For over 200 years, the District has been denied voting representation in Congress--the entity that has ultimate authority over all aspects of the city's legislative, executive, and judicial functions. Mr. Speaker, if a person can be called upon to pay Federal taxes and serve in the armed forces of the United States, then he or she should at least have the opportunity to vote for a representative who could at least cast a symbolic vote in this chamber on critical matters facing our Nation. Issues like war and peace, equality and justice. Mr. Speaker, taxation without representation is tyranny. It is unconscionable that more than a half million American citizens are being unconscionably denied a vote and a voice in the most important legislative body in the world. As a supporter of freedom, democracy, and equality, I believe that it is long overdue for the citizens of the District of Columbia to have a representative in Congress who can vote on the vital legislation considered in this body. Mr. Speaker, it is wrong that we must be reminded daily by license plates in the District of Columbia that ``Taxation without representation is tyranny.'' The people in Boston felt so strongly about this in 1775 that they rebelled in Boston Harbor, launching the ``Boston Tea Party.'' The principle that political authority derives from the consent of the government is no less applicable when it comes to the District of Columbia. Let us be clear. There is no dispute that hundreds of thousands of American citizens reside in the District of Columbia. We all agree that universal suffrage is the hallmark of a democratic regime, of which the United States is the world's leading exemplar. None of us believes it is fair that citizens of the District of Columbia pay Federal taxes, risk life and limb fighting wars abroad to protect American democracy and extend the blessings of liberty to people living in foreign lands. In short, there is no moral reason to deny the citizens of the District of Columbia the right to full representation in Congress. The only question is whether Congress has the will and the constitutional authority to do so. As I will discuss, Congress has always had the constitutional authority. For the last 12 years, we have not had the will; but now we do. I. Congress Can Grant Voting Rights to the District Under the District Clause As Professor Dinh argued in his powerful testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Congress has ample constitutional authority to enact H.R. 1905 under the Constitution's ``District Clause.'' Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 17. The District Clause empowers Congress to ``exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District'' and thus grants Congress plenary and exclusive authority to legislate all matters concerning the District. The text, history and structure of the Constitution, as well as judicial decisions and pronouncements in analogous or related contexts, confirms that this broad legislative authority extends to the granting of Congressional voting rights for District residents. The District Clause, which has been described by no less a constitutional authority as Judge Kenneth Starr as ``majestic in its scope,'' gives Congress plenary and exclusive power to legislate for the District. Courts have held that the District Clause is ``sweeping and inclusive in character'' and gives Congress ``extraordinary and plenary power'' over the District. It empowers Congress to legislate within the District for ``every proper purpose of government.'' Congress therefore possesses ``full and unlimited jurisdiction to provide for the general welfare of citizens within the District of Columbia by any and every act of legislation which it may deem conducive to that end,'' subject, of course, to the negative prohibitions of the Constitution. Although the District is not a state for purposes of Congress's Article I, section 2, clause 1, which states that members of the House are chosen ``by the people of the several States,'' this fact is not dispositive of Congress's authority under the District Clause to give residents of the District the same rights as citizens of a state. Since 1805, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has the authority to treat the District like a state, and Congress has repeatedly exercised this authority. No court has ever sustained a challenge to Congress's exercise of its power under the District Clause. Two related Supreme Court cases illustrate this point. In Hepburn v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. 445 (1805), the Court held that the diversity jurisdiction provision of Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution excluded citizens of the District of Columbia. The Court observed, however, that it was ``extraordinary'' that residents of the District should be denied the same access to federal courts provided to aliens and state residents, and invited Congress to craft a solution, noting that the matter was ``a subject for legislative, not judicial consideration.'' Congress accepted that invitation 145 years later and enacted legislation that explicitly granted District residents access to federal courts on diversity grounds. That legislation was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1949 in National Mutual Insurance Company v. Tidewater Transfer Company, 337 U.S. 582 (1949). A plurality of the Court led by Justice Jackson held that Congress could for this purpose treat District residents as though they were state residents pursuant to its authority under the District Clause. The two concurring justices would have gone even further; they argued that Hepburn should be overruled and that the District should be considered a state for purposes of Article III. Tidewater strongly supports Congress's authority to provide the District a House Representative via simple legislation. As the plurality explained, because Congress unquestionably had the greater power to provide District residents diversity-based jurisdiction in special Article I courts, it surely could accomplish the more limited result of granting District residents diversity-based access to existing Article III courts. Similarly, Congress's authority to grant the District full rights of statehood (or grant its residents voting rights through retrocession) by simple legislation suggests that it may, by simple legislatipn, take the more modest step of providing citizens of the District with a voice in the House of Representativ. Indeed, since Congress has granted voting representation to residents of Federal enclaves in Evans v. Cornman, 398 U.S. 419 (1970), and to Americans living abroad through the Overseas Voting Act, there is no reason to suppose that Congress has less ability to provide voting representation to the residents of the Nation's Capital. II. Congress May Direct the Next-Entitled State to Elect Its Additional Representative at Large H.R. 1905 also grants an additional congressional seat to the State of Utah as the next-entitled state and directs that State to elect its additional Representative at large, rather than creating an additional single-member district. Congress plainly has the authority to do so. This statutory scheme does not violate the ``one person, one vote'' principle. As the Supreme Court held in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), ``the command of Article I, Section 2 [of the Constitution], that Representatives be chosen `by the People of the Several States' means that as nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's.'' In that case the Court struck down a Georgia apportionment statute because it created a congressional district that had two-to-three times as many residents as Georgia's 9 other congressional districts. The Court stated: The apportionment statute thus contracts the value of some votes and expands that of others. If the Federal Constitution intends that when qualified voters elect members of Congress each vote be given as much weight as any other vote, then this statute cannot stand. ``One person, one vote'' concerns arise when congressional districts within a State contain different numbers of residents, diluting the voting power of residents in the district with more residents. In contrast, here the proposed temporary ``at large'' district in Utah does not dilute the voting power of any Utah voter. When Utah holds its at large election for the new fourth seat, Utah voters may cast a vote in their existing district and in the State-wide election for the fourth seat. While it is true that the statewide ``at large'' district will necessarily contain more residents than the other districts, the establishment of that ``at large'' district would create no constitutional dilution concerns. Each person's vote in the ``at large'' district would have equal influence, and the opportunity to cast that vote would not alter in any way the value of that person's vote in her own smaller district. Nor does a potential ``one person, one vote'' challenge arise on the ground that Utah residents vote in two elections while residents of other States with single-member districts would vote only once. First, the Supreme Court has never held that the ``one person, one vote'' principle applies to the apportionment process. Indeed, the Court has held that Congress is entitled to substantial deference in its apportionment decisions. Second, the proposed at large election does not give residents of the State more or less voting power than the residents of States with single-member districts. The example cited by Richard Bress, one of the witnesses who testified before the Judiciary Committee in support of the bill, illustrates why this is so. Suppose that State A and State B have roughly the same population and are each entitled to four Representatives. State A holds an at-large election for all four of its representatives, while State B divides its Representatives and voters into four districts. State A's state-wide district would have a population four times the size of each district in State B. As compared to the single-district voter in State B, the ``at large'' voter in State A has a one-fourth interest in each of 4 representatives. The single-district voter in State B has a whole interest in one representative. But in both scenarios, each voter has, in the aggregate, one whole voting interest. Similarly, as compared to a state with four single-member districts, the voters in Utah's existing three districts would have proportionately less Influence In the election of the representative from their own district, but would gain a fractional interest in the State's at-large representative. In short, Utah residents would have no more (and no less) voting power than residents of any other State. III. Conclusion For these reasons, I believe H.R. 1905 is constitutionally unassailable. Granting voting rights to the citizens of the District of Columbia is a matter of simple justice. I know it morally right. It is also long overdue. Let us end this injustice and be true to the better angels of our nature. I urge all members to vote to join me in voting for H.R. 1905.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be on the floor with such a distinguished Speaker. Just a few minutes ago, we cast a vote that, again, reaffirms the crucialness and the necessity of moving forward with the emergency supplemental. The motion states that this House, which it did, reaffirms the deadlines for the redeployment of the United States forces in Iraq that were contained in the House- passed emergency supplemental, a legislative initiative that captured, not the personal wants of individual Members, but responded to the immediacy of the crisis of the conflict in Iraq. It is a commonsense document. And even now, in the backdrop of 198 brutally killed in the marketplace, most likely sustained by the false representation that there is now security in Baghdad, almost 200 persons died, which indicates, although our military strongly has defended its role and can claim a military success, we have a failed foreign policy. And so I rise today to proudly reaffirm my commitment to deadlines as relates to redeploying of our troops. It may be that the military goes to battle, but, in fact, a nation goes to war. We owe the brave men and women of the United States military, the National Guard, the Reserves, the Air National Guard, and all aspects of the United States military, their families, the civilian force the obligation of a true and thoughtful policy that will work. The conflict in Iraq does not work. And the sadness is that even the government, the coalition government is falling apart. Some may argue, of course, that that suggests that we should stay the course; that we will look like we are bending to the enemy. Those of us who understand the vastness of this crisis realize that we must never falter in our war against terror. We must never let al Qaeda win, but we cannot allow our soldiers to be the targets of a sectarian war. Now, this legislation does not in any way tell the generals how to logistically move their troops. What it does do is give the policy commitment to the timelines to bring our soldiers home. It is clear that the military action has already been a success. And I commend my colleagues to H.R. 930, my legislation, A Military Success Act of 2007 and A Diplomatic Surge Act of 2007. It is now time to declare a military victory. Our soldiers have discovered there are no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has been deposed and been, if you will, displaced, and we have a government in place. But none of that can be, now, held for a reason that the soldiers must stay in place. Logistically, the generals may decide to redeploy these troops to the border, redeploy them to Kuwait. We allow and also defend the right of the United States military to give a logistical response to our policy demand. This is a demand of the American people. Sixty-nine percent of the American people, now, today, believe that we should leave Iraq. That is a gradual increase. I believe that Americans are patriots. They never cut and run. They will stand and defend their Nation. But we have an obligation, as Members of Congress holding the purse strings, to never frivolously send our soldiers into battle. We have an obligation, as the emergency supplemental has done, to provide post- traumatic stress dollars, prosthetics, mental health needs, improving Walter Reed, helping military families, and, yes, helping children have universal access to health care. We have a crisis in Iraq. It is a crisis made by the continuing failed policies of this administration. Wake up. We owe a moral commitment to the soldiers on the battlefield. I am proud to have made that vote. I will make it again. And, frankly, I am concerned that when the olive branch of conciliation has been extended to this administration to come up with a real resolution to solve this war, we get a blank check from them, or at least no response. And so I ask my colleagues to stay the course on behalf of the American people and the patriots who are on the front line of Iraq. We owe them our duty to provide for them the right kind of road map.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would be happy to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman of the full Committee on Financial Services and the ranking member. Let me answer, in the course of debating or discussing this amendment, a question that was raised in debate earlier today, and it made the point that nothing is being done. Let me make a resounding point of opposition to that statement and say, yes, something is being done. It is making the shareholders of America stakeholders in the major corporations of America. It's making them relevant. It's making them equal, if you will, to those who make decisions about the termination of employees, the direction of business, and yet have no input from the holders of the company on the compensation of the chief executive. This is a positive step in the right direction. It is a light at the end of the tunnel. And I say that because most recently we heard of the most shocking termination of large numbers of employees of Citicorp. But some 24 hours later, we heard a small voice say that also the CEO would be looking to cut his compensation to let the shareholders know and the employees know that he, too, would experience the pain of cutbacks. My amendment simply augments this legislation by suggesting, or requiring, that the votes that were taken by the shareholders be actually posted. So even though this is a nonbinding vote, all might be able to see. And I know that there are certainly other means of reporting this particular vote count, but I think it would be important to do so. Now, let me indicate that I want this bill to pass, and frankly, I want to find every way that we never have an Enron or WorldCom where individuals such as a Mr. Fastow had an enormous latitude of salary but wasn't worried about bringing the company down. I want to work with this committee as we move forward.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, let me indicate in conclusion my desire to work with this committee, particularly since such a great impact has been experienced by those in the Houston area and certainly around the country. With that in mind, my intent was, of course, to further enhance the rights of stakeholders and shareholders. I look forward to working with the chairman and more importantly look forward to the compliance when this bill becomes law so that all are, if you will, in concert with the prompt and efficient leadership of America's corporations. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on my amendment to H.R. 1257, the ``Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act.'' My amendment is a step towards transparency. By requiring the company to post in a prominent place, on the company's website the results of any shareholder votes on executive compensation, shareholders, consumers, and the general public will regain their confidence in corporate America. My amendment is non-controversial and makes sense, and its Shareholders, employees, vendors, and the public have a vested interest in transparency, especially in light of the numerous corporate scandals that have occurred in recent years. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Executive salaries have risen dramatically, while the average American worker continues to struggle. My amendment and the underlying bill will hold board members accountable for their decisions regarding executive compensation. While many on the other side of the aisle have mentioned unintended consequences in their objection to this legislation, I will mention the real consequences. The real consequence of passing this legislation along with my amendment is the positive message we will send to the American people. That message is that we, Members of Congress are more concerned with the problems facing the struggling middle class than we are in helping corporate CEO's hide the amount of their compensation from the American people. I urge you to support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, rise in strong support of this legislation. The average American has lost faith in corporate America. The typical consumer perceives these corporations as mighty entities who control this very floor that we speak on, ensuring that the corporations have their needs met at the expense of your average American. However, as members of Congress we represent middle class America, and we have to ensure that their interest are protected and addressed with fair and thoughtful legislation. That is why I am pleased to offer my support to H.R. 1257. As the average pay for non-management workers remains stagnant, corporate executives have enjoyed hefty pay raises. These payouts include the CEO's salary, expense accounts, stock shares, and retirement packages. The underlying legislation does not seek to punish these CEO's, or take from them what they have received. However, this legislation does hold accountable the board members responsible for making decisions on executive compensation although it does not take away their power. This legislation is about transparency. Transparency leads to trust which leads to consumer confidence, which means our economy will benefit in the long run. As Justice Brandeis said long ago, ``sunshine is the best disinfectant. Some may argue that the rise in salaries is in response to a competitive job market with very few qualified individuals. In part that may be true, but this is about protecting the shrinking middle class in a society where the rate of inflation and the cost of living has increased. To my colleagues who oppose this legislation, I ask that you seriously reconsider. In the end we have more to gain when corporations are forthright with business practices, especially as it pertains to executive compensation. The SEC has responded to this issue by revising its disclosure rules regarding executive compensation, but it is not enough. A publicly held corporation owes it to their shareholders, i.e., its investors to give them some type of consideration regarding executive compensation. Many middle class Americans have their 401(k) plans tied into stock options, thus they have a vested interest in what is occurring behind the closed doors of corporate America. I support H.R. 1257, I support middle class America, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Rev. Dr. Willie Ray Davis on his installation as Pastor of Progressive Baptist Church. On behalf of the constituents of the Eighteenth Congressional District of Texas, I would like to extend to him my warmest congratulations on the commemoration of his Official Installation as Pastor of Progressive Baptist Church. As former pastor of Greater St. Paul's Missionary Baptist Church, his presence in Houston, the fourth largest city in the United States, and before the enthusiastic new members of the Progressive Baptist Church assembled today, serves as a testimony of his renowned commitment to excellence and eminence as one of Houston's foremost religious and community figures. How do you describe a man who is known as a pastor, spiritual leader, and extraordinary community leader? You can do so by simply calling him Pastor Willie Ray Davis. Pastor Davis's commitment to serving his community is exemplified by the many committees that he is involved in and his ability to put the needs of others before his own. Consequently, I would like to join his family, friends and church members in congratulating him on your Installation as Pastor of the Progressive Baptist Church in Chicago, Illinois. Houston and Greater St. Paul's Baptist Church has lost one of its beloved treasures, but I am confident that Pastor Willie Ray Davis will exhibit the same profound preeminence that he exhibited in Houston in Illinois to the members of the Progressive Baptist Church. My wish is that on this momentous occasion, Pastor Davis will look at what a blessing his life has been to others and that he will continue on with his good work blessing his community, congregation, family and friends. Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate Pastor Willie Ray Davis as he celebrates this wonderful occasion with his family, church members and friends. He has been a pillar of faith in his community and I extend my heartfelt wishes and prayers for a wonderful tenure as Pastor of Progressive Baptist Church.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the resolution. But I do so with a heart still full of sorrow over a loss so overwhelming. Two days ago, on Monday, April 15, 2007, at Virginia Tech University, one of the nation's great land grant colleges, we witnessed senseless acts of violence on a scale unprecedented in our history. Neither the mind nor the heart can contemplate a cause that could lead a human being to inflict such injury and destruction on fellow human beings. The loss of life and innocence at Virginia Tech is a tragedy over which all Americans mourn and the thoughts and prayers of people of goodwill everywhere go out to the victims and their families. In the face of such overwhelming grief, I hope they can take comfort in the certain knowledge that unearned suffering is redemptive. Mr. Speaker, Virginia Tech is a special place to those who claim membership in ``Hokie Nation.'' Founded in 1872 as a land-grant college named Virginia Agricultural and Mechanical College and located in Blacksburg, 38 miles southwest of Roanoke, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, or ``Virginia Tech,'' is now a comprehensive, innovative research university with the largest number of degree offerings in Virginia, more than 100 campus buildings, a 2,600-acre main campus, off-campus educational facilities in six regions, a study-abroad site in Switzerland, and a 1,700-acre agriculture research farm near the main campus. Through a combination of its three missions of teaching and learning, research and discovery, and outreach and engagement, Virginia Tech continually strives to accomplish the charge of its motto: Ut Prosim (That I May Serve). Virginia Tech is home to 28,469 students and 1,304 full-time faculty members, who together created an environment conducive to learning, discovery, and achievement. Little wonder the typical freshman admitted to the Class of 2010 had a high school grade point average of 3.80, and an average cumulative SAT reasoning test score was 1231. ``Hokie Nation,'' is comprised of more than 190,000 living alumni from every state and more than 100 countries. Virginia Tech offers bachelor's degree programs through its seven undergraduate academic colleges: Agriculture and Life Sciences, Architecture and Urban Studies, Engineering, Liberal Arts and Human Sciences, Natural Resources, Pamplin College of Business, and Science. The university offers masters and doctoral degree programs through the Graduate School and a professional degree from the Virginia- Maryland Regional College of Veterinary Medicine. It is also a research powerhouse. In fiscal year 2006, the university generated $321.7 million for research program. Each year, Virginia Tech receives significant external support for research, instruction, Extension, and public service projects. Support for these projects originates from an ever-expanding base of sponsors. Today, nearly 775 sponsors fund more than 3,500 active projects. Researchers pursue new discoveries in agriculture, biotechnology, information and communication technology, transportation, energy management (including leadership in fuel-cell technology and power electronics), and a wide range of other engineering, scientific, social science, and creative fields. This research led to 87 disclosures, 17 patents, and 20 licenses in calendar year 2005. But that seemed to matter little on Monday, which was the last day on earth for more than 30 members of the Virginia Tech family. Among them were future scientists, engineers, teachers, doctors, soldiers, fathers, mothers, friends, and leaders. All of them cut down in a hail of bullets before they reached the prime of their lives. So many promising lives interrupted; so many promising lives wasted. The New York Times noted in its editorial that as the investigation of the Virginia Tech shootings unfolds in coming days, it will be important to ascertain whether there were any hints of the tragedy to come and what might be done to head off such horrors in the future. Campuses are inherently open communities and it is not easy to guarantee a safe haven. But the carnage at Virginia Tech also commands that we here in this body take a stand against senseless acts of violence whether here in our own country or elsewhere around the world. It is long past time for our national community to declare that injuries inflicted on any member of the community by another simply based on hate or hatred of differences poses a threat to the peace and security of the entire community. For that reason alone, such conduct must be condemned and punished severely, if not prevented altogether. As the poet Nikki Giovanni stated so eloquently yesterday in her stirring address at the convocation held by the university yesterday in Blacksburg: We are Virginia Tech. We are sad today, and we will be sad for quite a while. We are not moving on, we are embracing our mourning. We are Virginia Tech. We are strong enough to stand tall tearlessly, we are brave enough to bend to cry, and we are sad enough to know that we must laugh again. We are Virginia Tech. We do not understand this tragedy. We know we did nothing to deserve it, but neither does a child in Africa dying of AIDS, neither do the invisible children walking the night away to avoid being captured by the rogue army, neither does the baby elephant watching his community being devastated for ivory, neither does the Mexican child looking for fresh water, neither does the Appalachian infant killed in the middle of the night in his crib in the home his father built with his own hands being run over by a boulder because the land was destabilized. No one deserves a tragedy. We are Virginia Tech. The Hokie Nation embraces our own and reaches out with open heart and hands to those who offer their hearts and minds. We are strong, and brave, and innocent, and unafraid. We are better than we think and not quite what we want to be. We are alive to the imaginations and the possibilities. We will continue to invent the future through our blood and tears and through all our sadness. We are the Hokies. We will prevail. We will prevail. We will prevail. We are Virginia Tech. Mr. Speaker, we will prevail against senseless acts of violence. We will prevail against uncontrolled rage and anger. We will prevail against hatred and intolerance. Today we are all members of the Hokie Nation. We are Virginia Tech.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 300, which congratulates the Rutgers University Women's Basketball Team, coached by the incomparable C. Vivian Stringer, on their extraordinary basketball achievements and applauds their character and integrity as student-athletes. The Rutgers Lady Scarlet Knights women's basketball team embodies all that is great about women's sports: intelligence, toughness, tenacity, leadership and, most of all, class. The Lady Scarlet Knights also showed the power of athletics in unifying a community, be it Rutgers University, the entire state of New Jersey, or the United States. That is why it was so disheartening that certain individuals would take this occasion to utter a few disgusting and divisive comments. I strongly condemned those words. There is absolutely no excuse for that kind of conduct, and Don Imus was right to apologize. What we must do now is address this situation as a country. We must start a dialogue that not only helps to heal the wounds that this type of hateful language renews, but also brings us to a better place as a society. The Rutgers women's basketball team has been a great inspiration to all of us in this country. These young women are some of the best our country has to offer, and they set an example for girls all across New Jersey and the United States. The Lady Scarlet Knights completed a dream season, making it all the way to the national championship game where they fell to the Lady Vols (34-3) of the University of Tennessee. The Scarlet Knights (27-9) were appearing in their first-ever championship contest. They made it to the championship game by winning eight consecutive games, including the Big East Conference Tournament and the championship of the Greensboro Regional. The Lady Scarlet Knights are champions. Congratulations to C. Vivian Stringer, her coaching staff and her exceptional basketball team.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 305, which honors the 53,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and civilians that comprise the Nation's Special Operations Forces community. This week marks the 20th anniversary of the Command's founding on April 16, 1987, at congressional direction, pursuant to passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. The unique structure of the Command ensures joint training, equipping, planning, and operations. Special Operations Forces personnel are currently executing their duties in over 50 nations throughout the world. The Special Operations Command was created following a congressional assessment of the unsuccessful attempt to rescue 53 American hostages held in Iran in 1980. Among the major shortcomings identified was the inability of the military to operate effectively in a joint manner, particularly due to differences in equipment and lack of coordinated training. This deficiency was directly addressed by the establishment of the Special Operations Command, which allowed for the creation of a truly joint force with the authority to organize, train, and equip for complex national security challenges. The Special Operations Command currently consists of over 53,000 individuals, including Army Special Forces personnel, Air Force Special Operations personnel, U.S. Navy SEALs, and Marine Special Operators. Its core tasks include counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, foreign internal defense, special reconnaissance, direct action, psychological and information operations, civil-military operations, unconventional warfare, and the ``synchronization'' of the war against terrorism. I fully support the Command's ongoing commitment to its primary focus of neutralizing terrorists and destroying their associated networks. The Command should be encouraged and fully resourced to balance its focus between ``direct'' and ``indirect'' action--or between the ``kinetic'' mission and the effort to ``win the hearts and minds.'' I also believe that greater emphasis should be afforded to humanitarian and counter-insurgency missions. I sincerely appreciate the efforts and sacrifices of the 53,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and civilians that comprise the Nation's Special Operations Forces community. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the 53,000 brave men and women who risk their lives in the most dangerous of missions to preserve our freedom. Vote aye on H. Res. 305.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise enthusiastically to support the Relief for Entrepreneurs: Coordination of Objectives and Values for Effective Recovery Act of 2007, to solve the frustration of those in my district who are fleeing Hurricane Katrina, and I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1361, the Recovery Act of 2007, which amends the Small Business Act to direct the Small Business Administration (SBA) to develop, implement and maintain a comprehensive written disaster response plan and to maintain a disaster reserve corps; to establish an Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance; to authorize SBA disaster loans for incidents of national significance; to direct the Administrator to carry out an immediate Disaster Assistance program; to provide a revised disbursement process for SBA disaster loans; to provide enhanced lending authority for private lenders; to authorize SBA grants to small businesses located in disaster areas upon their certification that they will reestablish the business in the same area; and to require annual SBA reports on disaster assistance operations. Mr. Chairman, I applaud Chairwoman Velazquez for bringing this bill to the floor and in doing so acknowledging that we need to be better prepared to respond to the needs of disaster victims from the affected areas. In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, we all saw the devastating consequences that came from not having disaster preparedness plans in place. After those devastating hurricanes, small businesses and in particular minority and disadvantaged businesses, in the affected areas were severely and negatively impacted because they did not receive financial support necessary to rebuild their businesses and participate in the rebuilding of the affected community. The Homeland Security Committee has learned that small businesses in particular are very important to economic recovery and stability in an affected region in the aftermath of a disaster-regardless of whether the disaster is natural or man-made. The Committee also has learned that it is good common sense to use the local business owners in the disaster recovery process because they are most connected, and knowledgeable about the local area and what the local community needs. That is why I offered two amendments to H.R. 1361 that would require the Small Business Administration (SBA) Administrator to include in its disaster recovery processes, pre-negotiated contracts and to encourage inclusion of local, minority, and disadvantaged businesses in the disaster recovery response process. My first amendment would have encouraged the SBA to include local businesses from the affected area in the recovery process and to have in place in advance pre-negotiated contracts with these local businesses. Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and have proven that failure to include small businesses in the recovery process was detrimental to speedy and efficient recovery for the affected areas and lead to astronomical costs for the affected areas as well as the entire country. These costs include money, time and lives. These are costs that we cannot afford to pay in future disasters. I also offered an amendment that would encourage the inclusion of minority and disadvantaged businesses in the disaster recovery response plans. In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, small, minority, and disadvantaged businesses from the region were shut out of disaster-related contracts because goals and preferences were not in place. We must correct this very serious problem that is often representative of problems that the most vulnerable members of our society consistently face. Mr. Chairman, the federal contracting goal for small, minority and disadvantaged businesses is a 23% participation rate as set forth by the Small Business Administration. My amendment that I offered would have required the SBA to include in its comprehensive response plan, a contracting goal and work to meet that goal. If the SBA plans well, then this goal should be achievable. I understand that the bill also allows for mitigation loans and grants. We would hope that the SBA encourages similar inclusion measures with respect to minority and disadvantaged businesses in its loan and grant authorizations as those used in federal contracting in general. Since the late 1960s, it has been the policy of the federal government to assist small businesses owned by minorities and women to become fully competitive, viable business concerns. As a result, the Small Business Administration set forth government-wide goals to level the playing field for small and minority businesses seeking federal government contracts. My amendment to encourage the inclusion of minority and disadvantaged businesses in the disaster loan and grant process would have gone a long way to meet these goals. If these businesses are disadvantaged before disasters occur, then those who are negatively impacted after disasters would presumably suffer exponentially and disproportionately. Therefore, it is especially crucial to encourage the inclusion of minority and disadvantaged businesses in the disaster mitigation loan and grant recovery process. We have seen over and over again the incredible need to include local, minority and disadvantaged businesses in the recovery and rebuilding process. It is time to seriously address this extremely important need. I urge the Committee to support H.R. 1361 and to be ever-mindful of the need to include local, minority and disadvantaged businesses in disaster recovery response plans. Further, I vigorously oppose the Chabot amendment, which one in particular is particularly punitive against a business suffering from disaster by requesting a recipient of a grant to pay an SBA disaster loan back that they may have received.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before I begin I would like to just have a moment of silence for the fallen students of Virginia Tech and our colleagues, who were with them today, the people of Virginia, and the people of the United States of America. Thank you. As I begin this 5 minutes, I believe it will be the challenge of this body to find a way to confront the issue of violence through physical acts and violence through words. Many of us will propose new gun legislation, some of us will look to outreach, but we will also seek understanding. That understanding I think leads me to join with the Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus as I acknowledge the outstanding women of the Rutgers University basketball team, to thank them for their dignity, their diplomacy, and their excellence; and to speak, just a very short brief word, of my agreement with the final action on Imus and his unfortunate and destructive words. Many of the first amendment advocates, of which I happen to be one, are up in arms. Many have said the punishment was too harsh. But I use the age-old teaching tool for those of us in constitutional law classes around the Nation. And though the first amendment is pure, the right to association, the freedom of religion is pure, but it is qualified by the Supreme Court that indicates that we cannot call ``fire'' in a crowded theater. And so it is obvious that unfortunately what Imus did with these words, these women athletes, these academically excellent students is that they cried ``fire.'' And fire cannot be allowed to burn, and the fire had to be extinguished, and Imus and his ugly words had to be taken off of the public airwaves, wishing him well for hopefully a reformation and a rebirth so that young people all around America can, one, not be subjected to the violence of words, and they cannot be subjected to the brutality, the violence of guns. Let me move, Mr. Speaker, quickly to an additional cause for my standing here today. And that is to salute my colleague, Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, who tonight will give her 200th statement in opposition to the war in Iraq. I join her today, sadly, because again young people, valiant, patriotic young people are on the front lines of Iraq. They have not protested, they have not said, I will not go, but they look to their leadership, policymakers to have the courage of conviction. My friend from Texas is right, this is an unending and unsuccessful political action; 3,309 are dead, the violence over the weekend has been unspeakable. The cleric, al-Sadr, has taken out his ministers from the government. That means the coalition government is on the brink of collapse. Why? Because the prime minister is stubborn and will not sit down with his cabinet and parliament and ask in a respectful and collaborative way for the United States to be thanked for its valiant work of its military and asked that we stand down so that Iraq can stand up. What a tragedy: ego over commonsense. What a tragedy: the continued loss of life over big egos. And so I say to the administration, we will not give you an unending mandate to continue the terrible loss of life of our troops, and the reason we will not do that is because we declare a military success. I wear on my lapel the flag of the POWs, the celebration and commemoration of men and women still lost at war, still missing in action, some now who have come home, soldiers that are lost. There is a military success, a legislative initiative of H.R. 930 that I have declaring a military success, the discovery of no weapons of mass destruction, disposing of Saddam Hussein, and many other valiant efforts of our military. And then we must now move to diplomacy. It is time now to recognize lives and patriotism rise stronger than egos and bluster and the sadness of the debacle in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, as a proud member of the Progressive and the Out of Iraq Caucuses, I rise to speak about the current situation regarding the Iraq War. But before I do, let me express my condolences to the families and friends and neighbors and loved ones who suffered such horrific losses yesterday. I speak of Virginia Tech University, one of the Nation's great land grant colleges, where we witnessed the most senseless acts of violence on a scale unprecedented in our history. Neither the mind nor the heart can contemplate a cause that could lead a human being to inflict such injury and destruction on fellow human beings. The loss of life and innocence at Virginia Tech is a tragedy over which all Americans mourn and the thoughts and prayers of people of goodwill everywhere go out to the victims and their families. In the face of such overwhelming grief, I hope they can take comfort in the certain knowledge that unearned suffering is redemptive. The war in Iraq has also caused a lot of unearned suffering in Iraq and here at home. This is the same war, Madam Speaker, whose proponents misrepresented to the Nation would last no more than 6 months and likely less than 6 weeks. This same war in Iraq, we were led to believe by the Administration, would cost less than $50 billion and would be paid out of the ample revenues from Iraq's oil fields. The war in Iraq, the American people were promised, should have ended years ago with Americans troops greeted as liberators by jubilant Iraqis throwing rose petals at their feet. As I and my colleagues in the Progressive Caucus and the Out of Iraq Caucus forecast at the time, the starry-eyed, rosy scenarios laid out by the President, Vice-President, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld would come to pass in fantasy land, but not in the cold, hard world of reality which they refused to live in. To date, the war in Iraq has lasted longer than America's involvement in World War II, the greatest conflict in all of human history. But there is a difference. The Second World War ended in complete and total victory for the United States and its allies. But then again, in that conflict America was led by FDR, a great Commander-in-Chief, who had a plan to win the war and secure the peace, listened to his generals, and sent troops in sufficient numbers and sufficiently trained and equipped to do the job. As a result of the colossal miscalculation in deciding to invade Iraq, the loss of public trust resulting from the misrepresentation of the reasons for launching that invasion, and the breath-taking incompetence in mismanaging the occupation of Iraq, the Armed Forces and the people of the United States have suffered incalculable damage. The war in Iraq has claimed the lives of 3,309 brave servicemen and women (64 in the first 16 days of this month). More than 24,600 Americans have been wounded, many suffering the most horrific injuries. American taxpayers have paid nearly $400 billion to sustain this misadventure. The depth, breadth, and scope of the President's misguided, mismanaged, and misrepresented war in Iraq is utterly without precedent in American history. It is a tragedy in a league all its own. But it was not unforeseeable or unavoidable. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act the House passed last month provides real benchmarks and consequences if the Iraqi Government fails to live up to its commitments. First, it requires the President to certify and report to Congress on July 1, 2007 that real progress is underway on key benchmarks for the Iraqi government. If the President cannot so certify, redeployment of U.S. troops must begin immediately and be completed within 180 days. If the President fails to certify that Iraq has met the benchmarks on October 1, 2007, a redeployment of U.S. troops would begin immediately at that time and must be completed within 180 days. In any case, at the latest, a redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq must begin by March 1, 2008, and must be completed by August 31, 2008. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, the Iraqi Government is not off to a good start. The Green Zone surrounding Baghdad remains insecure. Earlier this week, a suicide bomber managed to penetrate the security perimeter of the Iraqi Parliament and detonated a bomb that killed at least three members of the Iraqi parliament and wounded scores of others. Additionally, the market represented by Senator McCain as an example of the improved security situation in Iraq was turned into a killing field within days after Senator McCain's visit. And yesterday we learned that radical Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has reasserted his political power by yanking his loyalists from the Cabinet, a move aimed at showing his supporters he retains his credentials as an opposition leader and which increases the pressure on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to loosen his embrace of the U.S. occupation, which many Iraqis blame for violence in the country. These developments, Mr. Speaker, illustrate the wisdom of requiring benchmarks the Iraqi Government must meet to justify continued American blood and treasure in Iraq. Moreover, because those benchmarks are established pursuant to President Bush's policies, it is passing strange indeed that he would threaten to veto the bill since it necessarily means he would be vetoing his own benchmarks for the performance of the Iraqi government. He would be vetoing his own readiness standards for U.S. troops. The President demands this Congress send him an Iraq war bill with ``no strings.'' But the only ``strings'' attached, Mr. Speaker, are the benchmarks and standards imposed by the President himself. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the enormous financial cost, the human cost to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces has also been high but they have willingly paid it. Operation Iraqi Freedom has exacerbated the Veterans Administration health care facility maintenance backlog; placed an undue strain on the delivery of medical treatment and rehabilitative services for current and new veterans; and exacted a heavy toll on the equipment, training and readiness requirements, and the families of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. The emergency supplemental acknowledged the sacrifices made by, and the debt of gratitude, we and the Iraqi people owe to Armed Forces of the United States. But more than that, it makes a substantial down payment on that debt by providing substantial increases in funding for our troops. The supplemental includes a total appropriation of $2.8 billion for Defense Health Care, which is $1.7 billion above the President's request. The additional funding supports new initiatives to enhance medical services for active duty forces and mobilized personnel, and their family members. Included in this new funding is $450 million for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder/Counseling; $450 million for Traumatic Brain Injury care and research; $730 million to prevent health care fee increases for our troops; $20 million to address the problems at Walter Reed; and $14.8 million for burn care. Unlike the Republican leadership of the 109th Congress and the Bush Administration, the new Democratic majority is committed to America's veterans. What's more, we back up that commitment by investing in their well-being. For example, the supplemental bill we passed included $1.7 billion above the President's request for initiatives to address the health care needs of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and the backlog in maintaining VA health care facilities, including $550 million to address the backlog in maintaining VA health care facilities so as to prevent the VA from experiencing a situation similar to that found at Walter Reed Medical Center. We provided an additional $250 million for administration to ensure there are sufficient personnel to support the growing number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and to maintain a high level of services for all veterans; $229 million for treating the growing number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans; $100 million for contract mental health care, which will allow the VA to contract with private mental health care providers to ensure that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are seen in the most timely and least disruptive fashion, including members of the Guard and Reserve; and $62 million to speed up the processing of claims of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, when American troops are sent into harm's way, America has an obligation to do all it can to minimize the risk of harm to the troops. That is why it was so important that we included additional funding above the President's request to support our troops. We provided $2.5 billion more to address the current readiness crisis of our stateside troops, including ensuring that they are better equipped and trained. We included $1.4 billion more for military housing allowances and $311 million more for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles for troops in Iraq. And there is included in the supplemental $222 million more for infrared countermeasures for Air Force aircraft to address the growing threat against U.S. air operations in Iraq and Afghanistan Equally important, Mr. Speaker, the supplemental contains language directing the President to adhere to current military guidelines for unit readiness, deployments, and time between deployments. In the supplemental we passed, the Defense Department is required to abide by its current Unit Readiness policy, requiring the chief of the military department concerned to determine that a unit is ``fully mission capable'' before it is deployed to Iraq. The President may waive this provision by submitting a report to Congress detailing why the unit's deployment is in the interests of national security despite the assessment that the unit is not fully mission capable. The Defense Department is also required to abide by its current policy and avoid extending the deployment of units in Iraq in excess of 365 days for the Army and 210 days for the Marines. The provision may be waived by the President only by submitting a report to Congress detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's extended deployment is in the interests of national security. Mr. Speaker, to reduce the incidence of combat fatigue and enhance readiness, it is important that our troops have sufficient ``time out of the combat zone and training between deployments. That is why we require the Defense Department to abide by its current policy and avoid sending units back into Iraq before troops get the required time away from the war theater. The President may waive this provision by submitting a report to Congress detailing why the unit's early redeployment to Iraq is in the interests of national security. Mr. Speaker, the American people spoke loudly and clearly last November when they tossed out the Rubber-Stamp Republican Congress. They voted for a New Direction in Iraq and for change in America. They voted to disentangle American troops from the carnage, chaos, and civil war in Iraq. They voted for accountability and oversight, which we Democrats have begun to deliver on; already the new majority has held more than 100 congressional hearings related to the Iraq War, investigating everything from the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse of Iraq reconstruction funding to troop readiness to the Iraq Study Group Report to the shameful mistreatment of wounded soldiers recuperating at Walter Reed Medical Center. And we will not stop, Mr. Speaker, until we are clearly on a glide path to the day when our troops come home and where we can ``care for him who has borne the battle, and for his widow and orphan.'' And even then our work will not be done. For we must still be about the business of repairing the damage to America's international reputation and prestige. But this Democratic majority, led by the Progressive Caucus and the Out of Iraq Caucus, has ushered in a new era of oversight, accountability, and transparency to defense and reconstruction contracting and procurement.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairwoman, let me thank the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Carolyn Kilpatrick, and Mr. Bobby Scott for joining with us as the Congressional Black Caucus so that we could really emphasize what compassion and the American dream is all about and equate it to the Congressional Black Caucus budget that really responds to the tragedy that has occurred under this administration. The surplus, as you can see, that we had in 2000 under the Bush administration declines $8.4 trillion. That is what we attack. In fact, the Congressional Black Caucus budget reduces the deficit $107 billion less of a deficit than even the Democratic budget and $339 billion less cumulative deficit than the President's budget. In fact, we saved some $18.3 billion less in interest than the Democratic budget and $27.7 billion in interest than the President's budget. We take this deficit and turn it around. We save the country this enormous burden that they have with respect to the deficit and the interest. In addition, as you can see, interest payments on the debt weren't the priority under this President's budget and under this administration. They have gotten completely out of control. That is why we are feeling the pinch, and the Congressional Black Caucus budget responds to that immediately. Now, let me talk specifically about what we do, why we represent the American dream, why we focus on real compassion, and we do it in a fiscally secure and responsible manner. We look at this map, we will see the numbers of children that are uninsured in America. Some of the States that we would think are prosperous States, such as Florida and Texas, the President's own State, my State, has over 12% and going as high as 40 percent of the children are uninsured; California, 12 percent or more are uninsured. Vote for the Compassionate Budget and for the CBC budget and vote for the Democratic Budget that strongly represents the needs of Americans. Numbers of us in these different colors here, 8 to 12 percent are uninsured. The Congressional Black Caucus budget is compassionate. Why? Because we provide resources for housing. We provide resources for transportation. We don't leave any firefighter or law enforcement officers behind. And we ensure homeland security. But we are the compassionate budget. We are the American Dream. We ensure that children, who are our precious resources, have the ability to get complete children's health insurance. I ask my colleagues to support a budget that ensures compassion and the American Dream and believes in eliminating the deficit. Vote for the Congressional Black Caucus Budget. Madam Chairwoman, I rise to support H. Con. Res. 99, the Congressional Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2008. But more than that, I rise to welcome a new day. For the past six years, the federal budgets put forward by the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress have cut funds for critical American priorities and, incredibly, turned a $5.4 trillion surplus into a $8.8 trillion deficit over the same period. Starting today, the new Democratic majority in the House leads America in a new fiscal direction. And we do it without raising taxes. In fact, Madam Chairwoman, thanks to the treatment and applicability of the alternative minimum tax (AMT) called for in the budget resolution, 19 million Americans will pay less in taxes that they otherwise would. This week we will pass a fiscally responsible budget with the right priorities for the American people, present and future. For that, I wish to thank the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt, a man of uncommon grace and mastery of budgetary arcane. I wish to thank our great Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, for never letting us forget that we are here for one reason only, and that is to address the real needs and priorities of real Americans confronting the real problems of their real lives in the real world. Finally, let me thank the remarkable leadership team which has worked long, hard, and tireless to keep us informed, cooperative, and united in our resolve to do the necessary work to America better. Madam Chairwoman, H. Con. Res. 99, better reflects the priorities and values of the American people. After all, a budget is much more than a balance sheet, an income statement, a financial scorecard. Rather, it the expression in fiscal terms of who we are and what we believe. In short, a budget is a financial reflection of our national character. And as it is by a person's character that you know her, so too it is with a nation. Look at a nation's budget and you will see how it treats its children in the dawn of life; its elderly in the twilight of life; its poor and disabled and helpless in the shadows of life; and the earth, the sustainer of life. Look closely at the choices it makes regarding the neediest and most vulnerable of its people, and you will know the true character of a nation. Madam Chairwoman, America and the world can be proud of the choices we make in this budget resolution. Unlike the budgets of the last six years, the budget brought to the floor by the new House majority reflects the best angels of our nature. As I discuss in more detail, H. Con. Res. 99 expands health care for our children. It provides our soldiers and veterans with the care worthy of their sacrifice; it is faithful to President Lincoln's injunction ``to care for him who has borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.'' This budget resolution supports education for a 21st century workforce and a growing economy. It invests in renewable energy for an energy independent America that faces up to the challenge of global warming. Equally important, Madam Chairwoman, the majority's budget resolution represents a return to fiscal responsibility and budgetary accountability. I am proud to support a budget that reflects the care and fidelity of a wise steward of the taxpayers' hard-earned money. The American people can be assured that the new majority in Congress will not be profligate with the public treasury. The new Democratic-led Congress has instituted ``pay as you go'' or ``PAYGO'' budgeting, requiring that new spending be offset, which in the 1990s helped turn deficits to surpluses. We have also reformed the earmark process, cutting in half the number of budget ``earmarks'' for specific Member projects, requiring transparency in the process, and exposing such earmarks as the infamous ``Bridge to Nowhere.'' Madam Chairwoman, nothing engenders more public cynicism than the shameful conduct of some to avoid paying taxes legitimately owed. The overwhelming majority of Americans obey the law, play by the rules, pay their taxes, and work to improve their communities. There is, however, a small but significant percentage of Americans and corporations that do not. That is going to end. In this budget, we invest in an increased effort to make sure that taxpayers pay the taxes they owe. The Internal Revenue Service has estimated that the tax gap--the amount of taxes owed under current law but not collected--has ballooned to $345 billion since 2001. This has left middle-class families picking up the tab for those who refuse to obey the law. It is shocking to think, Madam Chairwoman, that amount of taxes owed by these scofflaws approximates the costs Americans have paid to date to finance the Iraq War. The new Democratic-led Congress also will save millions by investing in efforts to identify and eliminate wasteful spending and improve government efficiency in Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. Every dollar invested in conducting Social Security ongoing disability reviews results in $10 of savings. The savings could total $3 billion. Madam Chairwowan, this budget resolution correctly assumes that substantial savings can be realized from more vigorous efforts by the Defense Department (with increased Congressional oversight) to root out fraud, abuse, and wasteful spending. It is totally unacceptable that unlike the typical taxpayer, small business, or large corporation, the Defense Department still cannot pass a standard audit. The Pentagon cannot adequately track what it owns or spends. We just know that it's a lot. Defense auditors estimate that more than one of six dollars they have audited for Iraq is suspect, including $2.7 billion in sole- source, single-bidder contracts. The American people can have confidence that lax financial controls and fiscal mismanagement are a thing of the past now that Democrats are the majority party in Congress. Under this budget resolution, House Committees will conduct performance reviews to make sure that government programs are working as intended. We will work to eliminate unnecessary and wasteful spending. We know that oversight and financial controls work. Similar efforts produced 385 recommendations for smarter ways to improve government services, saving billions during the Clinton Administration. Madam Chairwoman, the new House majority pledged that we would work together to restore our economic health, reclaim our leadership position in the world, advance our national security, and invest in the future. We promised to restore fiscal responsibility and began by instituting tough pay-as-you-go rules. And we have been delivering. For example, in the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, we passed with bipartisan support procedures imposing discipline and transparency in congressional spending. With bipartisan support, we also passed legislation to implement recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, increased the minimum wage, paved the way for lower prescription drug costs, cut student loan costs, and redirected oil subsidies towards investments in renewable energy. We did all of this while maintaining our commitment to fiscal discipline. The 2008 budget resolution advances these priorities. The budget balances in 2012 while accommodating additional tax relief for millions of middle-income families. It allocates funding for national priorities like children's health care and education. It begins to reverse six years of disinvestment in education, infrastructure, and innovation. The budget resolution is the crucial next step to realizing the initiatives we have developed to move the country forward and to set us on a course to build the future we want for our children and grandchildren. And, as I have stated, it does all this without raising taxes. Madam Chairwoman, discretionary spending, or the amount available to be allocated through the annual appropriations process, accounts for about one-third of all federal spending. The budget resolution provides the Appropriations Committee with $954.9 billion in discretionary budget authority in FY 2008, $22.1 billion more than the administration's request as re-estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The Appropriations Committee will subdivide this amount (known as a 302(a) allocation) among the various appropriations bills. In addition to the $954.9 billion in regular FY 2008 appropriations, the resolution assumes $145.2 billion in emergency appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for FY 2008, as requested by the administration. When this emergency funding is added to the $954.9 billion in regular appropriations, a total of $1.1 trillion in discretionary spending could be available in FY 2008 under the resolution. I think it important that the American people know where and how their money will be spent. Defense Appropriations The resolution calls for defense discretionary budget authority or appropriations at the levels recommended by the Administration for fiscal years 2008 through 2012. Thus, the resolution calls for defense appropriations of $503.8 billion in FY 2008, $531.6 billion in FY 2009, $542.0 billion in FY 2010, $548.0 billion in FY 2011, and $566.9 billion in FY 2012. The totals include funding for the Defense Department as well as nuclear-weapons-related activity in the Energy Department. The resolution also assumes $145.2 billion in emergency funds in FY 2008--that would not count against the cap on discretionary spending-- for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as recommended by the administration. When added to the $503.8 billion in regular defense appropriations, total defense spending under the resolution would be $649 billion in FY 2008. Like the Administration, the resolution assumes $50 billion for these wars in FY 2009. While the resolution assumes the same total amount of spending for defense as the Administration recommends, it does not propose to spend the funds the same way. Specifically, the resolution assumes that nuclear non-proliferation programs will be given a greater priority and higher funding than the administration proposes. Madam Chairwoman, in our resolution health care for active duty forces is a very high priority, as will be caring for those who return wounded from combat. Specifically, the resolution rejects the administration's proposals for increased fees for Tricare, the military health program, and calls for a substantial increase in the veterans' health care system. The resolution assumes continued funding of missile defense and satellite procurement programs, but at a lower level than proposed by the administration. The budget resolution recognizes the need for the Defense Department to root out wasteful spending with far more diligence, noting that the Defense Department has awarded contracts for its foreign deployments that have been grossly more wasteful than domestic contracts, especially in Iraq. Non-Defense Discretionary Spending The resolution calls for a non-defense discretionary budget authority of $451.1 billion in FY 2008, which is $22 billion (5 percent) more than the Administration's request. This includes an additional $2 billion in advance FY 2009 appropriations that would be available for appropriation in FY 2008, resulting in a total non-defense discretionary total of $453.1 billion, $24 billion more than the administration's request. This non-defense discretionary total includes funding for international affairs programs as well as for domestic. The resolution's FY 2008 level for non-defense discretionary spending is about $10 billion more than the FY 2007 level, adjusted for inflation. For fiscal years 2009 through 2012, the level of non-defense discretionary spending generally increases at the rate of inflation. Education, Training, Employment & Social Services Funding for education, training, employment and social services programs has lagged during the past six years, so the resolution attempts to compensate by increasing such funding by 11 percent ($82.3 billion in FY 2008) over the president's budget. Madam Chairwoman, we reject the president's proposed cuts to education programs, including rejection of his proposals to eliminate many education programs. We also reject the president's proposed steep cuts in job training and social service programs, including the Community Services Block Grant and the Social Services Block Grant. The increased spending can and should be used for several purposes, including Head Start, Title I Compensatory Education program, and job training and national service programs. It could also be used to increase the federal share of the cost for educating handicapped children, and to help improve access to colleges, and broadening access to Hispanic Serving and Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Health The resolution proposes $54.2 billion in budget authority in FY 2008 for discretionary health programs, and higher levels of spending for these programs in each of the four succeeding years. By FY 2012, funding for these programs under the measure would increase to $58.9 billion. The FY 2008 discretionary level for this function is $2 billion (4 percent) more than recommended by the president. Discretionary health spending does not include the federal government's main health care spending programs, such as Medicaid and Medicare, both of which are mandatory spending programs. Veterans' Benefits and Services The resolution calls for the budget authority of $43.1 billion in FY 2008 for discretionary veterans' programs, which consist mainly of veterans' health programs--$3.5 billion (9 percent) more than the president's request. The resolution calls for increased funding for these veterans' programs in each of the succeeding four years. By FY 2012, funding for these veterans' programs would reach $48.3 billion. The resolution rejects the president's proposals to increase enrollment fees in veterans health care programs and rejects his proposals to increase co-payments. The resolution assumes funding to implement the recommendations of the bipartisan ``Walter Reed Commission'' as well as the recommendations of other investigations into military and veterans' health care facilities and services. The increases above the president's proposed level would address veterans' mental health, post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, and spinal cord injury. Additional funding could also be used to reduce the backlog of disability claims. Low-Income Programs Madam Chairwoman, other reason I support this resolution is that it provides $52 billion, nearly $3 billion (6 percent) more than the president recommends, for low-income programs, including unemployment compensation, low-income housing assistance (including Section 8 housing), food and nutrition assistance (including food stamps and school lunch subsidies), and other income-security programs. Transportation The resolution provides $25.4 billion, an increase of $2.1 billion over the president's budget, for transportation funding, which includes non-homeland-security funds for the Federal Highway Administration; the Federal Transit Administration; Amtrak; highway, motor-carrier and rail-safety programs; the Federal Aviation Administration; the aeronautical activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); the Coast Guard; and the Maritime Administration. The resolution provides full funding of the highway, safety, and transit programs authorized by the 2005 surface transportation law Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A legacy for Users. We also maintain Amtrak, provide for additional funding for grants to airports and reject the president's proposed cuts to aviation programs in NASA. Community and Regional Development The community and regional development function includes programs that provide federal funding for economic and community development in both urban and rural areas, including Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and the non-power-related activities of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The measure proposes to spend $13.7 billion in budget authority in FY 2008 on community and regional development programs, with increases of $200 million in each succeeding year, reaching $14.5 billion in FY 2012. The FY 2008 funding level for discretionary programs in this function is $2.7 billion (24 percent) more than the president's request. The measure rejects the president's proposed cuts to the CDBG program. It assumes additional funding for this program as well as for rural development and disaster preparedness programs. Natural Resources and Environment The resolution calls for $31.4 billion in discretionary budget authority in FY 2008 for natural resources and environmental programs, $2.6 billion (9 percent) more than the president's request. The resolution rejects the president's proposed cuts to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, Fish and Wildlife Service's wildlife refuge system, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) grants to state sand tribe for water and aid quality and other EPA programs. The resolution accommodates the president's proposed increases in funding to National Park operations and maintenance. Energy The budget resolution provides for funding civilian energy and environmental programs of the Energy Department, the Rural Utilities Service of the Agriculture Department, the TVA, the U.S. Enrichment Corporation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It does not include the Energy Department's national security (nuclear weapons) activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration or its basic research and science activities. The resolution provides $4.6 billion in funding for discretionary energy programs in FY 2008, about $300 million (7 percent) more than the president's request. The resolution generally calls for spending between $4.6 billion and $4.8 billion in each year covered by the resolution. International Affairs The international affairs function includes international development and humanitarian assistance, international security assistance, the conduct of foreign affairs, foreign information and exchange activities, and international financial programs. Major agencies in this function include the State and Treasury departments, the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation which administers special assistance to developing countries that meet certain political and economic standards set by the U.S. government. For international affairs, the resolution calls for $35.3 billion in discretionary budget authority in FY 2008, $2 billion more than the amount needed to maintain purchasing power at the FY 2007 level. Compared to the president's request, the resolution provides $1.2 billion less than the request. The resolution assumes the president's request for overseas military deployments and the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which includes the Global HIV/AIDS Initiative. The committee report also notes the importance of adequate funding for U.S. development assistance. The resolution assumes full funding to continue the U.S. agreements with Israel and Egypt made in 1998 on military financing and economic support. The measure also assumes additional funding for the McGovern- Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. Science, Space and Technology The function contains general science funding, including the budgets for the National Science Foundation and the fundamental science programs of the Energy Department, and programs at NASA, except for aviation programs. The resolution calls for $27.5 billion in budget authority in FY 2008 for discretionary science, space and technology programs, about $200 million more than the president's request. The resolution projects gradually increasing levels of discretionary funding for these programs, reaching $32.3 billion in FY 2012. For all 5 years covered by the resolution, the space funding is higher than the president's recommendations and the levels required to maintain purchasing power at the previous year's level. Administration of Justice For federal judicial and law enforcement activities, the measure calls for $44.7 billion in discretionary budget authority in FY 2008-- $1 billion (2 percent) more than the president's request. The resolution calls for increases in each of the succeeding 4 years, reaching $49.3 billion in FY 2012. The resolution rejects the president's proposals to cut local law enforcement and first responders programs, including his proposed cuts to the Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants program. Increases above the president's requested level could also be used to fund recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of The Congressional Progressive Caucus Fiscal Year 2008-17 ``Peace & Security'' Budget Alternative. The American people spoke loud and clear last November. They wanted change, accountability, and a new course of action. This budget is a direct answer to the demands of the American people and steers us in a new direction. With this budget we can usher in a new era of fiscal responsibility that this current administration has failed to adhere to. The budget is morally sound, as it redirects funding to domestic spending programs that benefit the American middle class, the backbone of our great Nation. Most importantly this budget meets our moral obligation to all of our veterans. This budget ends the war and brings our troops home and moves this country toward an agenda of peace and security. The news of the horrible living conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center raised our national consciousness regarding the need to do more--much more--for wounded and injured service members and to upgrade the administrative systems that support them. Simply put, this budget treats the heroic young men and women who sacrifice life and limb with the respect and dignity they deserve. This budget guarantees full funding for health care (including mental health care) for all veterans. The Progressive Caucus budget makes veterans' health care a new federal entitlement. It will require the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury to make mandatory appropriations for VA health care based upon the following formula: the amount of funds available for VA medical care in FY2008 would equal 130 percent of the total obligations made by the VA for medical care programs in FY2005. Let us send the right message to our young men and women returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan. They deserve better, we owe it to them, and we have a duty to answer the will of the American people.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to comment on what has been an important journey that this House has taken. As I do that, might I also mention that we celebrate National Women's History Month and salute the women Members of the United States Congress, and particularly salute and offer my admiration for our new Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. At the same time, I want to pay tribute to my mother, Ivalita Jackson, and my late aunt and all of the women in my family. Also might I especially pay tribute to the women of the 18th Congressional District. They are certainly strong, and they certainly have invested, not only in Houston, Texas, but in this Nation. Dominique de Menil, Christy Adair, the businesswomen of our community, Ninfa Lorenzo, and so many others that symbolize the kind of strength that women have exhibited as strong Americans. I am also quite enthusiastic about the fact that we will soon have the bust of an early suffragette in legislation that just passed and was signed by the President that I authored, along with Senator Clinton in the other body, and that is the bust of Sojourner Truth, an abolitionist and a woman suffragette. We have come a long way, but we have a long way to go. So I simply wanted to capture very briefly the journey that we took. Last week, this body voted 218 votes for the emergency supplemental that would set a timeline to bring our troops home, men and women who have been on the front lines in Iraq, who will come home now with dignity and success because the military benchmarks have been met. Saddam Hussein has been deposed, there have been no findings of weapons of mass destruction, and, frankly, it is time now, as the President has said often, for Iraq to stand up and for us to stand down. It was a courageous vote, and I am delighted that we unified the Nation and were successful. Mr. Speaker, we traveled through the week. We passed hurricane recovery legislation that was never passed in the last Congress. And now we have a budget that defends America. It lifts up firefighters and law enforcement officers. It provides middle-class tax credits, like the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief. It looks forward to fixing the alternative minimum tax. It protects the middle class. It engages working America by providing health care for all of America's children. $50 billion is in this budget. What concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is although I believe in democracy, what concerns me is when my friends on the other side of the aisle continue to play procedural games. You just saw a few minutes ago the objection to setting the time for us to come back after the work recess, the repeating and the re-voting of votes over and over again, dilatory tactics so that this body cannot move forward and pass legislation. Albeit over the last 10 or 12 years that I have been here under the Republican majority, they couldn't get after the tragedy of 9/11, a real 9/11 bill passed. We did it in the first 20 days. They couldn't pass a Medicare prescription drug bill that wouldn't hurt the senior citizens who are still trying to find out how can I pay and leap over the donut hole. They couldn't do it, and we are doing it. Over and over again, moneys would come back into the Federal Government because of the poor structure of SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. They weren't prepared to fully fund it, and we are. The collapse and debacle of Leave No Child Behind that disrespects teachers and takes learning away from children, they could not fix it; but we are going to fix it. So my instructions to my friends as we go home for Passover and Easter and other religious holidays that we will commemorate, a season of peace, come back with the attitude of working for America and not for yourselves. Come back with the attitude of being respectful to the process of democracy. The majority represents the American people now, and the American people want change, not bickering. They want bipartisanship, not divisiveness. When you have a budget that fully funds defense, but yet allows us to be able to be compassionate with the heart and support the American Dream, then this side of the aisle should stop with the dilatory tactics. Mr. Speaker, I hope when we return, we will be a bipartisan Congress and move America forward. The Democrats have taken the leadership. We are doing the right thing, and I want to thank them for all their work.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I had an honor today that will be forever embedded in my heart; and that was to watch the Tuskegee Airmen, of which my father-in-law, Phillip Ferguson Lee, was an active and proud member, be honored with the Congressional Gold Medal. I thank with all of my heart Representative Charlie Rangel, Senator Levin, and all of the participants who commemorated and celebrated brave men who sacrificed their life in World War II but yet were treated worse than the Nazi soldiers who were captured and held here in the United States. In spite of color and racism, they rose to the highest occasion. That is why I am so proud to be part of this majority that supported an emergency supplemental that would dignify our troops and bring them home with success and a budget today that was voted with the largest amount for dollars for veterans in the history of the United States. Thank you to my father-in-law, Phillip Ferguson Lee, and all the Tuskegee Airmen who now are so proud to receive the Congressional Gold Medal. But, more importantly, they are proud to be Americans, World War II veterans who never, never denied their leadership in the United States of America. God bless them and God bless the United States of America.