Eleanor Norton

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Just to respond to that and just say a few words about SCHIP, what you say is so important. Also, the power of the prosecutor, we have seen him send Members of Congress to jail. You don't need to tell him much. But above all, what the prosecutor needs to know is this is not decades ago when a prosecutor approaching black people got them to fear and trembling. These are kids. This is 2007. That was seen as a threat, and it didn't do the job. In fact, it upped the ante, and it was irresponsible conduct because he should have been aware of how his words would have been perceived. And if anything, he needed to cool it down, perhaps to say the law is here to do his job if you don't do yours, but certainly that kind of threat had the opposite effect on teens. Maybe on you and me, we might have said, well, wait a minute, we had better stop here. But these are kids who had spent a full year fighting each other anyway. And, again, where is it going to come to an end? The youngster who remains in jail remains there. We don't know what is going to happen to him. It seems to me the only way to bring it to an end is to bring in outside forces to try to mediate this situation. I want to say a word about SCHIP in light of the allegation that many of us simply want to give high earners access to this bill to provide health benefits for children above the normal poverty line. And the figure has been cited in some jurisdictions you can make $60,000 or $80,000 a year. This needs to be explained to the American people. Yes, there may be some of us who see it as a way to get universal health care, but I will tell you most of us don't see it that way. The reason we have gone to children is because we have failed utterly and know we will continue to fail in the foreseeable future to get universal child care. And so the whole point of the State health bill was to say at least let's do it for children. And the notion of doing it for people with high income needs to be explained. Poverty benefits are not adjusted for the cost of living in particular places. That has enormous hardship. But its hardship when it comes to health costs cannot be overemphasized because of differences in the cost of living and inflationary rise of health care in particular. Health care inflation is far greater than any other kind of inflation in the society. So you are faced in large cities, for example, with people who can't possibly afford even health care provided by their employer because the cost of living in the high-cost place where they live is such that they can barely afford to live there. So what is $61,000 in one place is not nearly what it is in a small town someplace else. I want to point that out because these high-cost-of-living regions are faced with a terrible dilemma, that those children who will be without health care are in a large number and the salaries as seen nationwide do not explain why. I looked at what were these places. These places in order of highest, the top three, to lowest are Hawaii, number one; California, number two; and the District of Columbia region, the national capital region, number three. Is anybody surprised? People can't even afford to live in the District of Columbia anymore because of the cost of living. New York must be here coming up. I am just looking down the list. But essentially when you consider, yes, there is some enhanced benefit from the Federal Government, but what these jurisdictions have said is that the situation has become so bad after our investigations for certain people who are, yes, above the Federal limit that we believe that hundreds of thousands of children will, in fact, be without health care unless we move. And I am astounded by the number of States that believe this, and I am chagrinned that we see a preemptive strike by the Bush administration to, in fact, despite what we have passed, keep States from bringing in, up to a certain limit, certain families who have been priced out of health care in their communities. So I call upon Americans, as they read about what we are trying to do here, to understand what we are really trying to do here, to make sure that when we say we are covering all children who need health care and could not otherwise get it, we mean that and no more. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlelady for her very gracious remarks and kind words. To the gentlelady who remarked that I first knew her when I was Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I must say to her that it gave me special personal pride to see her elected to the Congress, much more to see her become the first African American woman on the Ways and Means Committee, and she just did us proud again. The gentlelady from Ohio has applied her distinguished career in the law to reminding the prosecutor what his first obligation is, and that is to do justice. That's why the prosecutor is given such discretion. He often doesn't prosecute, or he thinks of other things that should be done. The onus is on him. And I found your remarks especially important in light of the fact that after what we've seen in Jena has left us to just get to one side or the other, and that's not solving the problem either. I want to thank the gentlelady from Michigan, who is the Chair of our caucus, for delegating to you this responsibility and for her great leadership, especially in this week of the Congressional Black Caucus events where we will be discussing public policy and trying, as a group of African Americans, to contribute not only to the Congress, but to our Nation. If the lady will, I would like to comment on both issues. I decided that the issue, the consciousness on the issue, had been raised and no words that I could say could further raise them. But my consciousness was raised when 50,000 people went to Jena, led by young people. Now understand, yes, there were civil rights leaders here, but not since I was a kid in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee did I see a demonstration that was generally led by young people. The organized Civil Rights Movement played its part. But nobody who looked at those television pictures can have any doubt about who organized this extraordinary demonstration. And look what it was. It was a peaceful protest in the tradition of the peaceful nonviolent protests of the 1960s and '70s. These kids, mostly college and high school youngsters, who identified clearly with the Jena Six of their age, came to Louisiana essentially to say that adults had lost control of their town and of their society. I went and looked for what has happened, and I want to say a few words about what has happened that makes me say that adults lost control. This event that we all know about under the tree began almost a year ago. Well, in August. Well, August 2006, as a matter of fact. Now we're already in, so that's more than a year ago. Where, interestingly, these students went and asked permission to sit under a tree. Everything thereafter, it seems to me, falls squarely on the shoulders of the adults. Here the children are asking for permission. What do kids usually do when they see a shady spot? And that's what it was, apparently, one of the few shady spots close to the school has been preempted by people of a certain color. Well, you know, the way in which children go to school and college today, tragically, in separate groups, instead of going over and simply starting a fight or simply sitting under the tree, they asked permission. Mr. Speaker, the noose, one can argue about whether the three nooses should have resulted in expulsion or not. For myself, particularly if there's only one high school, I'm not for expelling anybody. I'm for using the good offices of the adults to try to keep from doing that. And I doubt if there was more than one high school in Jena. But the fact is that, whether or not the kids knew what the three nooses meant, once that word reached adults, white and black, they knew for sure. And without recounting all of the events, it appears that many opportunities to try to solve this issue were lost because those in charge of the town refused to listen. How could a prosecutor, the prosecutor of which the gentlelady spoke, have essentially used the threatening language about the stroke of a pen and making your lives disappear after a school assembly? The school assembly was the right thing to do. But I say to the Chair of tonight's event, where is the civil rights unit of the Justice Department? After more than a year with this thing heating up, they still have, so far as I know, this unit that does not engage in law enforcement but does help troubled communities. This is a small town. They perhaps don't have the resources or the expertise to know what to do. But this school has gone through four lockdowns over this event; the local newspaper suggesting that the parents who tried to raise the issue at a school board meeting soon thereafter and were denied were the cause of the unrest. And there has been unrest. The expulsion hearing for hanging the nooses becomes an issue not simply because that was not considered enough of a punishment. That's arguable. I don't want to stand here and say what was the proper punishment. It's because people look at the fact that that was mitigated to a few days and compare it to the almost instant expulsion of the black kids following a fight. I don't regard these two things as the same. But I say to you that the reason that this appearance of unequal justice heated up is because after the expulsion was overturned to a few days' suspension, the adults did not, in fact, react to the mounting tension in the school, and it has mounted for over a year. When the parents of the black students weren't allowed to speak at the school board meeting, they apparently went a second time and were allowed to speak, but, quote, not about the noose issue. There's nobody in Jena, and I can forgive them that, they're small-town folks, who understood that this was mounting, and if you don't get to talk it out, if you don't have small groups, if you don't have somebody helping you, it's just going to continue to mount. Disciplinary issues continue all around this separate incident. We have incidents of young blacks being attacked by whites in the town, all around this incident without anybody, months later, heating up, incident after incident, all going back to the nooses; gun pulled on some black kids, not because they were involved with the whites who pulled the gun, but in retaliation for a prior incident. So here you have retaliation going and people going after whoever is not of their color. And the teachers begging for somebody to do something over and over again. The recounting of what happened for a full year says the teachers are saying, for goodness sakes, help us out. We see mounting tension in this school. We had, a few months ago, a dozen teachers threatening a ``sick out'' if discipline was not restored in the school. And that's when the prosecutor comes forward and ups the charges of the six boys to attempted second-degree murder. That was his response to mounting racial tension in a school. The prosecutor, I want to suggest to the gentlelady from Ohio, I believe, is in violation of Louisiana rules of professional conduct, just as the prosecutor was in violation of the North Carolina rules in the infamous case involving the woman who accused the Duke players of rape. This prosecutor has done the very same thing. He has gone before the press and spoken in such a way that I believe he should be investigated by his own under Louisiana rules of professional conduct. And I believe and call upon the Louisiana Bar Association to do so. But above all, I'm calling this evening on the Justice Department to lend its mediation resources to this poor little town where both the blacks and the whites are greatly in need of outside assistance. This kind of racial tension has built up over time, not only in this community, but I think young people around the country see Jena as emblematic of the abuses, overcharging in the criminal justice system. Just as this young man who's being held in jail without bail may have been, and indeed did, if, in fact, he is found guilty now, and I do not know if he has yet been found guilty as a juvenile. The matter was thrown out when they wanted to prosecute him as adult. If he has engaged in that violence, you will not find anybody in the Congressional Black Caucus or in this Congress saying violence was the appropriate response, given the fact that you have not been appropriately responded to on the three nooses. That, you won't find us saying. What you'll find us saying is that every adult knew what maybe kids do not know, what three nooses have to have meant to these kids' parents and to these kids. And, Mr. Speaker, the adults in Jena allowed this to build up; beyond the adults, the Justice Department, who would have been in touch with these incidents. They are charged to be in touch with these incidents over the last year. They did not move in and I call upon them to do so now.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the Nation's aviation system is in crisis. Delays have reached the highest levels in 13 years and the air traffic control system is groaning under the weight of a system based on 1950s technologies. The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 2007 takes the first steps towards reducing these delays, improving airport infrastructure and creating a satellite-based air traffic control system. I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Subcommittee Chairman Costello for their leadership in bringing this bipartisan legislation to the floor. In 1986 Congress granted ``full power and dominion over, and complete discretion in, operation and development of the Airports'' to a regional authority. In return the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia agreed to take operational control and have raised more than $3 billion to modernize National and Dulles airports. All agree that the regional authority, the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, has done an excellent job. However, FAA Reauthorization legislation is almost always dogged by attempts, usually in the Senate, to increase flights outside the perimeter and inside the perimeter for Reagan Washington National Airport. MWAA has balanced concerns of safety, security and efficiency at these airports. National has avoided some of the delays that plague other airports and served the region in a comprehensive way, while Dulles has thrived as an international and national hub. We must allow professionals to do what only professionals are equipped to do. As the only regional member of the Aviation Subcommittee I have argued to maintain the current perimeter and slot system and thank both Chairman Oberstar and Subcommittee Chairman Costello for supporting me and the region. Regional members and I have been successful in keeping amendments from being brought today and now it is time for Members to cease interfering for their own convenience. The current reauthorization legislation shifts some outside-the- perimeter slots to better times and offers the slots to new entrants at National. This reordering of slots could increase competition and entice low-cost carriers to National, an airport where current airlines command a premium disadvantaging residents of the region. I hope that new entrants will help this region obtain quality low-fare carriers at National Airport for residents of the District of Columbia and the region who use National but are priced out of the major destinations inside the perimeter such as New York, Miami and Boston. Other unfinished business of the Transportation and Security Administration that affects the FAA at National Airport still remains at National. Before 9/11 National averaged 600 general aviation/charter operations a week. However, since the new security program initiated in October 2005 only 200 general aviation aircraft have flown into National. The requirements of this security program have been unduly burdensome, while at other New York airports, general aviation has returned to its previous levels. The Aviation Subcommittee will hold hearings on this issue so we can continue to work with MWAA on a balanced approach that will benefit the region and the country.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 3246, as amended, in fact does amend title 40, United States Code, to provide a comprehensive regional approach to economic and infrastructure development in the most severely and economically distressed regions of the Nation. H.R. 3246, the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007, authorizes two existing commissions and three new regional economic development commissions under a common framework of administration and management, and further provides a framework for good decisionmaking and planning. These commissions are designed to address problems of systemic poverty and underdevelopment in their respective regions. The five commissions are: the Delta Regional Commission, the Northern Great Plains Regional Commission, the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, the Southwest Border Regional Commission, and the Northern Border Regional Commission. The bill models the administrative and management procedures for these five commissions after the highly successful Appalachian Regional Commission. The bill provides for a voting structure, provisions regarding staffing, conflicts of interest, local development districts, and other matters designed to produce a standard administrative framework. By providing a uniform set of procedures, this bill provides a consistent method for distributing economic development funds throughout the regions most in need of such assistance and ensures a comprehensive regional approach to economic and infrastructure development where it is most needed in our country. The Northern Border Regional Commission, the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, and the Southwest Border Regional Commission have been proposed in legislation introduced in this and in previous Congresses and are designed to address problems of systemic poverty and underdevelopment in those regions. In addition, the Delta Regional Commission and the Northern Great Plains Commission would be authorized through this legislation. H.R. 3246 authorizes funds for each commission to provide vital assistance for the development of our Nation's most chronically poor and distressed regions. I would like to say a few words about the uniqueness of each of the new commissions being authorized by this bill. The Southwest Border Region includes all counties within 150 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. This region contains 11 counties in New Mexico, 65 counties in Texas, 10 counties in Arizona, and seven counties in California, for a combined population of approximately 29 million residents. According to research compiled by the Interagency Task Force on the Economic Development of the Southwest Border, 20 percent of the residents of this region of the Nation live below the poverty level. Unemployment rates are often as high as five times the national unemployment rate, and a lack of adequate access to capital has created economic disparities and made it difficult for businesses to start up in the region. The Northern Border Region, stretching from Maine to New York, while abundant in natural resources and rich in potential, lags behind much of the Nation in its economic growth, and its people have not shared properly in the Nation's prosperity. The region's historic reliance on a few basic industries and on agriculture has failed to provide a diverse enough economic base for a vigorous self-sustained growth. In the belt of counties along the northern border from Maine through New York, 12.5 percent of the population lives in poverty; median household incomes is about $6,500 below the national average; unemployment through layoffs in traditional manufacturing industries is persistent; and the population grew only by 0.6 percent between 1990 and 2000 while the U.S. population rose by 13.2 percent, showing significant out- migration and loss of young people in the northern border region. The southeastern portion of the United States, encompassing the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida, is an area which has seen poverty rates well above the national average, coupled with record unemployment. The region has also experienced natural disasters at a rate two to three times greater than any other region in the United States. The Southeast Crescent Authority authorizes a local-State-Federal partnership to lift citizens in this geographic area out of poverty and create jobs. With the Federal allocation of funding, SECA seeks to funnel monies to programs which address one or more of the following criteria for the community betterment: infrastructure, education and job training, health care, entrepreneurship, and leadership development. Those communities with the greatest need will be targeted, and grants will be made according to the degree of distress. This bill has very broad and very bipartisan support, Mr. Speaker; and the committee has held a series of hearings that has documented the needs that these economic development commissions would address. I strongly support the bill, and urge passage of H.R. 3246. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3246.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill H.R. 3246 to amend title 40, United States Code, to provide a comprehensive regional approach to economic and infrastructure development in the most severely economically distressed regions in the Nation, as amended.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to stress the bipartisan nature of this bill. I also want to stress the hearings we've held on this bill. As you might imagine, when people hear the word ``economic development,'' everybody wants in. This has been a very rigorous process. We have bent over backwards, frontwards and sideways to be completely objective and to be open to Members on both sides of the aisles. It's worth noting that all of the amendments that were added were requested by minority Members, our Republican colleagues. We're pleased to do so. They were able to show the need in their respective districts. This bill, it seems to me, in light of the strong support it has had in our subcommittee and our committee, from Members from all parts of the country, and of all backgrounds and parties, in light of that fact, I urge passage of the bill, and I urge all Members to support this bipartisan bill for economic development for the underdeveloped regions of our country

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a conflict making it impossible for me to remain for the very important hour that the Congressional Black Caucus has taken on Iraq. I am about to go to the Senate floor tomorrow, though, as there is a test on whether there will be a filibuster on the D.C. voting rights bill even as D.C. residents are on the ground in Iraq fighting, even as I have gone to funerals at Arlington Cemetery because of this war. We have a President who has announced a token drawdown at the same time he is Koreanizing the war, making sure we remain there at least as permanently as we have been in some parts of the world, like Korea and Germany already. He wants to make a piggy bank of the Congress of the United States, and the test is whether we are willing to go along with these now-clear goals of the President. I want to devote my 5 minutes to asking a question that really needs to be asked. We are looking at the battle. I want to ask, is there really still an Iraq? Three million refugees have left the country since 2003. Another 3 million have been internally displaced. Some have called it ethnic cleansing. I believe it is involuntary ethnic cleansing, because in a civil war you want to win, not chase the other people out. We didn't want the Southerners to go; we just wanted to win the Civil War. There is a kind of ethnic cleansing going on in Iraq, and let me show it and urge Members to focus on it. Thousands leave every month, and 95 percent remain in the Middle East. What kind of a cauldron are we making in the Middle East? Syria has been best in taking them, and they are full up. Iraqis are the leading nationality seeking asylum in industrialized countries. Three hundred Iraqis returned after the fall of Saddam Hussein. So encouraged were they that they came back to their land, many of them from Iran. By 2006, hundreds of thousands of new refugees were fleeing the country, and last week we heard there is less violence? Sure, those people that are leaving. They are being driven out of their own country as a result of a civil war. What is most shameful as I looked at the data was to find who was taking the refugees. We know who is responsible for them leaving. We know who invaded their country. Well, the U.K. has taken 22,300, a much smaller country than we. Australia has taken 11,000, and the United States has taken 6,000. And they say if we leave, there will be a major fratricide. So why aren't we taking some of these people? Why are our allies willing to take them, even though they had less to do with the fleeing in the first place. The number of people displaced internally is shocking. It has risen in 2006 alone by 50 percent. Let me show you how we are failing in our duties. In 1992, 1993 and 1994, we were taking over 4,000 Iraqi refugees and settling them. Now in 2005, we report settling 200. This is a moral failing when you invade somebody else's country and you won't take their refugees and you insist upon staying there and fomenting violence when 80 percent say they want you out of the country. Let me read from an independent journalist. I don't think you can say Iraq exists any more. There has been very effective systemic ethnic cleansing of Sunnis from Baghdad, of Shias from areas that are now mostly Shia, but the Sunnis especially have been a target, as have mixed families. With a name like ``Omar,'' a person is distinctly Sunni. It is a very Sunni name. You can be executed for having the name ``Omar'' alone, and Baghdad is now firmly in the hands of sectarian Shiite militias, and they are never going to let it go. The refugee story alone is reason enough to begin the exodus from Iraq tomorrow. That is what they want. That is what the majority of the American people want. That's what we must see happen before we leave this Congress this year

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today, I introduce the United States Commission on an Open Society and Security Act; expressing an idea I began working on when the first signs of the closing of parts of our open society appeared after the Oklahoma City bombing tragedy, well before 9/11. I introduce this bill on the sixth anniversary of 9/11 because the bill grows more urgent as increasing varieties of security throughout the country proliferate without any thought about their effect on common freedoms and ordinary access, and without any guidance from the government or elsewhere. The bill I introduce today would begin a systematic investigation that takes full account of the importance of maintaining our democratic traditions while responding adequately to the real and substantial threats terrorism poses. To be useful in accomplishing its difficult mission, the Commission would be composed not only of military and security experts, but for the first time, they would be at the same table with experts from such fields as business, architecture, technology, law, city planning, art, engineering, philosophy, history, sociology, and psychology. To date, questions of security most often have been left almost exclusively to security and military experts. They are indispensable participants, but these experts cannot alone resolve all the new and unprecedented issues raised by terrorism in an open society. In order to strike the balance required by our democratic traditions, a cross-cutting group needs to be working together at the same table. For years before our eyes, parts of our open society have gradually been closed down because of terrorism and fear of terrorism--whether checkpoints on streets near the Capitol even when there were no alerts, or applications of technology without regard to their effects on privacy. We have also seen heightened controversy, litigation, hearings, legislation and court decisions because of the use of technology that intercepts terrorist communications but also covers communications among Americans. Following the unprecedented terrorist attack on our country, Americans expected additional and increased security adequate to protect citizens against this frightening threat. However, in our country, people also expect government to be committed and smart enough to undertake this awesome new responsibility without depriving them of their personal liberty. These years in our history will long be remembered by the rise of terrorism in the world and in this country and the unprecedented challenges it has brought. We must provide ever- higher levels of security for our people and public spaces while maintaining a free and open democratic society for as long as is necessary. Yet, this is no ordinary war that we expect to be over in a matter of years. The end point could be generations from now. The indeterminate nature of the threat adds to the necessity of putting aside ad hoc approaches to security developed in isolation from the goal of maintaining an open society. When we have faced unprecedented and perplexing issues in the past, we have had the good sense to investigate them deeply and to move to resolve them. Examples include the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission), the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (also known as the Silberman-Robb Commission) and the Kerner Commission that investigate the riotous uprisings that swept American cities in the 1960s and 1970s. The important difference in the Commission proposed in this bill is that it seeks to act before a crisis-level erosion of basic freedoms takes hold and becomes entrenched. Because global terrorism is likely to be long lasting, we cannot afford to allow the proliferation of security that neither requires nor is subject to advance civilian oversight or analysis of alternatives or repercussions on freedom and commerce. With no vehicles for leadership on issues of security and openness, we have been left to muddle through, using blunt 19th century approaches, such as crude blockades, unsightly barriers around beautiful monuments and other signals that the society is closing down, or anti-privacy applications, without appropriate exploration of possible alternatives. The threat of terrorism to an open society is too serious to be left to ad hoc problem-solving. Such approaches are often as inadequate as they are menacing. We can do better, but only if we recognize and then come to grips with the complexities associated with maintaining a society of free and open access in a world characterized by unprecedented terrorism. The place to begin is with a high-level presidential commission of experts in a broad spectrum of disciplines who can help chart the new course that will be required to protect our people and our precious democratic institutions and traditions.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today I introduce the Lifelong Improvements in Food and Exercise Act (LIFE), a national initiative to attack growing problems of overweight and obesity now found in Americans of every age, race, and major demographic group. The LIFE bill would provide $15 million in funding to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for a major effort to reverse increasingly sedentary lifestyles and diets that are high in fat and sugar. I introduce the bill today because of the startling and steadily increasing rates of obesity among adults and children in the United States. Currently, 64.5 percent of adults, aged 20 years and older, are overweight and 32.2 percent of adults (over 66 million) are obese. According to the National Women's Health Information Center, 50 percent of women aged 20 to 74 are overweight or obese. Young people are no better off--the percentage of children who are overweight has more than doubled, and among adolescents the rates have tripled since 1980 increasing from 5 percent to 17.1 percent. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that Type 2 diabetes, considered an adult disease, is now widespread in children. The health care system is already paying the price, and the consequences to kids will follow them throughout their lives. These kids, ages 10 to 15, have a 80 percent chance of being overweight adults, with the health conditions that follow, such as high blood pressure, heart disease and cancer. The LIFE bill directs the CDC to pursue obesity and sedentary lifestyles in three ways: train health professionals to recognize the signs of obesity early and educate people concerning healthful alternatives, such as proper nutrition and regular exercise; conduct public education campaigns to teach the public about how to recognize and address overweight and obesity; and develop intervention strategies to be used in everyday life in worksites and community settings. This important legislation is the minimum necessary to address this major health care crisis. Already, chronic diseases, many of which are caused or exacerbated by overweight or obesity, account for 70 percent of all deaths in the U.S., which is 1.7 million each year and 60 percent of U.S. medical care expenses yearly. According to the Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity, the cost of obesity in the United States in 2000 was more than $117 billion. A focused national health initiative is necessary because unhealthy lifestyles have become a normal part of everyday life. Participation in high school physical education classes has dropped from 42 percent in 1991 to 33 percent in 2005, accounting at least for part of the reason that one-third of young people in grades 9-12 do not regularly engage in physical activities. National data show an increase in unhealthy eating habits for adults and no change in physical activity. Changes in nutrition are equally critical because 60 percent of young people consume too much fat, a factor in the doubling in the percentage of overweight youth. I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of this important legislation to mobilize the country now before entirely preventable health conditions that begin in children overwhelm the nation's health care system.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management of the Transportation Committee has jurisdiction over General Service Administration, GSA, activities and programs as the property manager for the Federal Government. GSA itself owns over 1,500 Federal buildings comprising over 175 million square feet of space. The agency leases another 7,100 buildings with a total rentable area of over 176 million square feet of space. Because GSA is a lease holder for the vast majority of office space controlled by the Federal Government, the agency can also have a pivotal role in energy conservation in the private sector as well. According to a September 2006 Department of Energy report, the public and private building sector together account for an amazing 39 percent of total U.S. energy consumption, more than both the transportation and industry sectors. Even more surprising public and private sector buildings, like those under our jurisdiction, are responsible for 71 percent of U.S. electricity consumption. These buildings in the United States alone account for 9.8 percent of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. U.S. buildings are responsible for nearly the same amount of carbon emissions as all sectors of the economies of Japan, France, and the United Kingdom combined. The Federal Government is the world's single largest energy consumer and the most prolific in wasting energy in the world today. Yet, for years our Government has pursued and achieved energy savings that demonstrate that we are capable of moving with far greater results. Primary energy use by the Federal Government, for example, fell 13 percent during the past 20 years, with a 25 percent decrease in energy costs in real terms, despite a 27 percent increase in fuel prices in the U.S. in 2005. In this bill, we begin to build on these results. Subtitle A of Title VI offers simple yet very effective measures to immediately effect energy consumption in Federal buildings. The title includes a provision to direct the Administrator of General Services to install in newly constructed or newly renovated Federal buildings energy efficient lighting fixtures and light bulbs. Further, it also directs the Administrator of General Services, in the course of routine maintenance of Federal buildings, to replace existing bulbs and fixtures with more energy efficient fixtures and bulbs. Title VI also requires that GSA include in the prospectuses for construction or alteration, submitted to Congress for approval, information about building energy performance and renewable energy systems. This provision will enable the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to examine anticipated energy consumption in new Federal buildings to make sure the buildings meet the highest standards possible. Further Title VI authorizes the Administrator of GSA to sign utility contracts for not more than 30 years. This one provision will allow the GSA a longer time frame to hedge against increasing electricity prices in the market. The longstanding trend in electricity pricing is ever- increasing inflationary pressure as time advances. Thus a longer power purchase agreement, PPA, secures a fixed rate for a longer period and provides greater insulation against inflationary trends. As a final provision, Title VI contains the language to authorize the installation of the photovoltaic wall at the Department of Energy headquarters building here on Independence Ave. and provides funding for this historic project from the Federal building fund at the General Services. Subtitle C of Title VI deals with the Architect of the Capitol and authorizes the Architect of the Capitol to perform a feasibility study regarding the installation of a photovoltaic roof on the Rayburn House Office Building. Further Subtitle C authorizes the Architect to construct a fuel tank and pumping stations for E-85 fuel at or within close proximity of the Capitol grounds. The Architect is directed to include energy efficient measures and renewable energy in the Capitol Complex Master Plan and transmit a report to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on the energy efficient measures, climate mitigation measures, and other environmental measures included in the Master Plan.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I rise to commemorate the fruitful life of Richard Rausch, who served on the staff here in the House in past years. After Richard Rausch's funeral in June, his friends repaired to the American Legion watering hole on Capitol Hill to celebrate his life in his style. Here in Congress, Richard is remembered for serving on the legislative staff of Rep. Neal Smith of Richard's home state of Iowa and Rep. Phil Burton. Richard's position as national director of the Young Democrats brought him to D.C. and he remained expert in national politics, but local politics became second nature to him. He came to the District from his beloved Iowa, and fell in love with this city and never left. In his home Capitol Hill community, Richard was revered both for his wit, wisdom, and his acumen as a behind the scenes political advisor and serious politician with the good humor not to take himself too seriously. He gave his life to the Democratic Party, attending every Democratic convention for the past 50 years. A gay activist before most gays dared to come out, Rausch was a founding member and one of only three honorary life members of the Gertrude Stein Club. He was D.C.'s first openly gay member of the Democratic National Committee. Richard was a quintessentially social animal and volunteer who knew who he was, where he stood and why. At bottom, people and politics were the loves of Richard's delightful and fully lived life. Although most Americans have yet to commit to a presidential candidate, Richard was making calls for Sen. Barack Obama from his hospital bed during his last days. No doubt, Richard died a happy man, but he left many friends like me, who feel the void of his passing. Long live Richard.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I am introducing today the Universal Pre- kindergarten and Early Childhood Education Act of 2007 (Universal Pre- K) to begin the process of providing universal, public school pre- kindergarten education for every child, regardless of income. The bill is meant to fill the gaping hole in the President's No Child Left Behind law, which requires elementary and secondary school children to meet more rigorous standards while ignoring the preschool years which can best prepare them to do so. My bill would provide a breakthrough in elementary school education by taking a step at the Federal level to provide initial funding, and using such funding to encourage school districts themselves to add a grade to elementary schooling at ages three and four as an option for every child. We cannot afford to continue to blithely let the most fertile years for reading go by while we wonder why we can't teach Johnny to read. As the President presses No Child Left Behind into high schools, my bill asks him to begin at the beginning when children should begin their education. The Universal Pre-K Act responds both to the huge and growing needs of parents for educational childcare and to the new science showing that a child's brain development, which sets the stage for lifelong learning, begins much earlier than previously believed. However, parents who need childcare for their pre-K aged children are rarely able to afford the stimulating educational environment necessary to ensure optimal brain development. Universal pre-K education would be a part of school systems, adding a new grade for three-and four-year-olds similar to five-year-old kindergarten programs now routinely available in the United States. The bill would eliminate some of the major shortcomings of the uneven commercial daycare now available and would assure the qualified teachers and safe facilities of public schools. This bill's introduction is particularly timely here in the District of Columbia, where more extensive integration of early childhood education is planned as part of a larger effort to improve D.C. public schools. A recent report highlighted the economic benefits of early childhood education, generating $221 million each year in the District while starting early to expand job, career, income, and academic prospects of children, decreasing the amount spent on social programs to address teen pregnancy, crime, and the like. Compare the cost of daycare, most of it offered today with an inadequate educational emphasis, at an average cost of $6,171 per year, to the cost of in-state tuition at the University of Virginia, which costs $6,785 per year. Yet, more than 60 percent of mothers with children under age six work. That proportion is rapidly increasing as more mothers enter the labor force, including mothers leaving welfare, who also have no long term access to child care. Because of decades of refusal by Congress to approve the large sums necessary for universal health coverage, the Universal Pre-K Act encourages school districts across the United States to apply to the Department of Education for grants to establish three and four-year-old kindergartens. Grants funded under Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, would be available to school systems which agree in turn to use the experience acquired with the Federal funding provided by my bill to then move forward, where possible, to phase in three and four-year-old kindergartens for all children in the school district in regular classrooms with teachers equivalent to those in other grades as part of their annual school district budgets. The success of high quality Head Start and other pre-kindergarten programs combined with new scientific evidence concerning the importance of brain development in the early years virtually mandate the expansion of early childhood education to all of our children. Traditionally, early learning programs have been available only to the affluent and to lower income families in programs such as Head Start. My bill provides a practiced way to gradually move to universal pre- school education. The goal of the Universal Pre-K Act is to bring the benefits of educational pre-K within reach of the great majority of American working poor, lower middle class, and middle class families, most of whom have been left out. Considering the staggering cost of daycare, the inaccessibility of early education, and the opportunity earlier education offers to improve a child's chances in life, three and four-year-old kindergarten is overdue. The absence of viable options for working families demands our immediate attention. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for moving so quickly to fix this bill because we really can't wait. Fixing this bill, and thank you for taking us back to 1964, because that is about what happens here. The bill as it was intended, and this is not a hypertechnical statute of limitations bill. In fact, interestingly, the statute of limitations is not involved at all. It is the same 180 days as it always was. The bill before us reinstates the law as it was consistently applied and interpreted by the courts, including the United States Supreme Court before, during and after I administered this law as the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and administered this very section. Once before the Supreme Court misread this, and Congress rushed to change it. And here we are back to a Supreme Court really reaching very hard away from what we had already fixed in the 1991 Civil Rights Act. I want to remind my colleagues that the first pay cases under this act were not brought by women at all. They were brought by black men who were working in Southern factories in a segregated part of those factories, paid less than white men. Imagine if we said, Look, you fellas, go and see if you can find out what the white men, who won't even let you work in the same part of the factory, are earning. Of course we didn't. And of course nobody can require that of women or African Americans, who are just as affected by what we do today as women are. Imagine, the most secretive information a person has, besides your medical information, is how much money you earn. How many in this Congress, before your earnings were a matter of public record, knew how much the person sitting beside you earned? And particularly, if you are a minority, a woman or a minority, you are not going to go up, and if you are, you are not going to find out. We have got to fix this. The American people have demanded it. We have to fix it for women. And remind you, we have to fix this for black people, for people of color who bring the majority of pay cases in our country today.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, but above all, I thank him for a bill of historic dimensions. Mr. Speaker, if this bill did no more than H.R. 1, enact a 9/11 Commission report, it would be that, and it does a great deal more. It's what we have been trying to do ever since you and I have been on this commission. Let me point out a couple of things. One of the most criticized parts of homeland security has been what is called the revenue sharing or pork barrel spending we did in just distributing this money all over the country. Your task was to somehow make sure everybody got enough money, while pointing the money to where al Qaeda is pointing the threat. That is exactly what you have done with the base Federal funding for emergency preparedness now going, finally, on the basis of risk and vulnerabilities. Of course, that means New York City and Washington D.C. are getting more attention than before. But those are not the only jurisdictions. Would anyone not want those two jurisdictions to get most of the attention where al Qaeda is giving most of the attention. I share with Chairman Oberstar the concern that what we put in our bill for the distribution of the transportation security funds was not agreed to by the Senate. So we have another bureaucracy distributing the funds, as we would not have preferred. But it must be said that you and I sponsored the bill for rail security. Public transportation security could get nowhere. Look what you have in this bill. Where the people are, we have got $4 billion for the first time. We got it for rail, we have got it for public transportation, we got it for buses. Finally, there is a collective sigh of relief. There is $20 million, I must say, for Union Station. I just want to point that out, because Union Station is 2 seconds away from the Senate of the United States. It's the hub for Amtrak, and it's typical of where your bill looks for where the vulnerability is, where the holes are and shores them up. Your bill will be remembered by history.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Farm Bill, with great appreciation for the many challenges it presented to Chairman Collin Peterson, and respect for the Chairman's skill in meeting a multitude of complicated and often competing demands. I want to say a word about a small change in the bill that nevertheless rises to historic dimensions. I thank Chairman Peterson and his staff for providing equal treatment in the bill for the University of the District of Columbia, UDC, the only all urban 1862 Land Grant Institution in the United States. The University performs valuable urban agricultural research and extension services. The fact that the provisions the Chairman has included were in the Congressional Black Caucus farm bill package underscores the UDC changes as necessary to afford the University equality under the law. The changes end the disparate treatment of UDC by removing obligations not required of other land grant institutions, particularly mandatory local matching funds. By statute, UDC has been left out of funding opportunities granted to other land grant institutions. For example, the University is required to provide 100 percent matching funds for its Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Programs, EFNEP, the only 1862 Land Grant Institution required to do so. Under the bill, this inequitable requirement will be removed, putting UDC on par with all other 1862 institutions, and like other small land grant institutions, UDC will qualify to have matching requirements for Hatch Act programs and extension programs reduced or waived. We particularly appreciate access to grants to significantly enhance the University's teaching and research capacity building and its ability to upgrade its research, teaching and extension facilities. We still require clarification on one issue related to Smith-Lever Act funds. We will seek to clarify this issue during conference. However, the substance of the changes we requested is in this bill. We are grateful for the historic breakthroughs in the equal treatment for the country's only all urban land grant institution.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today I introduce a bill to allow treatment using Medicaid funds for men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer. This bill mirrors the measure that Congress enacted in 1999 to help low-income women who would otherwise not qualify for Medicaid, despite being diagnosed with breast cancer or cervical cancer. Congress found that women responded in large numbers to efforts by government and others to encourage early diagnosis using mammography after the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act was enacted in 1990. However, in 1999 Congress recognized that because the screening did not provide coverage of treatment for women above the poverty level, the screening legislation had the tragic but unintended consequence of informing these women of a serious disease that demanded immediate treatment but leaving them without the means to seek that treatment. Later, Congress amended Title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide medical assistance for the women screened and found to have breast or cervical cancer under a Federally funded screening program. In today's bill, I have endeavored to provide the same relief for men. This bill allows men, earning up to 250 percent of the poverty level, who are diagnosed with prostate cancer through a Federal screening program for prostate cancer, to qualify for treatment using Medicaid funds. The program would target men who are low-income, uninsured or underinsured men who, nevertheless, do not qualify for Medicaid and do not have private Insurance. Prostate cancer outranks breast cancer as the second most common occurring cancer in the U.S. and the second leading cause of cancer- related deaths. However, diagnosing this cancer is often less expensive, and unlike breast cancer, often does not require immediate treatment. Prostate cancer treatment does not require invasive surgery in many instances. Many prostate cases can be diagnosed with a simple Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Test unlike the high technology mammography machines used to detect breast cancer. Many men are advised to wait and watch for the development of the disease before seeking treatment. However the rate of cancer deaths coupled with available treatment is strong evidence that many lives could be saved at considerably less expense if early detection and treatment were more available. Although race is a factor, every man over the age of 50 is at risk of developing prostate cancer and should be screened. Veterans that have been exposed to Agent Orange also have a higher risk of developing prostate cancer. Many doctors recommend yearly screening for men over age 50, and some advise men who are at a higher risk for prostate cancer to begin screening at age 40 or 45. Many black men are at the highest risk of prostate cancer--it tends to start at younger ages and grows faster than in men of other races. Currently, Medicare provides coverage for an annual PSA test for all men age 50 and older but men still do not fall within existing requirements to receive Medicaid. I urge my colleagues to join with me in establishing this program guaranteeing treatment for men diagnosed with prostate cancer. It will meet an immediate and pressing need in communities across the country, and across racial and class lines. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I recognize Pastor Wanda McNeill for her 17 years of tireless work as Executive Director of Washington, DC's Southeast Ministry, which she helped create in 1990. Pastor McNeill, on the surface, was not an obvious candidate to take on such work in an inner city neighborhood, having been born and raised in Sioux City, Iowa. But Pastor McNeill has touched the lives of thousands in Washington, DC, and this city will be forever grateful for her dedication to those in need. We wish her well and Godspeed as she leaves our Nation's Capital to accept a call to lead a parish in Lake Preston, South Dakota. Whereas Pastor Wanda McNeill is a spiritual leader who, through her faith in God, has answered His call by dedicating her life's work to serving those in need; Whereas Pastor Wanda McNeill was born on February 21, 1944 in Sioux City, Iowa, and was raised on a family farm along with her sister Stella by William and Louise Edwards; Whereas Pastor Wanda McNeill in her earlier life was a foster parent with her late husband Frank McNeill to 12 children; Whereas Pastor Wanda McNeill earned a Diploma in Nursing at Iowa Lutheran Hospital, Des Moines, Iowa in 1965 and has been a licensed Registered Nurse in Iowa, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington, DC; Whereas Pastor Wanda McNeill served the citizens of North Carolina as a Vista Volunteer working with low-income families from 1966 to 1968, and then as a public health nurse until 1984, and during that time, founded the Yancey County Hospice Agency in Burnsville, North Carolina in 1982; Whereas Pastor Wanda McNeill earned a B.S. in professional arts, psychology emphasis, from St. Joseph's College, North Windham, Massachusetts in 1984, graduated from Lutheran Theological Seminary in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania in 1988, was ordained in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America in 1989, and earned a doctorate of ministry from Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 2005; Whereas Pastor Wanda McNeill has held the positions of Assistant Pastor, Associate Pastor, and Pastor at the Lutheran Church of Reformation in Washington, DC, since 1990 and has served our Capitol Hill neighborhood faithfully for 17 years; Whereas Pastor Wanda McNeill co-founded a non-profit social justice ministry named Southeast Ministry in the Anacostia neighborhood of southeast Washington, DC, in 1990 in response to expressed community needs for educational, cultural, and employment programs that lead those in need to self-sufficiency; Whereas Pastor Wanda McNeill through Southeast Ministry has reached thousands of men and women with education and job-related information services, increased their basic education skills and assisted them in passing the GED, prepared them to secure jobs through a curriculum of African-American culture, history, parenting, health and vocational assessment and in placement in training, employment and education; Whereas Pastor Wanda McNeill's personal decorations include the Community Service Award from Anacostia-Congress Heights Partnership in 1991, Women of Achievement Award from the Zonta Club of Washington, DC, in 2000, and the Bob Woodson Award for special accomplishments from the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise in 2005; Resolved, That the United States House of Representatives recognizes Pastor Wanda McNeill for her commitment to a life of service to the citizens of the United States, especially the poor and underprivileged who society has passed by, for her continued dedication to this life- long calling, and for touching the lives of thousands with her work in the poorest neighborhoods of the District of Columbia, our Nation's Capitol.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today I introduce a bill that I believe Congress must pass forthwith to assure that Federal Protective Service, FPS, guard contractors are capable, responsible, and ethical as required by the Federal Acquisition Regulations. It was clear to me that this bill was necessary when a vital security contractor issue emerged from our Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management hearing on June 21, 2007. A security guard contractor had failed to pay its guards from FPS funds. At the hearing we learned that Weldon Waites, who had served five years in prison for money laundering and fraud, was the de facto owner, with his wife, of STARTECH, despite federal law barring felons from owning companies that do business with the federal government. In fact, it was Waites, not his wife, who came forward to defend the company after it failed to pay its 600 D.C.- based guards despite receipt of funds from FPS for payment. Mr. Waites' testimony concerning his operational control of the company was nothing short of a case study in evasion of existing law by merely taking advantage of obvious loopholes. Today I am filing the Federal Protective Service Guard Contracting Reform Act to prohibit FPS from contracting with any security guard service that is ``owned, controlled or operated by an individual who has been convicted of a felony.'' My bill would eliminate proxy ownership of vital FPS contracting operations by relatives or spouses. The bill would be effective immediately upon passage and therefore would mean that FPS would be required to dismiss any felon exercising control over any FPS contracting operation now, not merely future contractors. My bill reminds us that we must not lose sight of the mission of private contract guards who serve the federal government--to guard federal employees and sites as vital as nuclear plants and military posts against terrorism and crime, and in the case of Jenkins Security, two secure federal power plants here. The STARTECH example of unpaid contract guards and apparent misuse of federal funds directed to pay guards demonstrated why federal law requires these businesses have a ``satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.'' Contract security officers are a critical component of federal strategies to protect the safety and security of federal employees and vital federal facilities. In the federal sector, security guards, many of whom carry guns, are as essential to protecting federal employees and sites as members of FPS. Although not a replacement for public law enforcement officers, whether local police officers, or FPS law enforcement officers, private security guards, like peace officers, are engaged in counter-terrorism activities in the post 9/11 environment. It was 9/11 and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security that led to the transfer of the FPS from the General Services Administration to the new Department of Homeland Security. Since the transfer, however, FPS has become even more dependant on contract guards, who have grown rapidly to 15,000, while the number FPS guards is down from an authorized 1,450 to about 1,000. In passing appropriations for FPS this year, the Appropriations Committee indicated that the administration is seeking to totally eliminate FPS, the official police force for federal government work sites and facilities. The Appropriation Committee took action that assures that FPS officer levels as of 2006 will remain in place unless certain strong conditions are met. Today's legislation concerning the vitality and integrity of contracting operations assume even greater importance in light of FPS downsizing. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, today I recognize the achievements of one of my constituents, Richard ``Dick'' Smith, who has generously contributed to the preservation and continuance of jazz music and culture. With deepest honor, I am proud to present this tribute to Mr. Smith, a contributor of our American culture. For the past 8 years, Mr. Smith has diligently worked as music coordinator for Jazz Night located at a Southwest Washington church. The mission of Jazz Night is to present, preserve, document, and perpetuate the original art form of jazz as it has been practiced for over 75 years. Jazz Night provides a venue for local jazz legends and contemporary musicians throughout the D.C. Metropolitan area to perform for people of all ages, experiences and backgrounds. Mr. Smith dedicates his life to jazz, and his involvement and participation in such programs as Jazz Night reflects his sincerity and devotion to his cause. In collaboration with Jazz Night Mr. Smith works to provide outreach by presenting jazz musicians and hosting jazz performances in community centers, senior citizen facilities and nursing homes. Music education is also provided for young people through a program designed to develop and nurture emerging musicians. This program serves often neglected sectors of our community by supporting and developing the youth. By doing this Mr. Smith hopes to erase as much of the negativity and violence that threatens many communities. Furthermore, Mr. Smith wishes to bridge the gap between the youth and the jazz tradition by recognizing the youth as a vital part of our jazz community, and by exposing them to music other than hip hop which often saturates their environment. Mr. Smith has tirelessly and unselfishly devoted his life to the conservation of jazz. He is one of the founding members of Lettum Play, an organization formed in the 1950s that gave musicians a venue to perform. Mr. Smith serves as a mentor to many emerging musicians in the Washington area. Without the incessant efforts of Mr. Smith, D.C. jazz as we know it would cease to exist. In addition to being a vocalist, the former Washington Redskin is truly a legend in the D.C. area. His mission, to ensure that the history of jazz in Washington, DC is preserved for generations to come, is commendable. As a performer, Mr. Smith has had the privilege to perform with such greats as Shirley Murdock, and notable jazz musicians like the late Keter Betts, Buck Hill and the late Ronnie Wells. For more than 5 years, Mr. Smith was a featured male vocalist for the East Coast Jazz Festival. Mr. Smith has spent years enriching the cultural and musical life of District residents. I am pleased to join the Washington area in recognizing Mr. Smith's service and contributions to our community as he celebrates his recent birthday.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I introduce the District of Columbia Medicaid Reimbursement Act of 2007 today to raise the Federal medical assistance percentage, FMAP, the Federal contribution from the Federal Government from 70 percent to 75 percent, and to reduce the District's unique role as the only city that pays the full local cost of Medicaid, a program that is carried by States and counties in our country. New York City, the jurisdiction that powers the economy of New York State, contributes a 25 percent local share to Medicaid while the State pays 25 percent, less than the District's statutorily mandated 30 percent contribution. I introduce this bill because the District's continuing responsibility for most Medicaid costs that are typically borne by entire states is a major component of the District's structural deficit and threatens the stability of the city itself, according to the District's Chief Financial Officer, CFO. The District's CFO reports that rapidly increasing Medicaid costs put the city at risk. In FY2005, these costs accounted for $1.4 billion, or 22 percent, of the city's gross funds budget. Total program costs have risen 42 percent since 1999, and are projected to increase by another $39 million this year. Yet the District, unlike other cities which have lost significant populations, has no State economy to share this burden. More than 25 percent of District children and adults are enrolled in Medicaid, compared to 12 percent in Maryland and just 9 percent in Virginia. On average, the District spends over $7,000 per enrollee, while Maryland and Virginia spend $5,509 and $5,177, respectively, reflecting serious health conditions that are concentrated among big city residents in this majority African-American city. The D.C. Medicaid Reimbursement Act of 2007 is the seventh in the ``Free and Equal D.C.'' series. This series of bills addresses inappropriate and often unequal restrictions placed only on the District and no other U.S. jurisdiction. Although today's bill cannot address the entire structural problem that the District faces because the city is not part of a state, the bill would eliminate the greater percentage the District pays by allowing a 25 percent city contribution, rather than the current contribution that is even greater than New York City's. In 1997, as part of the Balanced Budget Act, Congress recognized that State costs were too costly for any one city to shoulder. To alleviate the resulting financial crisis, Congress increased the Federal Medicaid contribution to the District from 50 to 70 percent, and took responsibility for a few State costs--prisons and courts--relieving the immediate burden, but the city continues to carry most State costs. In 1997, a formulaic error in the Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital, DSH, allotment reduced the 70 percent FMAP share, and as a result, the District received only $23 million instead of the $49 million due. I was able to secure a technical correction to the Balanced Budget Act of 1999, partially increasing the annual allotment to $32 million from FY2000 forward. I appreciate that in 2005, Congress responded to my effort to get an additional annual increase of $20 million in the budget reconciliation bill, bringing D.C.'s Medicaid reimbursement payments to $57 million as intended by the Balanced Budget Act. However, this amount did not reimburse the District for the years a Federal error denied the city part of its Federal contribution, and in any case, of course, was not intended to meet the structural problem this bill partially addresses. The District has taken important steps on its own to reduce Medicaid costs through greater efficiency, and to treat and prevent conditions that prove costly when hospitalization or expensive treatments become necessary. The District Medicaid agency won Federal recognition as one of only two Medicaid programs nationwide to exceed the Federal Government's child immunization goal for school-age children at 95 percent, and improved its fraud surveillance, recovering $15 million in fraudulently billed funds. The city's novel D.C. Health Care Alliance, for which Federal approval is pending, would allow coverage of residents and provide more early and preventative care, avoiding huge Medicaid costs when health conditions become severe and Medicaid becomes the only option. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this increase that will help my city's most needy residents.

Ms. NORTON

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce legislation that would put the University of the District of Columbia (UDC) on par with all of the other land grant universities around the country. Land grant institutions play a significant role in ensuring that our nation remains the world leader in the production of food, fuel and fiber. Through a wide range of research and extension activities, U.S. citizens gain useful knowledge on the latest changes in agriculture- based technology that keeps our food supply safe while providing for critical health information on food and nutrition. Congress authorized land grant status to the University of the District of Columbia in 1974, and since that time the University of the District of Columbia has played a major role in these efforts from an urban point of view as the only all urban land grant institution in the country. Many are not aware that the University of the District of Columbia is an 1862 Land Grant Institution with specific legislative authority to participate in various United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) research and extension programs. More particularly, the University has specific statutory authority to participate in research funding programs under the Hatch Act, similar to the authority given to other 1862 Land Grant Institutions. This is not the case, however, for the University's extension service activities. Extension services at the University are awkwardly authorized under Section 208(c) of the District of Columbia Higher Education and Post Secondary Act of 1974, rather than Section 3 of the Smith-Lever Act. While Section 208(c) of the District of Columbia Higher Education and Post Secondary Act of 1974 incorporates by reference the specific extension activities under Section 3 of the Smith-Lever Act, this outdated statutory scheme presents significant barriers to the University's ability to effectively carry out extension activities. The barriers resulting from this statutory scheme present themselves in form and substance while raising issues of equity and fairness. USDA's implementation ofthe Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) best highlights this inequity. EFNEP is a formula-based nutrition education program authorized under Section 3(d) of the Smith-Lever Act. In Fiscal Year 2006, the Congress appropriated $62 million for the EFNEP program and USDA disseminated these funds, without any nonfederal matching requirement, to the various land grant institutions in the states and territories, except for the University of the District of Columbia. Under current law, Smith-Lever EFNEP funding is made only conditionally available to the University of the District of Columbia through Section 208(c) of the D.C. Postsecondary Education Act, which requires UDC to provide 100% matching funds for its EFNEP funding. UDC is the only 1862 Land Grant Institution required to do so. The language requiring the 100% match for District of Columbia EFNEP programs is clearly a relic of the budget and political climate that existed at the time the EFNEP provision was enacted for the District of Columbia in 1974. Moreover, as a critical threshold issue, the University does not currently have access to any EFNEP funding because UDC is not in the Smith-Lever Act that guides the appropriations process; no one looks to the D.C. Postsecondary Education Act, so UDC is overlooked in the EFNEP funding allocation. There is no reason why the District of Columbia's children should have less access to nutrition education programs than children in the states and U.S. territories. It is long overdue to remove this inequitable financial barrier. Neither the continued exclusion of the University from the EFNEP program nor the mandatory matching requirement is supported by USDA's policy goal of ensuring that the EFNEP program reaches all predominantly minority low-income youth and families with nutrition education that leads to sustainable behavior changes. The legislation that I introduce today corrects this problem along with other barriers to the University's participation in the agricultural research and extension programs, and provides the authority needed for the University to participate in capacity building and facilities programs now being administered at the United States Department of Agriculture. The University of the District of Columbia functions with very limited resources in comparison to the large endowments of most other land grant institutions. Accordingly, a reduction in the current matching requirements for the Hatch Act state agricultural experiment station programs and the other Smith-Lever extension programs, similar to the reduction and waiver provisions authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill for some of the smaller 1862 Land Grant Institutions would be equitable and fair. For this reason, this legislation would allow the Secretary of Agriculture to reduce and waive the nonfederal matching requirement if the Secretary finds that the University will not be in a position to secure nonfederal funds. Finally, this legislation would allow the University to participate in USDA's competitive capacity and facilities grant programs. Participation in these grant programs would significantly enhance the University's teaching and agricultural research capacity building resources, and its ability to upgrade its research, teaching and extension facilities, thereby recognizing the importance of the University as the only all urban land grant institution performing valuable urban agricultural research and extension services to the District of Columbia community and a predominately African American student population. It is only fair that the University of the District of Columbia is afforded the same opportunity to compete for capacity building and facilities opportunities that the other small, minority- serving institutions are eligible to pursue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.