Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, today I am proud to stand before this chamber and introduce the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007. This bill was first introduced in the Senate by my friend and fellow Virginia colleague, Senator Jim Webb, earlier this year. Not since Pearl Harbor has a single event so shaped a generation until the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Like Pearl Harbor, September 11th became a call to arms for many Americans to join the Armed Forces. For the 15 million veterans who returned home from World War II, Congress passed the first G.I. Bill of Rights of 1944. The first G.I. Bill helped veterans readjust to civilian life and afforded them the opportunity to do something that many had missed out on--getting a college education. That first G.I. Bill paid for veterans' tuition, books, fees, room and board, and even provided them a monthly stipend. Approximately 7.8 million World War II veterans used the benefits in the G.I. Bill of 1944 to increase their quality of life through education. After World War II, Congress passed several other G.I. Bills to provide educational benefits for veterans returning home from the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Since the Vietnam War, Congress passed two G.I. Bills that established peacetime educational benefits for members of the all volunteer Armed Services. Although the current Montgomery G.I. Bill of 1985 provides peacetime educational benefits, the current program was not designed to meet the needs of our current global situation--a situation in which several hundred thousand men and woman in uniform are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have strained our entire all- volunteer military, forcing many of our Reservist and National Guard units into extended tours of duty. Many of our men and women in the Army, Air Force, Navy, and the Marine Corps have served more than one tour of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. With hundreds of thousands of our brave men and woman currently fighting overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq, we need a new G.I. Bill to honor these veterans when they all finally return home. The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007 is designed to expand the educational benefits that our nation offers to our brave men and women who have served us so honorably and who have sacrificed so much since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The bill that I am introducing today is designed to give this generation, who took it upon themselves to enlist after 9/11, benefits very similar to those provided to the veterans of World War II. Madam Speaker, the bill that I am introducing today would specifically increase educational benefits to members of the military who have served at least 2 years of active duty, with at least some period of active duty time served beginning on or after September 11, 2001. Veterans will be eligible to receive these benefits for no more than 36 months or 4 academic years and would have 15 years to exercise these benefits. The version of this legislation that I am introducing today limits benefit payments to the cost of the most expensive public institution in the state in which the veteran is enrolled. If the veteran chooses to attend a private institution, the veteran must pay the difference between the cost of the college of his or her choice and the most expensive public institution of the state in which the veteran is enrolled. Like the G.I. Bill of 1944, the Post-9/11 G.I. bill will pay for tuition, books, fees, room and board, and provide a monthly stipend of $1,000. Madam Speaker, while in law school, I was privileged to serve in the Massachusetts National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserves. I fortunately was never called into active duty, but the circumstances of our global situation today have pulled thousands of Guard and Reservists out of college into active duty. I am proud to represent the Third Congressional District of Virginia which is home to thousands of military personnel. You can't go very far in my district without running into a military installation or a member of our Armed Forces. I see the sacrifices of our men and women and their families each and every time I return home. Madam Speaker, it is time that we pass a G.I. Bill on the same scale of the first G.I. Bill that was passed at the end of World War II to meet the sacrifices of this generation. I am pleased to join Senator Webb by introducing the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007 in the House today and I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1615, the Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2007. And I want to thank Chairman Conyers for holding a markup and moving the bill through the full committee. I would also like to thank our colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), who has been instrumental in bringing attention to this issue. Congressman Keller introduced this bill in the 109th Congress. I joined him in cosponsoring the bill then, and I continue to support the legislation now. The purpose of the bill is to address the problem of individuals aiming lasers at cockpits of aircraft, and this is particularly troublesome since it will usually occur at the critical stages of take- off and landing. This practice obviously constitutes a threat to aviation security and passenger safety. The bill adds a section following title 18, U.S. Code, section 38, to impose criminal penalties upon any individual who knowingly aims a laser pointer at an aircraft within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States. The penalties impose imprisonment up to 5 years in prison. Research from the FAA has shown that laser illuminations can temporarily disorient or disable a pilot during critical stages of flight, such as taking off and landing, and in some cases may cause permanent injury to the pilot. For example, in 2004, a laser aimed at an airplane flying over Salt Lake City injured the eye of one of the plane's pilots. In January, 2005, responding to concerns regarding this escalating problem, the FAA issued an advisory to pilots instructing them to immediately report laser beams directed at their aircraft. The House passed similar legislation in the 109th Congress. The Senate did, also. The legislation placed a provision in title 49, the Transportation title, and included a different level of intent. The House and Senate were unable to agree on a compromise version before the end of the 109th Congress. This version represents a compromise between the House and the Senate from the last Congress. Although I have some concern that when the bill is applied it might involve some misguided young person fooling around with a laser beam, I realize that the conduct the bill prohibits can be dangerous, so it must be strongly discouraged. Since the bill does not have mandatory minimum sentencing, the Sentencing Commission and the courts can apply appropriate punishment for violators based on the facts and circumstances of the individual case. After the bill is passed, as a further precautionary step, the appropriate committee of jurisdiction should consider requiring manufacturers of laser products to issue strong notices and warnings on the items and packaging regarding the provision of this law to put users on notice. Mr. Speaker, I think passing this bill is an appropriate step for Congress to address this potentially dangerous problem. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1525, the Internet Spyware (I- SPY) Prevention Act of 2007. I would like to commend Congresswoman Lofgren and Congressman Goodlatte for developing the legislation and moving the bill on a bipartisan basis. Earlier this month the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security held a hearing and markup on the bill and reported it favorably to the full committee. The bill amends title 18, U.S. Code, to impose criminal penalties on those who use spyware to perpetrate identity theft and numerous other privacy intrusions on innocent Internet users. The bill also provides resources and guidance to the Department of Justice for the prosecution of these offenses. The bill is narrowly aimed at the practices of using ``spyware'' and ``phishing'' to harm consumers. Recent studies estimate that 80 percent of computers are infected with some form of spyware and that 89 percent of consumers are unaware of the fact that they have spyware. The greatest security and privacy challenges posed by spyware relate to technologies such as keystroke logging programs that capture a user's passwords, Social Security, or account numbers. This information can then be redirected for criminal purposes including fraud, larceny, identity theft, or other cyber crimes. This bill combats spyware by clarifying that it is a crime, punishable for up to 5 years in prison, to intentionally access a computer without authorization by causing a computer program or code to be copied onto a computer and then using that program or code in furtherance of another Federal criminal offense. The bill also provides fines or imprisonment up to 2 years for anyone who, through means of that program or code, intentionally obtains, or transmits to another, personal information with the intent to defraud or injure a person. The bill also authorizes funds to combat ``phishing.'' Phishing is a general term for using what appears to others to be either the Web site of, or e-mails from, well-known, legitimate businesses in an attempt to deceive Internet users into revealing their personal information. Phishing is adequately covered by the criminal code under existing Federal wire fraud or identity theft statutes, but additional funds are needed to prosecute the crime. This bill would authorize $10 million for each of the fiscal years 2008-2011 to combat phishing and spyware. I would also like to note that the Energy and Commerce Committee is considering a bill on this subject as well. But that bill lacks the criminal penalty enforcement mechanism in this bill and in its place imposes a regulatory scheme which focuses on the uses of technology rather than the perpetrators of crimes. My concern is such a regulatory regime may unavoidably sweep in legitimate uses of the technology. The I-SPY Prevention Act is a strong bill that protects consumers by providing criminal penalties for egregious behavior. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding, and I thank him for including my amendment in the en bloc amendment. Mr. Chairman, the defense authorization bill is a tremendous undertaking and I would like to commend Chairman Skelton and his Committee for their hard work. My amendment would simply insert findings that Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Technology is an important tool that ought to be utilized to the utmost by the Department of Defense. Modeling and Simulation has become an essential component in ensuring that we meet both the defense and domestic challenges of the 21st century. It allows us to build and develop models of complex systems-- whether it be a car, an airplane, an entire battlefield, or even a major city's evacuation plan. By doing this, we can easily and effectively sharpen the tools, procedures, and decisions needed to address difficult and complex problems. Determining how certain actions will affect the end result before implementing the plan in real life provides strategic, tactical and financial benefits. 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. 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. Now, simulating battlefield conditions will sharpen the skills of the brave men and women serving in our armed forces. And it is my firm belief that Congress should be interested in using this technology for defense, homeland security, disaster preparedness, and other ways to benefit the public. Every effort should be made to include Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Technology in the training and planning doctrines of the Department of Defense. This amendment is a step in that direction. The power of modeling, analysis and simulation technology can be particularly useful in urban areas. The fact is that current and future military operations, and emergency management of natural and manmade disasters, do and will continue to involve operations in highly complex, urban environments; we are no longer engaging in traditional battlefield operations. These urban environments include complex geographical, communications, transportation, informational, social, political, and public support subsystems. The interdependence of these subsystems and the cascading effects of warfare or disasters imposed upon them should be modeled in a computer simulation environment. This will help us prepare for emergency consequence management of military, natural and manmade disasters in complex urban environments. Using modeling, analysis, and simulation technology in the fields of national defense, science, homeland security and disaster planning will better the lives of all Americans, make our Nation safer and save time and money in the process. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 117, a resolution commemorating the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, Virginia, introduced by my distinguished colleague from Virginia's, and America's, First Congressional District (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis). This is truly an exciting time for the Commonwealth of Virginia and our Nation as we commemorate the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in North America and the cornerstone of our Republic. I have been honored to be one of the representatives of the most historic region in America, and all of the members of the Virginia delegation have worked hard to ensure that Federal funds and services have been readily available to prepare for this historic occasion beginning back in 2000 with the establishment of the Federal Jamestown 400th Commemoration Commission. And I would like to specifically acknowledge the hard work of Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis and her staff for their tireless efforts on behalf of Jamestown's 400th anniversary. Mr. Speaker, the spotlight of the world is now shining on the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Queen of England visited our State capital in Richmond and the Jamestown settlement just last week to commemorate this historic event. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people from all over our Nation and from all over the world will descend on Virginia this year to celebrate our 400th anniversary. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to visit Jamestown this year and encourage them to support this concurrent resolution.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1294, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act. I want to thank my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for introducing the bill, and the gentleman from West Virginia and the gentleman from Alaska for their leadership and cooperation in bringing the bill to the floor. This year marks the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, Virginia, the first permanent English settlement in North America. Jamestown is the cornerstone of our great republic, and its success relied heavily on the help of the indigenous people of Virginia. Virginia's Native Americans played a critical role in helping the first settlers of Jamestown survive the harsh conditions of the new world. After the Jamestown colony weathered the first couple of years in the new world, the colony expanded, and the English pushed further inland. The same Native Americans that helped those first settlers were coerced and pushed from their land without compensation. Treaties, many of which precede our own Constitution, were often made in an effort to compensate the Virginia Native Americans. But, unfortunately, as history has shown, those treaties were rarely honored or upheld. Like many other Native Americans, Virginia Indian tribes were marginalized from society. They were deprived of their land, prevented from getting an education and denied a role in our society. Virginia's Native Americans were denied their very fundamental human rights and the very freedoms and liberties enshrined in our own Constitution. This bill on the House floor today will finally grant Federal recognition to the Chickahominy Tribe, the Eastern Chickahominy Tribe, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Tribe. The bill will ensure the rightful status of Virginia's tribes in our Nation's history. Federal recognition will also promote tribal economic development that will allow Virginia's tribes to become self-sufficient. Those same opportunities will allow Virginia's tribes to flourish culturally and economically, and will lead to a brighter future for a whole new generation. We have waited too long to recognize Virginia's tribes. The time has come for Congress to act. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that when you talk about average tax cuts, this is an average $250 a family tax cut, average $250 for a family of four. But you notice who gets it? This is involving personal exemptions and standard deductions. If you make a $1 million, $17,000; $650 if you make $200,000 to $1 million; $11 if you make $100,000 to $200,000; if you make less than $100,000, you get on average of zero. This is what you call an average $250 a family tax cut.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. That is the concept, and that is how we got out of the ditch that we got into. If you build up a surplus, then you have something to spend. That is consistent with PAYGO. But the point is that we got out of the ditch with fiscal responsibility, and as soon as 2001 came along, you let PAYGO expire, passed tax cuts that we couldn't afford and put us right back into the ditch. The fact is that the only way the Republican budget makes any sense is if you have $250 billion in cuts, mostly in Medicare and Medicaid, at a time when we can't even afford the cuts that are already in effect. To put that $250 billion in context, there are plans out there, including the All Healthy Children Act, which can cover all children with healthcare for $15 billion a year. You are talking about cutting healthcare $250 billion. Obviously, you are not going to do it and so obviously the budget is not realistic. But what are your priorities? Tax cuts that we can't afford at a time when we need to cover children? We can't even afford the Medicaid program we have got now. In most States, you can't find a dentist because the reimbursement rates aren't high enough, and here we are cutting Medicare and Medicaid $250 billion. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would adopt the Democratic budget and reject the motion to recommit, because it requires us to assume $250 billion in cuts that we are not going to make. We have a responsible budget. It digs us out of the ditch that the Republicans put us in starting in 2001. I would hope again we would reject the motion and adopt the Democratic budget as we passed it in the House.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. That is correct.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, PAYGO is a very simple concept. If you are going to increase spending, you pay for it. If you are going to cut taxes, you pay for it. You don't go into the ditch. If you have a tax cut, you have to pay for it either with increases of other taxes or spending cuts to pay for it. If you have spending increases, you have to pay for it with cutting spending somewhere else or increasing taxes to pay for it. It is a very simple concept.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think it's important to put up a chart so we will know who's saying what about fiscal responsibility, because this chart shows what happened in the nineties when, with President Clinton's veto vetoing Republican bills after the Democrats set the budget off in the right direction, we were able to create a surplus that when this administration came in in 2001, we had a projected $5.5 trillion surplus. As a result of Republican initiatives, that surplus looks like it's going to come in, a 10-year surplus, at about a $3 trillion deficit, a swing of $8.5 trillion. And to put that in perspective, we've spent about $500 billion in Iraq; $8.5 trillion deterioration of the budget, $500 billion in Iraq, that is $0.5 trillion; $8.5 trillion deterioration, $0.5 trillion attributable to the war. And the Democratic budget, again, responsibly digs us out of this mess. The important thing to note is, we talk about 9/11. We were broke. We spent the surplus, other than Social Security and Medicare, before 9/ 11. So you can't blame 9/11 for the fiscal decline that has happened here. This budget is responsible. It shows how we can dig ourselves out. Unfortunately, we have, first of all, no leadership from the White House. Even the Republican budget pretty much ignores the President's budget. The President's budget had us in a ditch, never coming into surplus. At least the Republican budget has us coming out of the deficit and into surplus in 2012, but it does it in such a way that is not responsible and not predictable. The Republicans' budget assumes that we're going to whack about $250 billion out of Medicare and Medicaid, about $250 billion cut out of health care. This is at a time when doctors are telling us now that they can't absorb the cuts. We are having situations now when States are not paying dentists enough for dentists to even take Medicaid. $250 billion cut. It's not going to happen. We're not going to go into surplus under the Republican budget. The main factor that we have to look at is, who's talking? The Democrats dug us out of the ditch; Republicans put us back in the ditch; and the Democrats are digging us out again with a responsible budget. The Republicans have a budget that is so draconian on health care that 40 Republicans even voted against the Republican budget. And so we have a responsible plan. Let's stick with the responsible plan, dig us out of the mess again, and have fiscal responsibility.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to a strong supporter of programs to give prisoners incentives to better themselves and a strong supporter of correctional officers, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to an original cosponsor of this resolution, the former sheriff in Indiana, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth).

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume. H. Res. 264 is a bipartisan resolution designed to honor correctional officers and employees by acknowledging and supporting the goals and ideals of National Correctional Officers and Employees Week. This was introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth). The resolution directly honors correctional workers at all levels, local, State and Federal, including psychologists, chaplains, teachers and even kitchen staff. Correctional officers and employees play a vital role in protecting and promoting public safety. They work in our county jails, our State prisons and our Federal penitentiaries. They have a tough job in a tough environment and at a time that Congress and State legislatures are actually making the job more difficult because we have been eliminating programs for inmates, such as parole, good conduct credits and Pell Grants for college courses, programs that give incentives to prisoners to behave. Now, with the additional reduction in prison inmate jobs on the Federal level, even more pressure will be put on correctional officers to maintain a safe and productive environment for prisoners. So it is fitting, Mr. Speaker, that we pause at this time to recognize and commend our correctional officers and employees for the very important job that they do for us every day under these very difficult circumstances, and to them we say, ``Thank you.'' Finally, Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to indicate that I have received a note from the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden), the lead sponsor of the resolution and chair of the Congressional Correctional Officers Caucus. First, he asked that I share his regrets that he was not able to be with us today to speak on this resolution due to a prior commitment in his home district. He also asked that I convey his strong support for the men and women who work in our prisons and correctional facilities on a daily basis. And he also asked me to personally welcome on his behalf the correctional community to Washington, D.C., for their annual day on Capitol Hill, which is scheduled to occur this coming Wednesday. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 264) supporting the goals and ideals of ``National Correctional Officers and Employees Week'' and honoring the service of correctional officers and employees.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, bias-based crimes are an unfortunate reality in this country. This legislation is necessary because existing law, 18 U.S.C. section 245(b)(2) does not protect individuals from violent acts based on race, color, national origin or religion, unless the defendant intended to interfere with the victims' participation in certain enumerated Federal activities. Additionally, Federal law does not presently provide for hate crime protection at all for a tax based on sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability. Mr. Speaker, this bill also addresses many of the express concerns about the first amendment rights to free speech and association. H.R. 1592 addresses these concerns by providing an evidentiary exclusion, which prohibits the government from introducing evidence of expression or association as substantive evidence at trial, unless it is directly relevant to the elements of the crime. This provision will ensure that defendants will only be prosecuted and convicted based on their criminal acts, not on what they say or what they believe, or because of the people with whom they are associated. There are some of us who criticize the bill as an improper exercise of Federal jurisdiction. But based on testimony and the issues of the witnesses at our hearings, this legislation has been carefully drafted to address the Supreme Court's decisions in Lopez and Morrison, which limited Congress' jurisdiction to pass legislation. Furthermore, H.R. 1592, in response to the gentleman's complaint, Federal prosecutors must confer with State authorities to decide whether Federal jurisdiction is appropriate, and no prosecution can proceed without the express approval of the United States attorney general or his designee. Additionally at trial they must prove a valid Federal interest as a specific element of the crime. In addition to creating new hate crime offenses and expanding the application of existing ones, this bill also establishes an important grant program to provide financial assistance to States, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to provide much-needed assistance in investigating high-profile crimes. Mr. Speaker, this bill has broad support. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, Don Imus provoked a national discussion about race, but that was just talk. If we pass this motion, we will take action and turn the clock back before 1965. This amendment doesn't allow faith-based programs to get funded. The Shuler amendment that we passed reminds us that faith-based organizations can and do sponsor Head Start programs. The fact is that any program that can be funded under this amendment could be funded anyway if they would agree not to discriminate in employment. It has nothing to do with symbols. It is absurd to suggest that this has anything to do with symbols. Whatever problem there is with symbols is a constitutional problem that cannot be solved with a motion to recommit. This is all about discrimination. And if you can discriminate based on religion, it has racial implications. So since the 1960s, for 40 years, when you talk about civil liberties, you are talking about the victims of discrimination. We decided 40 years ago that it was so reprehensible to discriminate in employment that we made it illegal, even with your own private money. And today, as we talk about discrimination, we ought to think about the victims, not the right of the person to discriminate against the victim. The present law allows the church to use its own church money, as the gentleman from Missouri said, to hire whom they want. But with Federal money, just with the Federal money, you have not been able to discriminate. So for 40 years, all children in Head Start programs have learned that their parents are eligible to be hired by the Head Start program regardless of the race or religion of the program. They have known that for over 40 years. This amendment will determine what the next generation of Head Start students will learn. We need to defeat this amendment.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as we discuss this faith-based amendment, I think we need to seriously consider the long-term societal implications of that amendment, allowing discrimination in the Head Start program. Our Nation just went through quite a conversation when Don Imus made his remarks, and I would hope that that was just talking. We are actually going to do something in considering whether or not a program can deny an employment opportunity solely because of religion, and if you happen to go to an all-black or all-white church, the decision made on religion will deny you based on race as well. We should have this conversation here on the floor, considering what we are doing long-term, similar to the conversation we had when Don Imus embarrassed himself. We should not embarrass ourselves here on the floor of the House of Representatives. We need to maintain the civil rights protections for prospective employees that we have had for the last 40 years.