Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 1199 was introduced on February 27 of this year by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza). Currently, the legislation enjoys the support of 15 additional bipartisan cosponsors. The measure, on its face, is quite simple and straightforward. It simply extends funding for the Drug Endangered Children Grant Program through fiscal year 2009. The current authorization for the program is set to expire this year. The Drug Endangered program was first authorized as title VII of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, which authorizes up to $20 million a year for grants to address this problem. One of the most troubling aspects of drug use is its impact on children. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, over 15,000 children were found at methamphetamine labs from 2000 to 2004. The problem, however, is not limited to meth abuse. A Health and Human Services study found that over 1.6 million children live in homes where a variety of illicit drugs are used. These drug-infested conditions stretch child welfare agencies beyond their capacities because of the increased violence and neglect. On February 6, the Crime Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 545, the Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2007, which has been reported by both the Crime Subcommittee and the full Judiciary Committee. A central provision of that bill extends eligibility for drug-endangered children grants to Native American tribes. However, unless the Congress passes H.R. 1199, the authorization for the drug-endangered children grants will expire this year, negating our recent efforts to help Native American children. With this said, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference report to H.R. 2669 the College Cost Reduction and Access Act. I would like to thank my colleagues who worked diligently to bring this legislation before the full Congress, including Chairman Miller, Chairman Kennedy, and Subcommittee Chairman Hinojosa. The College Cost Reduction and Access Act takes savings generated as a result of the reconciliation process and makes four major investments in America's students, especially students in African American communities. First, the bill will increase the maximum Pell grant scholarship--the Federal scholarship for low- and moderate-income students--over the next 5 years to $5,400. This increase in the Pell program is critical. Since the 2001-2002 school year, tuition at public four-year colleges has risen 55 percent. Unfortunately, during that same time period, the maximum Pell grant award increased by less than 8 percent and did not increase at all over the past 4 years. Second, H.R. 2669 will cut the interest rate on student loans in half over the next 4 years. This interest rate reduction will provide enormous relief to the many students who take out subsidized Federal loans. Third, this legislation will make a strong and historic investment in Historically Black Colleges and Universities and minority serving institutions. HBCUs represent an important piece of our history and investments in HBCUs are imperative for both student services and programs as well as institutional needs and infrastructure improvements. The College Cost Reduction and Access Act shows this commitment by improving and increasing funding for much needed student programming and opportunities. The funding for these colleges and institutions can be used for a variety of important programs and needs, including science and lab equipment, library books, and enhancement of certain disciplines of instruction such as math, computer science, engineering and health care. This funding will go a long way toward closing the achievement gap that exists across our nation and helping those who wish to better themselves through education achieve their goals. The bill also provides, for the first time ever, funding for Predominantly Black Institutions and Asian and Pacific Islander-serving institutions, thereby recognizing the importance of institutions of higher learning that serve these communities. In addition, it also provides additional funding to Hispanic-serving institutions, Tribal Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native-serving institutions, and Native Hawaiian- serving institutions. While this funding will cover only a portion of the unique needs of these historical places of learning, I appreciate the commitment that members of the House Education and Labor Committee have expressed to continue to find ways to support these important institutions. Finally, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act includes a provision to aid the Upward Bound program, which is the last hope and ticket to the future for many low income and first generation college students. The bill includes an additional $228 million to fund both new and prior funded Upward Bound programs across the Nation. This funding will reach several Upward Bound programs at HBCUs. In this grant cycle, 30 percent of Upward Bound programs at HBCUs would have been eliminated despite an increase in the total number of Upward Bound programs receiving grants. This provision would also provide funding to other deserving Upward Bound programs including programs serving Hispanic students. I believe the College Cost Reduction and Access Act contains critical support for our nation's higher education system and I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Opportunity Act of 2007. This bill authorizes grants to Minority Serving Institutions for technology improvements and infrastructure. Given the large gap in technology between MSI campuses and other American universities, this legislation is critical to improving MSI's educational advancements. It is important to note that MSI's educational contributions are significant. For example, in 2000 at least 40 percent of all African American students who received a baccalaureate degree in physics, chemistry, astronomy, environmental sciences, mathematics and biology graduated from a historically Black college and university. Given their contributions to our society, we must do all we can to make sure that MSIs receive the most modern technology to keep up with other universities. Unfortunately, at the current time, there is a ``digital divide'' between MSIs and other schools in technology infrastructure and programming. Less than half of the students attending Minority Serving Institutions own computers. Sadly, the majority of historically Black colleges and universities do not provide high speed access to the Internet [according to a Feb. 2004 report by the Alliance for Equity in Higher Education]. We also see this trend in minority communities around the country. Over 60 percent of the U.S. population uses the Internet at home, while only 46 percent of African Americans and 37 percent of Hispanics have Internet access at home [according to a Feb. 2004 report by the Alliance for Equity in Higher Education]. The Minority Serving Institution Digital and Wireless Opportunity Act of 2007 will help eliminate the technological disparities at MSIs by establishing a grant program. These grants will help MSIs purchase equipment, make upgrades and improve their technology infrastructure as well as provide technology education services. In addition, these grants will promote the use of information communications technology to strengthen engineering, math and science research. I would like to thank Mr. Towns and Mr. Forbes for their efforts to bring this bill before Congress and their commitment to rectify this disparity. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 694.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the former speaker indicated that I didn't read the whole section where he said that acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance. That's true, it doesn't include wiretap, but it does include searches, e-mail review, all kinds of data mining so long as it's not electronic surveillance. This is overly broad. It can happen in the United States so long as it concerns someone we reasonably believe to be outside of the United States. It doesn't even have to be the primary purpose of the search. It can be a significant purpose of the search.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, last night we considered a bill that the Director of National Intelligence said provided everything we needed. We didn't pass that bill, and here we are today. This bill, unfortunately, does more than what's needed. It really lets the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to kind of use their imagination to decide when surveillance is appropriate without any meaningful review. This bill will allow warrantless collection of personal data, e- mails, Internet usage, and allows the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to do data mining, Internet usage monitoring, reading e-mails or otherwise acquiring information on every American, even domestic communications, as long as they determine that the surveillance is gathering foreign intelligence, that's not terrorism information, that's anything involving diplomacy, concerning someone abroad, not someone who is abroad. It could be a conversation, if the conversation concerns someone abroad. It's helpful just to read the language of the bill. Section 105(b)(a), notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General may, for periods of up to 1 year, authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States if the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General determine, based on information, so on and so forth, that, among other things, that the information that they are gathering is that a significant purpose is the acquisition of foreign intelligence, doesn't even have to be the main purpose, just a significant purpose. There is no meaningful oversight. They just have to determine that and put it in writing. Then they can listen in. In terms of the reverse targeting, the language that the gentleman used makes it clear that if they are talking to somebody outside, they can listen to someone domestically.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, it would be better to consider complicated wiretap laws in the process with committee consideration, public hearings, markups, and consider amendments with more than just 1 minute of discussion, but we have been told that there is an urgent need for clarification in the wiretap law. Now, all of those clarifications are in this bill, especially the foreign-to-foreign communications. This bill honors our Constitution and provides the government all of the flexibility that we were told was needed, but it does not leave the decision of when wiretaps are allowed to the imagination of this Attorney General. The secret FISA court is appropriately involved. It does not restrict the ability of law enforcement to engage in appropriate surveillance, but it does respect our Constitution. We should adopt this very limited clarification in the law.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of H.R. 2831, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This important legislation overturns the recent Supreme Court decision, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire, a decision which undermines title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Ledbetter decision forces victims of discriminatory pay decisions to live with discriminatory paychecks for the duration of their career if they fail to file a claim within 180 days of the discrimination, possibly even if they had no knowledge of the discrimination within the 180 days. In other words, after 180 days, an unsuspecting female, minority, elderly, or disabled worker would simply be out of luck. This would even be the case if the employer admitted to the discrimination and continued to discriminate after the 180-day limitation had passed. Mr. Speaker, we hear comments that there would be no statute of limitations. That is not true. Under the bill, there is still a statute of limitations; 180 days still applies. The plaintiff has to show that a discriminatory paycheck was issued within the last 180 days. And if the employer would simply stop discriminating and went a whole 180 days without discriminating, then the statute of limitations would apply and it would be too late to bring a case. Under the Supreme Court decision, that unjust outcome under the case is not in keeping with title VII's remedial purpose or the spirit of the civil rights cases. Now, Justice Ginsburg noted in her dissent, ``Congress never intended to immunize forever discriminatory pay differentials unchallenged within 180 days of their adoption.'' I agree with Justice Ginsburg. And she also noted that Congress should correct this injustice. This bill corrects the injustice by appropriately expressing Congress's intent that title VII will hold employers accountable for unlawful employment discrimination.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for introducing the legislation. It not only helps individuals, but saves taxpayer money and reduces crime in a cost-effective manner. Everybody wins with passage of this legislation. I thank you for your leadership.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. If the gentleman will yield further, I would also like to point out it is bipartisan. Representative Chabot from Ohio and many Republicans on the committee have been strong supporters of the Second Chance Act. That is how it received such an overwhelming vote in the committee.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois for scheduling this special order on the Second Chance Act and for his long and diligent labors to move the bill forward as part of his lifetime of dedication to protecting and serving the public's interest. He has been a dedicated public servant on this issue, ensuring that those who are in prison have a chance to turn their lives around and become productive citizens. That is why he is the chief sponsor of the Second Chance Act. Congressman Davis' efforts not only benefit the offenders, because for everyone who comes out and establishes a law-abiding and productive life, one or more potential victims of crime never become victims, and the taxpayers have to pay less in prison expenses because one less person is not going back to prison. This is the third Congress in a row that we have been working on this bill on a bipartisan basis. I believe this year we will be successful in passing the bill. Madam Speaker, over the last decade we have seen an unprecedented explosion in our prison and jail populations. Now there are more than 2.2 million people incarcerated in Federal and State prisons and local jails, a tenfold increase since just 1980. Moreover, the annual expenses for corrections have increased from $9 billion in 1982 to more than $65 billion today. The figures continue to grow. These figures do not include the cost of arrest and prosecution, nor do they take into account the cost to victims of crime. As a result of this focus in incarceration, the United States leads the world in per capita incarceration rates. The United States locks up 726 inmates for every 100,000 in population, according to 2004 data. The international average is about 100 per 100,000. 142 in England and Wales, 117 in Australia, 116 in Canada, 91 in Germany, 85 in France. So the United States average is more than seven times the international average of about 100 per 100,000. The closest competitor is 532 inmates per 100,000 in Russia. That is 726 in the United States, Russia, second place, 532 per 100,000. This year, more than 650,000 people will be released from State and Federal prisons to communities nationwide, along with more than 9 million people leaving our local jails. According to the Department of Justice, 67 percent of offenders leaving State and Federal prison will be rearrested within the next 3 years. There is a pressing need to provide ex-offenders with education and training, drug treatment and medical and mental health services necessary to afford them the ability to obtain and hold steady jobs. The statistics underlying the needs of our prison population are staggering. For example, 57 percent of Federal and 70 percent of State inmates used drugs regularly before prison, with some estimates going as high as 84 percent of alcohol or drug use at the time the offense occurred. Furthermore, one-third of all jail inmates will have some physical or mental disability. Twenty-five percent of jail inmates in fact have been treated at some time for mental or emotional problems. And as has been detailed by many researchers, other deficiencies include limited education and few job skills or job experience. Evidence from the Department of Justice indicates that the needs for prison population are not being met under the current system. If we allow them to return to their communities with few economic opportunities where they were actually involved in crime and where their friends and associates may still be involved in crime and substance abuse, if we allow them to return to those communities without support, we can only expect to see the extension of the cycle of recidivism. With bipartisan support in this legislation, we are set to build a broad web of programs which will help break the cycle of recidivism laying at the heart of our prison population explosion. The Second Chance Act provides a host of evidence-based approaches designed to reduce the high rate of recidivism that we are now experiencing. If we are going to continue to send more and more people to prison with longer and longer sentences, we should do as much as we reasonably can to assure that when they do return to their communities, they don't turn around and commit new offenses and have to go back to prison. Madam Speaker, let's be clear: The primary reason for supporting the Second Chance Act is not to benefit the offenders, although it does benefit the offenders. The primary reason for doing so is it better assures us that we and other Members of the community will not be victims of crime in the future and because the taxpayer will have to pay less in services under the Second Chance Act than we now have to pay because of the high recidivism rate and having people go back to prison. So I want to thank again the gentleman from Illinois for holding this special order to bring attention to this important issue and the legislation that has been carefully drawn up to address it. I thank Mr. Davis for being the chief sponsor of the Second Chance Act. We are going to work as hard as we can to make sure it passes the House and the Senate.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, it is my understanding from the Parliamentarian that the point of order would be well taken, so I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment would restrict funds in the bill from being used to fund the Random Student Drug Testing program run by the U.S. Department of Education. The amendment would allow, however, the evaluation of the program being conducted by the Department to continue, and if the evaluation shows that the program is cost effective, the funding would be restored. For the past several years, the Department has been using money designated for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program to conduct random school-based student drug testing programs. The problem is, Madam Chair, that this program has been studied and found ineffective. In 2003, the National Institute on Drug Abuse conducted a study that found that there was no difference between drug use in schools that tested for drugs and those that did not. The study found that the drug testing at schools did not affect either the prevalence or frequency of drug use. Furthermore, such testing is very expensive. The cost of these tests can range between $10 and $75 each. Indeed, one school conducting random drug testing found that only a small fraction of its students actually tested positive, resulting in a cost of over $3,000 for every positive result. My amendment would prohibit money from being spent on the drug testing program until the program has been shown to be cost effective, because we should not be spending taxpayer dollars on programs that are not cost effective. At this point, the drug testing program has not been proven to meet that standard. This amendment would prohibit the Department from wasting the taxpayers' money on student drug testing until the Department shows that the program is cost effective. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, who I believe will insist on his point of order.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 487, which recognizes modeling and simulation as a national critical technology. I would like to thank my friend from Virginia's Fourth Congressional District and the chair of the Congressional Modeling and Simulation Caucus, Congressman Randy Forbes, for introducing this important resolution. Modeling and simulation has become an essential component in ensuring that we meet both the defense and domestic challenges of the 21st century. Modeling and simulation allows us to easily and effectively sharpen the tools, procedures, and decisions needed to address difficult and complex problems. This critical technology allows us to build and develop models of complex systems--whether a car, an airplane, an entire battlefield, or even a major city's evacuation plan--to see how certain actions will affect the end result. These simulations help us develop better and practical analogies of real world situations. With the growing international challenges of the 21st century, this technology is vital to the defense of our great Nation. Simulating battlefield conditions will sharpen the skills of the brave men and women serving in our armed forces. Madam Speaker, the practical uses of modeling, analysis and simulation technology as a training tool are boundless. Military and airline pilots have been using this technology for decades. Congress should be interested in using this technology for homeland security, disaster preparedness, and other ways to benefit the public; the resolution before the House today ensures that this body is aware of how critical this technology is for our Nation. Madam Speaker, I am proud to represent the people and businesses of the Third Congressional District of Virginia who are a part of this important and growing sector of Virginia's economy. In addition to our local military bases supporting the Joint Forces Center in Suffolk, our local colleges and universities and NASA Langley Research Center on the Virginia peninsula are engaged in applying people, tools and facilities to modeling, analysis and simulation technology. Hampton Roads is leading the way in modeling and simulation technology. The Virginia Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Center in Suffolk, Virginia, is a premier facility that is second to none. The modeling and simulation industry is vital to the growing economy of Hampton Roads and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Hampton Roads Congressional Delegation has a history of working together and we will continue to do so in promoting this important industry in this Congress. Using modeling and simulation technology in the fields of science, national defense, homeland security and disaster planning will better the lives of all Americans and make our great Nation safer. Madam Speaker, I am glad that the House is considering this resolution today and I encourage all my colleagues to support this resolution and to learn more about this critical technology.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stress the importance of health care to the well-being of our children and to our Nation. In 2003, a report was released by the National Academy of Science entitled ``Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care.'' It confirmed what many of us have known for a long time, that even when African Americans and other minorities have equal insurance and equal access to physicians, their outcomes are different. Minority populations just don't get the same health care and are not offered the same treatments. Unfortunately, we're foundering under the constraints of a profit-driven, multi-tiered health care where racial and ethnic stereotypes often distort the decision-making process by many health care providers. The situation becomes even more critical when we realize that over 20 percent of all African Americans do not have health insurance. Those who do are more likely to have public insurance or Medicaid, which, unfortunately, often does not command the full measure of services available in private insurance. Every day, more and more African Americans are diagnosed with life- threatening illnesses which can be avoided with proper care and prevention. The diagnosis of illnesses such as diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and HIV/AIDS continues to increase among African Americans in the African American culture as access to health care becomes more and more elusive. It is no surprise that when it comes to taking care of our medical needs, many of us and our Hispanic, Native American and Asian Pacific Islanders are slipping through the safety nets available to other Americans. Mr. Speaker, the total number of uninsured has actually increased from 41 million, just a few years ago, to 46 million by the most recent numbers. In the country where we pride ourselves as being the world's leading and most prosperous democracy, we have millions of children and young adults walking around without health insurance. A sad reflection of how ominous the absence of health care insurance can be is the death of a 16-year-old boy in Maryland who died from infections caused by an abscessed tooth because his family had no health insurance to seek medical care. Mr. Speaker, in the next few weeks, we'll address the reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, which is a vital Federal program which allows States to target and cover low- income children with no health insurance and families with incomes above the Medicaid eligibility levels. Almost 90 percent of these children live in households with a working parent. More than half live in two-family households. Many of these children are actually eligible for coverage under SCHIP or Medicaid but are not enrolled due in large part to barriers to enrollment in programs and complex eligibility rules that make it difficult to obtain or keep coverage. Millions more children are underinsured or at risk of losing coverage if their parents change jobs or if employers drop health coverage for families. Mr. Speaker, we need to do more than just renew SCHIP. We need to expand it so that it adequately covers every uninsured child living in the United States. Early and preventive screening, diagnosis and treatment, EPSDT, which would include services such as dental, vision and mental health services should be available to all children. EPSDT is the current requirement under Medicaid to make sure that the health needs of children are being met, and we should bring this requirement to SCHIP. Coverage for low-income pregnant women. We need to make sure that women are receiving the necessary prenatal care needed to ensure that infants have a healthy start in life. Presumptive eligibility. We need a unified application system for SCHIP. There are many social services programs, such as reduced or free school lunch, that have eligibility requirements clearly more restrictive than SCHIP. So if a child is eligible for such a program, it is a virtual certainty that he's also eligible for SCHIP. The problem arises that States do not presume eligibility, and parents are required to fill out different applications in different offices, often with the exact same information, just to access the services they obviously qualify for. A commonsense solution would be to streamline the application process for SCHIP and other programs so that if you're enrolled in another social service program, you should not have to fill out another application just to get health care benefits. Money to promote the streamlining of this process should be included in the reauthorization of SCHIP. Mr. Speaker, there is an urgent need for expanded health care coverage for children, and that's why I introduced H.R. 1688, the All Healthy Children's Act. That act has been endorsed by the Children's Defense Fund. It's a logical, smart, and achievable incremental next step to close the child coverage gap and guarantees that all children will have access to health care coverage that they need to survive, thrive, and learn. This proposal will ensure that all children are covered by expanding the coverage of both Medicaid and SCHIP programs, while eliminating the procedural red tape that currently prevents children from being covered by either program. The comprehensive program would include all basic health care, as well as coverage for mental health and prenatal care. Mr. Speaker, the United States health care system has yet to solve the fundamental challenge, delivering health care coverage to all Americans at an affordable price. The tragedy is that we know what to do to fix the problem once and for all. And what is required is a national health care system with universal access to comprehensive prevention-oriented benefits. And it is time to take action, and we should start with our children by passing the All Healthy Children's Act.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to commend the efforts of Operation Smile during their 25 years of service to the United States and to the world. I would like to thank my distinguished colleague, Congresswoman Drake, for sponsoring this resolution and bringing it to the floor. As we both represent the city of Norfolk, VA, the home of Operation Smile, I would just like to say a few words about Operation Smile and its efforts to help children around the world. What Operation Smile has accomplished since its inception is truly remarkable. Since its first mission in the Philippines in 1982, Operation Smile volunteers have treated more than 100,000 children and young adults and have trained thousands of health professionals around the world. In addition, through pure determination, Operation Smile has built bridges and built trust. As a result, it has created a presence, earned the respect of governments and ministries of health, and united cultures in over 25 developing countries. Operation Smile consists of a diverse group of volunteers from various countries and cultures, who come together with the common goal of repairing childhood facial deformities. Through these missions, the strongest bonds of friendships are forged as people who have very little in common work together to change a life. Operation Smile has demonstrated an ability to find working partnerships amid unstable and controversial conditions. Through diplomacy and leadership, coupled with medical aid and technology, it is able to heal and inspire cross- cultural cooperation. While promoting medical diplomacy, Operation Smile continues to cross borders, bridge cultural and ethnic divides, and encourage collaboration and commitment. Its success has been astounding and as a result, Operation Smile has become the largest volunteer charity of its kind. Its efforts go beyond children and their families--Operation Smile changes communities, students, medical professionals, and healthcare systems. Just this past year, Operation Smile traveled to Jordan on two separate occasions in order to provide life-changing surgeries to 138 Iraqi children who were transported to Amman from Baghdad, and it worked with the Mercy ships to treat 54 children in Bangladesh. These missions consisted of volunteers from over a dozen countries who worked together side by side to help these children. In this time of war, the volunteers of Operation Smile managed to bring a bright light to the lives of these children that will last a lifetime. In the war against terrorism, hatred of Americans by other populations is a significant problem. The work of Operation Smile is immeasurable in developing good will to counteract that hatred. The doctors and other volunteers who work with Operation Smile and the children who have been helped by Operation Smile will serve as perpetual evidence of our good will and the best America has to offer. I cannot think of better ambassadors for the United States than the founders of Operation Smile, Dr. Bill and Kathleen Magee. In 1982, Bill and Kathleen saw a need both abroad and here at home to help children with deformities live a better and happier life. Because of their diligence, and that of the many volunteers and donors that have worked with Operation Smile over the past 25 years, Operation Smile has not only created smiles, but has changed the lives of hundreds of thousands of children across the globe. I would like to once again commend Operation Smile on the occasion of their 25th anniversary, and I wish them continued success bringing smiles to the faces of children and families worldwide.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the College Cost Reduction Act and the rule which makes in order the manager's amendment to the bill. I would like to thank Chairman Miller and Subcommittee Chairman Hinojosa for their work on this bill. We know that higher education is crucial, not only to the individual but also to our Nation. We know, for example, that the more you learn, the more you earn. We know that those who are in college are much less likely to be involved with welfare, much less likely to be involved in crime. Education is critical for our national economy. We know that the economic future of the United States depends on the success of our higher education policy. We live in a high-tech, high-information economy, so the number of college students that we have will be an important economic resource. We can't afford to have any of our children fail to achieve full potential because they were not able to afford to go to college. There are many improvements in the bill. The cost of education through student loans will be made more affordable. There are significant increases in Pell Grants. One of the major increases, the first in the last 4 years, $500 over the next 4 years, will be the increase in the maximum Pell Grant award. We know this is critical, because in the last 6 years, the cost of college education has gone up about 55 percent, but in the last 4 years, the Pell Grant didn't go up at all. This bill makes significant investments in Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority-serving institutions. A significant portion of the students at these colleges and universities are first-generation students. We know they often come from low-income families, so support of these institutions is critical. We know that these colleges offer an opportunity that otherwise would not be there. This bill also makes improvements in Upward Bound. It provides additional funds for Upward Bound because many qualified Upward Bound programs were not funded this year because the program just ran out of money. Upward Bound focuses on those who have the potential to go to college but may not, just because they don't think they are expected to go to college. This bill makes critical improvements in the Upward Bound program and makes sure that those qualified programs can get funded. Mr. Speaker, the College Cost Reduction Act will reduce the cost of going to college. It will enable many to go to college that otherwise could not have afforded to go to college. Chairman Miller's amendment makes improvements to the bill, and therefore I support the rule and support the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Every Student Counts Act. In 2001, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act with broad bipartisan support. The purpose of No Child Left Behind was to ensure that every student in America could receive a quality education, and over the past 6 years, NCLB has helped shed light on many issues facing our education system today. However, NCLB has not been without flaw. Certain aspects of the law are difficult to implement or are not having the results that we had hoped for. One of the major shortcomings of NCLB is the law's failure to hold schools accountable for dropouts. Although we believed we addressed this issue in the original NCLB legislation, this portion of the law has not been implemented as we had hoped. Instead, under current law, the only meaningful accountability standard for high schools is students' scores on assessments, not how many students graduate or drop out of school. Unfortunately, this myopic accountability standard has created an incentive for high schools to push out students who are struggling academically, so that their tests scores are not counted in the assessments. Furthermore, the current accountability system also has allowed states to report graduation rates inconsistently and in misleading ways. Finally, NCLB does not require the disaggregation of graduation rates by subgroup, leading to incomplete data on how our schools are doing with all students. This current high school accountability system is failing both our students and our Nation. Almost one-third of all high school students in the United States fail to graduate with their peers--about 1.2 million every year. In Virginia alone, each year nearly 24,000 students do not graduate with their peers. But the numbers are worse for minorities--only about 50 percent of African American students and 60 percent of Hispanic students graduate on time with a regular diploma, compared to 75 percent of whites. These numbers only show the tip of the iceberg. Research shows that each dropout, over his or her lifetime, costs the Nation approximately $260,000. At the current rate, more than 12 million students will drop out over the next decade resulting in a loss to the nation of $3 trillion. Statistics also show that high school dropouts are more likely to be on public assistance programs--such as welfare--than students who complete high school. If high school dropouts do find employment, they are much more likely to work at unskilled jobs that offer little opportunity for upward mobility or promotions. Indeed, the median earnings of high school dropouts remain between $20,000 and $30,000 throughout their lives with little increase as they get older. Unfortunately, there is also a relationship between high school dropouts and prison; one estimate states that approximately two-thirds of all prisoners are high school dropouts. In one study in my home state of Virginia, 75 percent of the inmates serving life sentences were found to have reading achievement levels of 4th grade or worse. Madam Speaker, the large number of dropouts in America's school system is also troubling in terms of America's position in the global economy. The globalization of the marketplace has altered the way the United States and other countries have to compete for business. With the rapid development of the global marketplace, the United States is no longer the single dominant country in the world economy. And in this economy, one of the major competitive advantages we have in America is our advantage in education. We certainly can't compete with other countries with lower wages when many around the world may work for a few dollars or even pennies a day. Nor can we compete in terms of location. Products can be made anywhere and shipped to customers anywhere else overnight. The technology of today--fax machines, cell phones, blackberries and wireless Internet--allows any worker who can work across the hall to work across the globe. One of the main reasons businesses still want to locate in America is because we have well-educated workers. Because of this need for well-educated workers to keep our country competitive, we can't allow--or afford-- people to drop out and not reach their full potential. I am therefore introducing the Every Student Counts Act to bring meaningful accountability to high schools for America's dropout crisis. The legislation builds on the National Governors Association's Graduation Rate Compact, which was signed by all 50 of the Nation's governors in 2005. It would ensure that schools are held accountable for graduating students by creating a single, accurate, and consistent measurement for reporting and accountability of high school graduation rates. The Every Student Counts Act would require high schools to increase their graduation rates by meeting annual, research-based benchmarks with the long-term goal of reaching a 90 percent graduation rate. The bill would also require the disaggregation of graduation data by subgroup to ensure that schools are held accountable for increasing the graduation rate for all of our students. Finally, the bill would give schools credit for graduating students who need extra time by allowing students who graduate in 5 years to count toward a school's successful graduation rates. It is my hope that with this bill, we can make great strides toward graduating more of America's students and preparing them to succeed in college and in life. I would like to thank Ruben Hinojosa, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness and an original cosponsor of this bill, for his support. I encourage my colleagues to become cosponsors of this critical legislation and hope that we will see it become law during the 110th Congress.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2286, the Bail Bond Fairness Act of 2007. The legislation was introduced by Representative Wexler and Representative Keller on May 10 of this year and largely mirrors several other bipartisan bills introduced in the last three Congresses. Historically, bail has been issued for the sole purpose of ensuring a defendant's appearance in court as ordered. In recent years, however, Federal judges have ordered bail bonds forfeited even when the defendants, in fact, appear in court, but they have violated collateral conditions of pretrial release. Although actual bail forfeitures of bonds for violating collateral conditions are rare, and one of the reasons is that bail bonds, in fact, are rare, one reason cited is that some Federal judges now allow defendants to deposit their own funds in amounts that would be equal to the premium of a commercial bond underwriter, making the commercial bond unnecessary. Even so, the practice of attaching ancillary conditions to the issuance of a bond has created a barrier to pretrial release, because the risk of bond forfeiture has forced many commercial bond underwriters to avoid the Federal system altogether. We find that commercial bond underwriters will opt to offer their services to defendants in the State system where a risk of loss is lower because they only have to be concerned about the defendant's appearance, not his behavior, or where they also maintain that friends and family of defendants are reluctant to post a bond for defendants because they cannot risk their homes or life savings based on a person's behavior. They may be able to risk it assuming he will show up in court. H.R. 2286 would return the use of bail bonds to the historic purpose of limiting a judge's authority to order a bond forfeited to a defendant's failure to appear physically in court. It is important to note that the bill does preserve a judge's authority to impose conditions of release and to revoke the pretrial release and order pretrial custody, should a defendant violate any conditions of pretrial release. But so long as a defendant actually appears in court, the bond should not be revoked. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 923, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act of 2007. This important bill enjoys wide bipartisan and bicameral support. The bill will assist Federal, State, and local governments with the important task of solving unsolved civil rights-era crimes. Mr. Speaker, at the recent joint hearing held by the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, we heard from six excellent witnesses. The most moving of these were Mrs. Myrlie Evers Williams and Mrs. Rita Schwerner Bender, both of whose husbands the Ku Klux Klan assassinated because of the import civil rights work they were doing. The Klan assassinated Medgar Evers on June 12, 1963, and Michael Schwerner on June 21, 1964. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) has asked us to take up this act now because it coincides with the anniversary of these two important events. In both cases it took government authorities decades before the killers were convicted of these brutal murders. Unfortunately, these cases were not isolated incidents. There are dozens of cases, probably hundreds, like these, some of which have never been acknowledged, investigated, or prosecuted. Indeed, we don't even know how many people were murdered during the 1950s and 1960s, because retaliation was so common that many families did not dare report that their loved ones had been murdered. The FBI has identified more than 100 cold cases that should be investigated and, when possible, charges should be brought against the accused killers. I support H.R. 923 because it will hold the Department of Justice and the FBI accountable for following through on these investigations and prosecutions. The act requires the Attorney General to appoint a specific high-ranking employee in each agency to be accountable for this work. The act also requires the Department of Justice to report to Congress annually on the progress it has made towards solving these cases, and the first such report is due 6 months after the bill becomes law. Lastly, the bill authorizes funds to the Department of Justice, the FBI, and when appropriate, State and local enforcement agencies, to investigate and prosecute these cases. The FBI has already made a start in investigating these cases when it kicked off the Cold Cases Campaign in February of 2006 and expanded on this campaign in February 2007 when it solicited assistance from major civil rights organizations. However, there is still much more work that needs to be done, and Federal resources are necessary to do it. H.R. 923 will provide these necessary resources. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time on this side.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 923) to establish an Unsolved Crimes Section in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, and an Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Investigative Office in the Civil Rights Unit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus to discuss the important issue of education. Obtaining an education is critical for today's youth. An individual's prosperity and quality of life will be directly affected by the education they receive. We all know the phrase, ``The more you learn, the more you earn.'' In addition to increased earnings, individuals with higher levels of education are less likely to be unemployed, less likely to need public assistance, and less likely to become involved in the criminal justice system. Mr. Speaker, today's communities will also benefit by increased education. Those communities will suffer lower crime rates, have fewer people on welfare, and will benefit from a better economy. In fact, we have found that in this global economy, our competitive advantage is in education because we can't compete on wages. There are people in countries around the world who work for pennies and a few dollars a day. We're not going to compete with that. We can't compete because people don't have to be in the United States to work. If you can work with your coworkers from across the hall, you can work with your coworkers across the globe. All you need is a cell phone, a computer and a modem, a fax machine, you can work anywhere in the world. You don't need to be close to your customers. You can manufacture your goods anywhere and send them anywhere else in the world almost overnight. And you don't need to be in the United States to finance a new plant. Used to be you had to be here to finance a plant. With worldwide banking you can have that plant located anywhere in the world. The competitive advantage we have is the fact that businesses know that they can get well-educated and well-trained workers if they locate in the United States. But unfortunately, we're losing that competitive advantage. In a recent measure of high school achievement, we found that students in the United States ranked below dozens of other countries in math and science. And so we're losing that competitive advantage. And the Education and Labor Committee is, therefore, focused on improving our international standing. Earlier this year, the House passed the bill to renew the Head Start program with renewed emphasis on early Head Start. These programs are critical to getting our children on the right path early in life and the earlier, the better. At the K-12 level, the committee is also working towards renewing the No Child Left Behind Act. We will be addressing issues in that bill, for example, finding ways to meaningfully measure and reduce the achievement gap; ensuring that all students have access to high-quality teachers, and to effectively improve those schools which fail to make adequate yearly progress. One of the most critical issues that must be addressed in No Child Left Behind is the fact that approximately one-third of all high school students in the United States fail to graduate with their peers. And in some communities, as many as half of the students fail to graduate and find themselves on the path to hopelessness. The Education and Labor Committee will also consider renewing the Higher Education Act, which is primarily focused on access to college. Last year, approximately 1 million qualified students did not go to college because they could not afford the cost. Since the 2001/2002 school year, tuition at a public 4-year college has risen 55 percent. But during that same period the maximum Pell Grant only went up about 8 percent, and in the last 4 years didn't go up at all. Unfortunately, this means that many of today's students, unlike previous generations, are being denied the opportunity to live to their fullest potential because they were denied the opportunity of a college education. This year, the Education and Labor Committee is leading legislation that will significantly improve access to college with improved Pell Grants and cuts in student loans. So, Mr. Speaker, education affects many issues that we deal with: economic competitiveness, crime and welfare. And so I'd like to thank the gentlelady from Michigan, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Ms. Kilpatrick, for organizing the effort to focus on education tonight.