Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Res. 40, ``Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require each standing committee to hold periodic hearings on the topic of waste, fraud, abuse or mismanagement in Government programs.'' This resolution was introduced in the 111th Congress by Congressman John Tanner of Tennessee. This resolution provides for greater oversight concerning taxpayers' money. It allows for the Congressional standing committees to evaluate Government program spending. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Support of this resolution would signal a definite and progressive change in the new Congress and would be an important building block for President-elect Barack Obama's administration. This legislation is important because under the Bush administration there has been much waste, fraud, abuse and certainly mismanagement, such as Iraqi contract abuses with Halliburton, the mismanagement of Katrina, and the overuse of ``cost-plus'' contracting. It is of the utmost importance to keep our Government running as efficiently and cost effectively as possible. This resolution would require each standing committee, or subcommittee thereof, to hold at least one hearing during each 120-day period following the establishment of the committee on the topic of waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement in Government programs. Inclusion of a systematic approach to oversight in the rules of the House, through this resolution, is a key step forward in ensuring that tax dollars are spent wisely. The 111th Congress will continue to focus on restoring accountability and strengthening oversight and has the duty to stop Government waste and to become resourceful. During this present time of economic and environmental distress, it is imperative that we evaluate our current practices and improve upon them. As the former governor of Wisconsin Mr. Gaylord Nelson once said, ``The ultimate test of man's conscience may be his willingness to sacrifice something today for future generations whose words of thanks will not be heard.'' Let us take the first step in eliminating waste and do our part for future generations. Our constituents have faith in us as members of Congress to use their tax dollars prudently and for programs which are practical and relevant. We have a duty to oversee those programs which our committees authorize and make sure that all funds and resources distributed are used in a wise and frugal manner. Unfortunately, over the last several years, we have seen massive cases of waste, fraud and abuse. A report prepared by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction reportedly labels the Iraq reconstruction effort ``a $100 billion failure''--marked by poor planning, waste, and deception. Congress can no longer turn a blind eye while taxpayer money is abused and wasted. We must support H. Res. 40 and continue to implement measures which increase oversight if we are to be accountable to the people. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this much needed and thoughtful legislation. By our support, let us signal to the American people that we are a new Congress that has a renewed spirit and interest in increasing accountability. Indeed, we are accountable to our constituents and to the American people.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. There is a term that many of us use in our respective communities--maybe sometimes even parents use the terminology when they've given their child a chance and that child then reneges on any commitment that they've made, we feel we've been burned. And my colleague's words from the other side of the aisle speaks from that perspective, that the American people and this Congress were burned. We yielded to the cry of this last administration that they were desperate, that the calamity of the economic crisis was going to overtake us. We did what we thought was best for the American people. So I understand those feelings and those sentiments. But we have a new day and a new President. In a few days, we will swear into the Presidency Barack Obama. In doing so, we have to work as a team. And this President-elect has asked this Congress to work with him to restore the faith and confidence and integrity in the economic system, and to restore the city of hope to this Nation. And that is what we're attempting to do today. And we appreciate the work that has been done, and there should be more work. But in this bill there are limitations on executive compensation. In this bill there is an allotment that is set aside for mortgage workout. And I look forward to joining with my colleague, Congresswoman Kaptur, in the request for more monies for the mortgage workout because of the millions and millions of people who are losing their homes. And frankly, I think the banks should be restrained in some of their predatory lending; more work needs to be done on that. But in this bill we have the Office of Minority and Women inclusion so that small businesses and minorities and women can be included not only in the workouts and business aspects, but they can also be in line for loans. I worked with the committee to ensure that privately owned banks could receive this funding because in the last giveaway big banks received the money not knowing where the money went, and our community banks and private banks, where people go and get credit to help them in their community, were left holding the bag, the empty bag. And so we have legislation that there are restrictions to it. There are restrictions, as I said, to the compensation. There is the idea of investing in the community. There is a requirement that there must be a certification as to why monies can't be spent on mortgage workout. I hope that as this bill makes its way to the White House, the reporting feature that indicates that the Treasury Department should report to Congress in 6 months should be lessened to 90 days. We don't need to let them sit on the money for that period of time and not tell us what's going on. But there is a reporting feature, and that is more than what happened when we were burned. And so today, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that we come forward with a bill that gives instruction, that it gives requirements on behalf of the American people. It is not a giveaway where we don't know where the money is being spent. And finally, I hope an amendment will be passed that will require the Treasury to tell us how that money is being spent, and I hope that amendment will be accepted. We need to move forward to help the American people. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for affording me this opportunity to address the Rules Committee in support of the Manager's amendment to H.R. 384, the Troubled Assets Relief Program, TARP, Reform and Accountability Act of 2009. This amendment is an important addition to this critical legislation, which I believe can be supported by every member of this committee. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to work with Chairman Frank and his staff on significant portions of this Manager's Amendment to ensure that small and minority businesses along with local, community, and private banks gain fair and equitable access to the TARP funds. Small businesses are the backbone of our Nation, and unfortunately, they have not been afforded the opportunity that large financial institutions have received to TARP funds and loans. Small businesses represent more than the American dream--they represent the American economy. Small businesses account for 95 percent of all employers, create half of our gross domestic product, and provide three out of four new jobs in this country. Small business growth means economic growth for the Nation. We cannot stabilize and revitalize our economy without ensuring the inclusion and participation of the small business segment of our economy. With the ever worsening economic crisis, we must ensure in this legislation that small and minority businesses and community banks are afforded an opportunity to benefit from this important legislation. I am very pleased that this Manager's Amendment does just this. In Section 107, the Manager's Amendment creates an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, which will be responsible for developing and implementing standards and procedures to ensure the inclusion and utilization of minority and women-owned businesses. These businesses will include financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, broker-dealers, accountants, and consultants. Furthermore, the inclusion of these businesses should be at all levels, including procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts such as the issuance or guarantee of debt, equity, or mortgage-related securities. This Office will also be responsible for diversity in the management, employment, and business activities of the TARP, including the management of mortgage and securities portfolios, making of equity investments, the sale and servicing of mortgage loans, and the implementation its affordable housing programs and initiatives. Section 107 also calls for the Secretary of the Treasury to report to Congress in 180 days detailed information describing the actions taken by the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion, which will include a statement of the total amounts provided under TARP to small, minority, and women-owned businesses. The Manager's Amendment in Section 404 also has clarifying language ensuring that the Secretary has authority to support the availability of small business loans and loans to minority and disadvantaged businesses. This will be critical to ensuring that small and minority businesses have access to loans, financing, and purchase of asset-backed securities directly through the Treasury Department or the Federal Reserve. I urge you to support this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Allow me to thank the distinguished gentleman as well as the subcommittee Chair, Mr. Stark, and Mr. Pallone and also the committees of jurisdiction--Ways and Means and, of course, the Energy and Commerce Committee--for their thoughtful way of approaching this calamity in this country. Madam Speaker, let me quickly speak and suggest to you that the diversity of children that is uninsured is unbelievable: black, 1.7 million; white, 3.4 million; Hispanic, 1.6 million; American Indian, 132,000; Asian Pacific, 390,000. This is a crisis--a calamity--in America, and I support the underlying legislation. However, I work with my good friend from Oklahoma, Mr. Boren, to help us protect physician-owned hospitals. Here in my own community, St. Joseph's Hospital was on the verge of closing. I worked with them to keep them open. Interestingly enough, Harris County has 4.5 million people and only 16,000 beds. These hospitals are in the crux of serving the poor and the underserved. I only hope that, as we move forward, we can work closely with our good friends who have done the right thing, who are going to move this bill to be signed by our President to ensure that those hospitals remain open. Mr. Boren and I have an amendment of extension to 2010. I hope we do that. I will submit a letter from the Governor of Texas into the Record on this issue. Office of the Governor, State of Texas, Austin, TX, January 13, 2009. Hon. Joe L. Barton, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Barton: In the next few days, the U.S. Congress will address the pressing issue of funding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). I urge you to fight to protect the vital funding that has been allocated to the state for its SCHIP program. SCRIP was developed by Congress as a program administered by states to serve low-income and uninsured children. In 2000, Texas began enrolling children in a separate SCHIP program that is fiscally responsible and focuses on serving the targeted clients Congress originally authorized. Texas maintains reasonable eligibility requirements, such as only enrolling children whose families make less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL). Some states experiencing shortfalls cover families whose incomes are as high as 350 percent of FPL and non-pregnant adults. As you consider impending SCHIP reauthorization legislation, it is imperative that Texas is not penalized for not taking these liberties with its program. In addition, recent reports have indicated that restrictions on physician-owned hospitals may be used to offset SCHIP budget costs. Congress should not foreclose a health service delivery access point in order to pay for SCHIP state expansions. Texas has approximately 50 physician- owned hospitals, which provide critical services to thousands of patients each year, employ more than 22,000 Texans and have a reported net economic effect of nearly $2.3 billion on the Texas economy. These hospitals play a vital role in health care delivery in the state, a role that is rightfully determined by the needs of Texas communities, not governmental financing maneuvers. I ask you to consider the consequences of limiting physician-owned hospitals in Texas as you seek to protect Texas' SCHIP current and future allocations. Texas should not be penalized for administering a fiscally responsible program that serves a vital need for the low-income children in our state. Please let me know how I can be of assistance. I look forward to a positive outcome for the children of Texas. Sincerely, Rick Perry, Governor. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support for the ``Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009.'' We stand today, closer to helping 4 million children without health insurance. No longer will these children be forced to live with fear of getting sick. Today is a great day. Today we can bring 4 million children in to the fold. Today we can tell those 4 million children that are begging for help that ``Yes we can.''

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 41, ``Supporting the goals and ideals of National Mentoring Month 2009.'' I would like to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Susan Davis, for introducing this important resolution, as well as the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, Congressman George Miller, for his leadership in bringing the bill to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, great numbers of Americans donate their time and their unique skills and gifts to our cities and communities, without any expectation of compensation or material reward. As chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I understand how important mentors are for our youth. Mr. Speaker, today many youth face temptations that often lead them down destructive paths, and it is vitally important that we provide guidance that helps them make good decisions. Mentors have been an integral part of society for many years, dating back to Ancient Greece. The Greek poet Homer wrote in the Odyssey that when Odysseus left to fight in the Trojan War, he charged Mentor, his wise old friend, with the task of caring for his son, Telemachus, and teaching him wisdom. Since then, the word mentor has come to mean a wise and responsible tutor or an experienced person who advises, guides, teaches, challenges, corrects, and serves as a model. In our society today, mentors exist in many different environments. There are mentors in professional settings who guide apprentices by teaching them how to effectively perform in the workplace. There are mentors in academic settings who guide students, teaching them how to reach and maintain high scholastic achievement. There are mentors in community groups who guide their proteges through life issues, teaching them how to be productive citizens. There are even mentors in spiritual and church groups who advise others through their spiritual growth. In all cases, they are very important and essential to the success of the youth that they mentor. Who needs mentors? There are 35.2 million young people ages 10-18 in the U.S. today; of those young people: 1 out of 4 lives with only one parent; 1 out of 10 was born to teen parents; 1 out of 5 lives in poverty; 1 out of 10 will not finish high school. About half of young Americans--17.6 million young people--want or need caring adult mentors to help them succeed in life. Of those 17.6 million young people, only 2.5 million are currently in formal mentoring relationships. That leaves 15.1 million youth still in need of formal mentoring relationships. We call this our Nation's ``mentoring gap.'' Mr. Speaker, imagine if every child had a mentor--just one person whom they could look up to and go to for advice and guidance. Imagine how many young lives could be positively impacted. We could create the avenues and encouragement to ensure that all of our children receive the proper education. Too many of our youth are not being properly advised and guided on the importance of getting an education. Mentors can help give those youth living in poverty to strive towards a brighter future for themselves. Every child could benefit from having someone in his or her life to turn to for advice and help in the time of need. The positive relationships and reinforcement that mentors provide are clearly effective. Young people today are confronted with many challenges in life. They can find the confidence to overcome many of these challenges through a mentor. The benefits of a mentor are immeasurable. I am proud to cosponsor legislation that will add service before self to our leaders of tomorrow. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 43, and thank my colleague Congressman Todd Platts, authoring this important resolution. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Nation observed for the 21st time the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday. Each year this day is set aside for Americans to celebrate the life and legacy of a man who brought hope and healing to America. The Martin Luther King holiday reminds us that nothing is impossible when we are guided by the better angels of our nature. Dr. King's inspiring words filled a great void in our Nation, and answered our collective longing to become a country that truly lived by its noblest principles. Yet, Dr. King knew that it wasn't enough just to talk the talk; he knew he had to walk the walk for his words to be credible. And so we commemorate on this holiday the man of action, who put his life on the line for freedom and justice everyday. We honor the courage of a man who endured harassment, threats and beatings, and even bombings. We commemorate the man who went to jail 29 times to achieve freedom for others, and who knew he would pay the ultimate price for his leadership, but kept on marching and protesting and organizing anyway. Dr. King once said that we all have to decide whether we ``will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. Life's most persistent and nagging question, he said, is `what are you doing for others?' '' When Martin talked about the end of his mortal life in one of his last sermons, on February 4, 1968, in the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church, even then he lifted up the value of service as the hallmark of a full life. ``I'd like somebody to mention on that day Martin Luther King, Jr. tried to give his life serving others,'' he said. ``I want you to say on that day, that I did try in my life . . . to love and serve humanity. Mr. Speaker, during these difficult days when the United States is bogged down in a misguided and mismanaged war in Iraq; calamities on Wall Street--Main Street--and in the American automobile industry; we should also remember that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was above all, a person who was always willing to serve to help his fellow man. This year thousands of Americans across the country will celebrate the national holiday honoring the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr. by making the holiday ``a day on, not a day off.'' The King Day of Service is a way to transform Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s life and teachings into community service that helps solve social problems. That service may meet a tangible need, such as fixing up a school or senior center, or it may meet a need of the spirit, such as building a sense of community or mutual responsibility. On this day, Americans of every age and background celebrate Dr. King through service projects that: Strengthen Communities--Dr. King recognized the power of service to strengthen communities and achieve common goals. Through his words and example, Dr. King challenged individuals to take action and lift up their neighbors and communities through service. Empower Individuals--Dr. King believed each individual possessed the power to lift himself or herself up no matter what his or her circumstances--rich or poor, black or white, man or woman. Whether teaching literacy skills, helping an older adult surf the Web, or helping an individual build the skills they need to acquire a job, acts of service can help others improve their own lives while doing so much for those who serve, as well. Bridge Barriers--In his fight for civil rights, Dr. King inspired Americans to think beyond themselves, look past differences, and work toward equality. Serving side by side, community service bridges barriers between people and teaches us that in the end, we are more alike than we are different. These ideas of unity, purpose, and the great things that can happen when we work together toward a common goal--are just some of the many reasons we honor Dr. King through service on this special holiday. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and the man who epitomized community service--Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 15, authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire whether the House should impeach G. Thomas Porteous, a judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this resolution authorizing and directing the Judiciary to inquire into the matters concerning Judge Porteous and let it be a signal that this Congress is interested in understanding what truly transpired regarding the Judge in a bipartisan and impartial manner. Judge Porteous was a United States District Judge for Louisiana, and had been a judge of the Louisiana Judicial District Court from 1984 before being appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in 1994 by President Bill Clinton. Judge Porteous is well-known for his stance upholding the Constitution's separation of church and state and his judgments in defense of the first amendment right to free speech. He has controversially ruled in several landmark cases against the State, including one 2002 case in which he ruled that the State of Louisiana was illegally using Federal money to promote religion in its abstinence-only sex education programs. He ordered the State to stop giving money to individuals or organizations that ``convey religious messages or otherwise advance religion'' with tax dollars. He said there was ample evidence that many of the groups participating in the Governor's Program on Abstinence were ``furthering religious objectives.'' Also, in 2002, Judge Porteous overturned a Federal ban on rave paraphernalia such as glowsticks, pacifiers, and dust masks, which are used at rave, electronic music concerts, where the use of Ecstasy is common. In 2001, Judge Porteous filed for bankruptcy, which led to revelations in the press about his private life, specifically the fact that he was alleged to have had close ties with local bail bond magnate Louis Marcotte III, at the center of a corruption probe, which has more recently led to his being the subject of investigation himself by Federal investigators. In May 2006, Judge Porteous, beset by the recent loss of his wife and still under investigation by a Federal grand jury, was granted temporary medical leave and began a 6-month furlough from the Federal bench. On June 18, 2008, the Judicial Conference of the United States transmitted a certificate to the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives expressing the Conference's determination that consideration of impeachment of Judge Porteous might be warranted. The certificate stated that there was substantial evidence that Judge Porteous ``repeatedly committed perjury by signing false financial disclosure forms under oath which concealed cash and things of value that he solicited and received from lawyers appearing in litigation before him. The certificate listed a series of ``abuses'' that constituted an abuse of judicial office in violation of the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Late last year, I was selected to be one of the members of the House Judiciary Taskforce that will investigate Judge Porteous. Representatives Adam Schiff and Bob Goodlatte were designated as chair and ranking member to lead the taskforce conducting the inquiry. H. Res. 15 authorizes and directs the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire whether the House should impeach Judge Porteous. The resolution provides that the taskorce may, in connection with the inquiry under this resolution, take affidavits and depositions by a member, counsel, or consultant of the committee, pursuant to notice or subpoena. Moreover, the resolution provides that there shall be paid out of the applicable accounts of the House such sums as may be necessary to assist the committee on the Judiciary in conducting the inquiry under this resolution. The committee is authorized to require by subpoenas or otherwise, the (1) the attendance and testimony of any person and (2) the production of such things as it deems necessary for the inquiry. Lastly, the resolution provides that the Committee may adopt a rule regulating the taking of depositions by a member, counsel, or consultant of the Committee. By bringing this resolution to the floor, we as Members of Congress demonstrate that we are concerned about taking the moral high ground and are concerned enough to investigate wrongdoing and allegations thereof when it affects anyone in a bipartisan manner--be the accused a Democrat or Republican. This resolution is an important first step to the beginning days of an administration that staked its campaign on change. Let us usher in change. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman. Madam Speaker, I rise to support H. Res. 34. War is ugly. That is why it took more than 6,000 or so rockets before Israel decided to defend herself. There is no doubt that we, as Members of Congress, wrap ourselves around the need for humanitarian aid and relief. We too feel the pain of loss of life. But I think it is important to understand the resolution. It gives a wonderful roadmap for the decision of peace, a two-state solution, Israel and Palestine. But what it does say, and what all of us have to commit ourselves to, is that no nation can stand for the extinguishing of other people in another sovereign nation. All Hamas has to do is to stand for the dignity and integrity of the Palestinian people, to allow Israel to survive and stand, to commit to its existence and to promote the survival of its people. We must rally around people, women and children and families. But we cannot engage in peace unless all stand down. This resolution is a roadmap for that. It is to encourage Egypt to continue in the peace process. It is to close the tunnels. It is to make sure that we are supporting the dignity of all. I support this resolution. I beg the people of Palestine to stand up for dignity, peace, democracy and freedom for all. Madam Speaker, thank you for your leadership in bringing this timely resolution to the floor today. I want to also thank the minority leader, Congressman Boehner for working with us in a bipartisan manner on this important issue. Let me start off by saying that I support House Resolution 34-- recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. I support this bipartisan resolution because I believe that we must support a countries right to defend itself against terror attacks. I believe that we must not show support for Hamas, when it launches rockets indiscriminately, at civilians or when it incorporates elements of terrorists infrastructure into civilian population centers. This resolution promotes a durable and sustainable cease-fire in Gaza, which would not allow a reestablishment of the status quo ante where Hamas can continue to launch rockets out of Gaza. Moreover, a durable and lasting cease-fire would ensure that innocent Palestinians especially women and children are protected and humanitarian assistance is allowed to flow freely. We all want to see peace take place in this region. While diplomatic means should always be sought first, there comes a time when a nation must defend itself. Sadly, this defense often comes with many innocent civilian casualties for which we all extend our deepest condolences. I encourage our friends in Israel to take greater steps to protect the innocent Palestinians living in and along the Gaza strip and allow more humanitarian goods and services to enter the area to help the people of Gaza, especially elderly, women, and children. These are the victims on both sides of this conflict. John F. Kennedy said years ago that ``those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.'' As the rockets have continued to be fired into Israel, we have seen Hamas refuse to comply with the urgings of the United States, the European Union, Russia, and even the United Nations requests for a cease-fire. I urge Hamas to reconsider for the sake of the Palestinian people. Although, violence begets violence and yet even in our great Nation we provide for defense of self. I do not support violence, however we would not expect a child to continue to be bullied, to continue to be beat up, to continue to have violence inflicted upon him without understanding when that child decides to fight back. As missiles have been fired into their homes, shops, and restaurants the people of Israel have finally decided to respond. I support the people of Israel and their right to be free from violence, free from terror, and free watching their friends and families die. I also support the innocent Palestinians right to be free from violence and have access to humanitarian relief. I am sad that the innocent Palestinians' have to suffer for the violent acts of Hamas. Along with many of my colleagues, I continue to call for a cease-fire and an opportunity for diplomatic negotiations to succeed that would include a two state solution of Palestine and Israel.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, well, in talking about bowl games, I have certainly got to rise and salute the City of Houston, the fourth largest city in the Nation. We had two universities win their bowl games. Rice University and the University of Houston proudly won their bowl games and showed the world that football is played in large cities. Let me congratulate Rice University, which has one of the highest academic standards and standings in the United States of America, along with the proudness of their football team, and, yes, the University of Houston that is now reaching to be a world-renowned research institution that the State of Texas truly needs. They won their bowl game, having not won one in a number of years. It's exciting to see the manner of enthusiasm amongst the alumni and our schools. Obviously our schools are there to educate, but it really is grand for the City of Houston and all of its population to celebrate two great winners, Rice University and the University of Houston, who won their bowl games, 2008. Go forever, Rice and the University of Houston.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend from New Jersey, and I want to take my time to salute our distinguished chairman, Chairman Miller, and Rosa DeLauro for bringing to the forefront in this crisis of unemployment, 500,000 unemployed, to recognize and to acknowledge to America we believe in fair employment. Lilly Ledbetter, we have heard you and we salute you. You lost $200,000 in back wages because of a Supreme Court decision. Now today with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act we know that it will clarify that each paycheck that is discriminatory, that is less than it should be, will constitute a discriminatory practice and you will fall within the 180 day statute of limitations. The Paycheck Fairness Act, which we are standing on the floor today to defend and support, will create meaningful penalties against employers whose pay practices are proven to have been discriminatory, and it will protect workers from retaliation by their employers when employees discuss their pay with coworkers. In America we are a country that believes in work and provides that opportunity for women. These are two bills that we support. What a great day in America, when Democrats can stand up for working Americans and the women of America. I would like to thank Congresswoman DeLauro for this important legislation as well as the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Education and Labor for working together to see that gender equity is not just something we talk about, but something we are actually willing to put into action. This legislation is intended to combat the wage gap that still exists today between men and women in the workplace. It is an important step in addressing the persistent wage gap between women and men by updating the Equal Pay Act--passed more than 45 years ago. The reality is the Equal Pay Act needs to be strengthened and improved for all women to combat wage discrimination and eliminate loopholes in the current law. The Paycheck Fairness Act creates meaningful penalties against employers whose pay practices are proven to have been discriminatory. The bill will also protect workers from retaliation by their employers when employees discuss their pay with coworkers. Early last year the House passed H.R. 2831, legislation reversing last year's Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., in which the court ruled, 5-4, that workers filing suit for pay discrimination must do so within 180 days of the actual decision to discriminate against them. The Paycheck Protection Act is also needed to stop discriminatory pay practices by employers against our mothers, wives, daughters, and granddaughters that do the same job as their male counterparts. The Paycheck Fairness Act, will strengthen the Equal Pay Act--passed more than 45 years ago--and as a result improve the law's effectiveness, and help to address the persistent wage gap between men and women. The Paycheck Fairness Act would: Clarify acceptable reasons for differences in pay by requiring employers to demonstrate that wage gaps between men and women doing the same work are truly a result of factors other than sex. Deter wage discrimination by strengthening penalties for equal pay violations, and by prohibiting retaliation against workers who inquire about employers' wage practices or disclose their own wages. The bill's measured approach would ensure that women can obtain the same remedies as those subject to discrimination on the basis of race or national origin. AAUW would strongly oppose any efforts to add such caps. Provide women with a fair option to proceed in a class action suit under the Equal Pay Act, and allow women to receive punitive and compensatory damages for pay discrimination. Clarify the establishment provision under the Equal Pay Act, which would allow for reasonable comparisons between employees to determine fair wages. Authorize additional training for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission staff to better identify and handle wage disputes. It will aid in the efficient and effective enforcement of federal anti-pay discrimination laws by requiring the EEOC to develop regulations directing employers to collect wage data, reported by the race, sex, and national origin of employees. It will require the U.S. Department of Labor to reinstate activities that promote equal pay, such as: directing educational programs, providing technical assistance to employers, recognizing businesses that address the wage gap, collecting wage-related data, at conducting and promoting research about pay disparities between men and women. More importantly for our young ladies going into the workforce it will establish a competitive grant program to develop salary negotiation training for women and girls. As a Member of the Women's Caucus I have been fighting for pay equity for American women since before I arrived here as a Representative in 1995, and I believe that equal pay for equal work is a simple matter of justice. Wage disparities are not simply a result of women's education levels or life choices. In fact, the pay gap between college educated men and women appears first after college--even when women are working full-time in the same fields with the same major as men--and continues to widen during the first 10 years in the workforce. Further, this persistent wage gap not only impacts the economic security of women and their families today, it also directly affects women's retirement security tomorrow. Now is the time for additional proactive measures to effectively address wage discrimination and eliminate loopholes that have hindered the Equal Pay Act's effectiveness. I urge my colleagues, both men and women to support equality in rights and pay for all Americans by supporting the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 87 percent of the American people support President-elect Obama's stimulus package, a package that addresses the concerns and needs of low-income Americans, working Americans, middle-class Americans. It is obvious that the Federal Government has to be the spender of last resort. No frivolous, foolish spending, but spending that creates jobs, jobs, jobs, puts Americans back to work, bring home our troops from Iraq, be able to downsize the investment in a war that many of us disagreed with, ensure that the war in Afghanistan succeeds, and make sure that those in America's Appalachia and Mississippi Delta and the inner cities of Houston, Texas, have the amount of money to begin to work, summer youth jobs. That's what this stimulus package is about. President-elect Obama has it right. We in the Federal Government have to rescue those who provided the tax dollars for America to work. Put them back to work. You'll see our economy spiraling. Frivolous comments about bailouts will not work. The American people know a stimulus package is for them. Let's do it quickly. Let's get the money to our local governments. I believe we should bypass some of our State governments; make sure those dollars are in our cities, our counties, our municipalities, put America back to work. That's what President-elect Obama wants us to do.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, let me congratulate you for your re-election as Speaker of the House. It is an honor that you have served with great distinction and verve. I look forward to more of your continued leadership in the 111th Congress. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 35, the Presidential Records Act Amendments, which amends chapter 22 of title 44, United States Code, popularly known as the Presidential Records Act, to establish procedures for the consideration of claims of constitutionally based privilege against disclosure of Presidential records. H.R. 35 provides that when the Archivist determines to make available to the public any Presidential record that has not previously been made available to the public, and that is not subject to any claim of constitutionally based privilege against disclosure, the Archivist should provide notice of the determination to the former President during whose term of office the record was created, the incumbent President, and make the notice available to the public. The notice must also be in writing. These amendments strengthen the underlying bill. The Presidential Records Act itself governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents created or received after January 20, 1981, and mandates the preservation of all Presidential records. The act changed the legal ownership of the official records of the President from private to public, and established a new statutory structure under which the President must manage their records. Specifically, the Presidential Records Act: Defines and states public ownership of the records. Places the responsibility for the custody and management of incumbent Presidential records with the President. Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once he has obtained the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal. Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records. Establishes a process for restriction and public access to these records. Specifically, the PRA allows for public access to Presidential records through the Freedom of Information Act (United States), FOIA, beginning five years after the end of the Administration, but allows the President to invoke as many as six specific restrictions to public access for up to 12 years. The PRA also establishes procedures for Congress, courts, and subsequent administrations to obtain special access to records that remain closed to the public, following a 30-day notice period to the former and current Presidents. Requires that Vice-Presidential records are to be treated in the same way as Presidential records. This bill is important. It was under the Bush administration that the e-mail controversy surfaced in 2007. During that controversy which involved the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys, congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House e-mails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an e-mail server not controlled by the Federal Government. Conducting general government business in this manner possibly implicates the Presidential Records Act. The Bush administration e-mail controversy highlights the need for these amendments and for the bill. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, let me congratulate you for your re-election as Speaker of the House. It is an honor that you have served with great distinction and verve. I look forward to more of your continued leadership in the 111th Congress. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 5, Adopting the rules for the One Hundred Eleventh Congress. The House Rules Package provides commonsense reforms that will enable Congress to work more efficiently for America. In the 110th Congress, Democrats put forth critical measures to restore integrity and accountability to the House. These reforms were the most sweeping ethics and lobbying reforms since Watergate and has changed the way Congress does business in Washington. The reforms adopted by the 110th Congress included banning gifts from lobbyists, prohibiting the use of corporate jets, mandating ethics training for all House employees, establishing a new, independent Office of Congressional Ethics, and ensuring transparency for budget earmarks by requiring the full disclosure of earmarks in all bills and conference reports. The Rule Package for the 111th Congress builds upon these reforms to further strengthen the integrity of Congress. Key provisions include closing the loophole regarding ``lame-duck'' Members negotiating post- Congressional employment, codifying additional earmark reforms adopted in mid-term in the 110th Congress, continuing the Office of Congressional Ethics, maintaining strong PAYGO rules, and improving Congress's effectiveness by removing an abusive practice where popular measures are killed through unrelated, ``gotcha'' amendments on motions to recommit. On this last point, noted Congressional scholar Norm Ornstein pointed out in the Roll Call, August 13, 2007, ``Using `promptly' . . . is a subterfuge, a way to kill bills, and reflects a desire not to legislate but embarrass vulnerable majority Members through a ``gotcha'' process. The Rules Package protects the minority and still preserves its ability to recommit. Specifically, the minority can offer a motion to recommit ``forthwith,'' where the GOP amendment is immediately voted upon and, if adopted, is added to the bill. Additionally, the minority can offer a straight motion to recommit the bill to committee (in which case the vote occurs on the merits of the bill itself). Mr. Speaker, the Rules Package removes term limits for Committee Chairmen from House Rules. Instead, each party should determine its own rules on the tenure of Committee Chairs and/or Ranking Members--and they should be reflected in Democratic Caucus Rules and Republican Conference Rules. In practice, term limits have resulted in the creation of a ``pay-to-play'' system, where the chief criterion for being selected as a new Chair has in many instances been a Member's fundraising prowess. This had the effect of focusing upon fundraising and undermining the integrity of Congress and the legislative process. Lastly, I am pleased that the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, and the House Democracy Assistance Commission will be continued. These entities have done tremendous work. I urge my colleagues to support the Rules Package. I believe this package restores integrity and accountability.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank Congressman Towns for attempting to bring greater transparency to presidential library fundraising efforts with H.R. 36, the ``Presidential Library Donation Reform Act of 2009.'' We are facing a new day, with a new administration, and a new Democratic majority. That is why it is important that we stay true to our core values of fairness, transparency, a accountability. Starting with the lobbying and ethics reform, we as a body understand that a responsible government allows for openness. This legislation continues to rebuild our trust with the American people. This legislation requires in part that, ``any Presidential library fundraising organization shall submit on a quarterly basis with respect to every contributor who gave the organization a contribution or contributions (whether monetary or in-kind) totaling $200 or more for the quarterly period.'' Under current law, private organizations established for the purpose of building a presidential library can raise unlimited amounts of money from undisclosed donors while the President remains in office. It takes nothing more than common sense to see the potential for abuse in this area and the need for basic reform. Presidential libraries serve an important purpose as depositories of presidential papers and centers for historical research. In 1939, President Franklin Roosevelt came up with the idea of a privately- built, but federally maintained library to house his presidential papers. This split of responsibilities between the public and the private sectors has continued and has since been codified into law. In 1955, the Presidential Libraries Act formally established a system under which federally maintained libraries would be built using funds raised by private organizations. More recent amendments have required these private organizations to provide an operating endowment to the National Archives in addition to the library building. Just as the funding requirements have grown, so have the libraries and their affiliated institutions. Now these libraries are much more than basic research facilities. They include museums and conference centers along with other tourist attractions; they are getting more costly all the time. The George H.W. Bush library was reported to cost more than $80 million to build. The Clinton library and museum cost about $165 million to build. News reports have indicated that the fundraising goal for President Bush's library is $500 million--half a billion dollars-- before this institution is completed. The vast scale of these secret fundraising efforts creates opportunities for abuse. Donors who do not need to be identified can give unlimited amounts of money to support these libraries while the President remains in office. This legislation would require that presidential libraries disclose the identity of their donors to Congress and the National Archives during their period of most intense fundraising, which is while the President is in office and in the several years after the end of his term. This legislation is but one part of a larger effort by this Congress to restore honesty and accountability in the Federal Government. Conclusion Madam Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Towns and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for helping us build a strong foundation of trust with the American people. I ask my colleagues to support me in supporting H.R. 36.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. In the recent week, we watched in horror as terrorists, criminals, and people who are uncaring attacked the innocent people of Mumbai, India--a band of 10, attacking innocent persons in hotels, traveling to hospitals and to train stations, going to the Chabad religious community and killing recklessly. Mr. Speaker, this should be a signal that we have to join together to again confront those who would terrorize the world. I know that this is going to be a place of conflict--Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India--but it is important for us to recognize that the people of India want peace, the people of Pakistan want peace, and the Bangladesh want peace, and the people in the Mid-East want peace. But we must weed out those who would terrorize us. We need to join together in the effort of stamping out terrorism and meanwhile continue to secure the homeland.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I see no drug addicts in here. I only see hardworking Americans--people who make things with their hands and who support their families and who make cars that have been noted as outstanding cars, not only in America but also around the world. So I support the bail in of all of these taxpayers, and I am gratified that this particular legislation does answer the question. I would like to yield to the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, to ask him about this auto czar and whether or not they have the authority to prevent the relocation of these plants overseas to take jobs away from Americans.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Well, let me just say that this bill focuses on restoring the ability of Americans to make things. It protects the taxpayers with the ``car czar.'' It protects retirees. It protects the pensioners. It protects the families. It stops, if you will, this massive bonus program. It's interesting that my friends now say do the bankruptcy process, but when the poor mortgage holder was asking for a bankruptcy, the process of my friends on the other side of the aisle would not allow them to do so. Bankrupt companies selling cars do not work. Let us stand for the hardworking Americans who make things with their hands, who design things with their intuitiveness and who bring to America the pride that built the middle class. I am proud of this bill, and I believe we should stand strong to support them. It is good to give tools to the next administration who can make this right. For my friends who want to help the small businesses, join me in supporting the economic stimulus package for which we're going to vote to help Americans to restore their lives. Mr. Speaker I rise today in support of H.R. 7297. I would like to thank the Chairman of Financial Service Barney Frank for bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor. I rise today with the confidence that our system of government is strong and the constitutional protections of our government will protect America while we reform America's automobile industry. Leadership has worked without tiring to ensure that this bill contains language that will ensure the betterment of the American people. Our leadership should be thanked for working on this bill during long hours into the night, weekends, and busy days. We toiled long into the night to incorporate Democratic principles in this bill. I have worked with leadership to offer language from the bill that I introduced on November 20, 2008. The bill is H.R. 7297, ``Emergency Automobile Industry American Jobs Protection Act of 2008.'' The ideas included in H.R. 7297 are important because they will continue to keep America's economy strong, ensure that jobs remain in America and that the automobile companies develop a definite plan for growth. My legislation is aimed at stabilizing the American automobile industry through jobs, dealerships, including women and minority-owned dealerships, and American automobile industry suppliers. H.R. 7297 requires that any loan funds distributed to the ``Big Three'' automobile companies should be conditioned upon these companies filing a certification with the Congress. The bill provides that before receiving loan funds, the ``Big Three'' must certify the following: (1) United States automobile jobs will not be decreased by relocation to foreign companies; (2) automobile dealerships will benefit from the receipt of these loan funds, and that the ``Big Three'' shall further provide for the stability of such dealerships, including women and minority-owned dealerships; and (3) United States automobile suppliers will also be supported by and stabilized by such loan funding. The bill also provides that no loan funds should be used by the ``Big Three'' to allow them to relocate overseas if it will result in the loss of United States automobile industry jobs, dealerships, or suppliers. Lastly, the bill provides that the loan funds should be distributed to the ``Big Three'' to ensure their stability and to establish a long-term plan of growth for United States automobile dealerships, including women and minority-owned dealerships, and United States automotive industry suppliers. In fact, it is because I am concerned and desire that the maximum number of Americans get relief from this bill, that I offered amendments yesterday. To ensure that this bill provides relief for Americans, I offered the following amendments: (1) Set aside $125 million (in fact the amount could been more) as a firm allotment to address the question of individual American homeowners facing foreclosure in light of the absence of a bankruptcy provision; (2) Add Sense of the Congress language that the Bankruptcy Code should be reviewed and amended in the future to permit bankruptcy judges to address the question of individual home mortgage restructuring; (3) Allow the courts to exercise rigorous judicial review and provide those courts with the discretion to grant injunctive and/or equitable relief if the courts determine that such relief would not destabilize financial markets; (4) Create a new independent commission to exercise oversight over the current financial situation with enforcement powers; (5) Allow criminal liability for persons or corporate entities that have engaged in criminal malfeasance; (6) Bar persons/corporate entities found to have engaged in criminal malfeasance with malicious intent in financial markets from doing business with the federal government in the future. The bill in context Segments of the economy have the ability to be strong. America needs to employ its full, faith, and credit to back its commitments. I feel strongly that this bill should have set aside $125 million to help homeowners who are facing mortgage foreclosure. This is important because it is money that would have been used to help the aggrieved: Main Street. It is important to note that all five big investments--Bear Sterns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley have altogether disappeared or morphed into regular banks. Given this phenomenon, the question arises and no one has or can seem to explain: Is this bailout still necessary? Dr. James K. Gailbraith, of the University of Texas, wrote in the Washington Post, on September 25, 2008, that the bailout is not necessary because the point of the bailout has been articulated as buying assets that are illiquid ``but not worthless. But regular banks hold assets like that all the time. They are called `loans.' With banks, runs occur only when depositors panic, because they fear the loan book is bad. Deposit insurance takes care of that.'' Deposit insurance presently is capped at $100,000. We should have considered raising the FDIC insurance cap, increased the amount of capitalization in the FDIC corporation, increased the amount of reserves in the Treasury Department. Dr. Galbraith wrote, ``In Texas, recovery from the 1980s oil bust took seven years and the pull of strong national economic growth. The present slump is national, and it can't be cured by legislation alone. But it could be resolved in three years, by a new Home Owners Loan Corp., which would rewrite mortgages, manage rental conversions, and decide when vacant, degraded properties should be demolished.'' As I consider this piece of legislation, three of the themes that are consistent throughout it are (1) where is the enforcement; (2) who receives the first dollar; and (3) what is the disastrous and catastrophic event that will occur if this bill is not passed today? Because of the complexity of the nature and extent of the problems within the financial markets, I would rather that Congress carefully review and consider the right solution. Congress should order the SEC, FDIC, the Federal Revenue Service to use their current powers and prevent the consequences with some extraordinary powers such as cited above regulating lifting the caps at the FDIC and allowing the SEC to suspend certain accounting practices, all this can be done without the massive bailout all at once. This legislation was considered at 10:00 p.m. in a closed rule last night; debate on the rule immediately transpired with less than 10 members participating at approximately midnight. In less than ten hours, members are expected to have read, understand, and speak intelligently upon this complex piece of legislation. When we consider the magnitude and extent of the financial problem, we must consider how America has gotten here in the first place. During the past Administration, America underwent a housing boom. Depressed housing markets around the country experienced unparalleled increases in price. Middle-class, working Americans sought to achieve the American dream by purchasing a home. At the same time, banks and financial institutions were selling unsophisticated consumers unconventional and creative mortgage financing alternatives. Financial institutions were apt to qualify borrowers for more house than they could afford. Financial institutions were lending subprime mortgages and engaged in predatory lending. Adjustable rate mortgages, which had an interest rate that would adjust within 1, 3, or more years, became more common within the last 7 years. Interest-only names became common names within the first home purchaser's market. Borrowers who were considered a credit risk were allowed to purchase homes. The banks and financial institutions were not paying attention to a borrower's credit rating, their ability to pay, or a borrower's potential to default. Present Financial Situation According to Bloomberg, this morning stocks around the world tumbled, the euro and the pound plunged and bonds rose as governments raced to prop up banks. Hong Kong's Hang Seng Index plunged 4.31 percent to 17,876.41, and Tokyo's benchmark Nikkei lost 1.3 percent to close at 11,743.61. Europe's Dow Jones Stoxx 100 Index declined 3.2 percent. MSCI Asia Pacific Index lost 2.7 percent after Dexia SA sank the most since it began trading 12 years ago and ICICI Bank Ltd. retreated to a two-year low. Futures on the S&P's 500 Index fell 1.7 percent as Wachovia Corp. tumbled 91 percent. Citigroup Inc. agreed to buy the company's banking operations in a transaction the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. helped arrange. The British pound dropped the most against the dollar in 15 years and the euro weakened after European governments stepped in to rescue Bradford & Bingley Plc, Fortis, and Hypo Real Estate Holding AG. So far, the $700 billion package to shore up banks hammered out by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and congressional leaders over the weekend failed to convince investors it will shore up banks saddled with growing mortgages losses. The crisis that began with bad home loans to subprime borrowers in the U.S. is threatening to push the global economy into a recession as consumers lose confidence as banks cut back on lending. It is difficult to have a $700 billion rescue bill when the President failed to sign $60 billion to provide economic stimulus to working- class Americans. In September, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers all filed for bankruptcy. Merrill Lynch agreed to sell itself to Bank of America, AIG was taken over by the Treasury, and Washington Mutual was seized by regulators in the biggest U.S. bank failure in history. Financial institutions worldwide have reported more than $550 billion of credit losses and asset writedowns since the beginning of 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Even after the announcement of the rescue package, the worldwide markets are still declining. I fail to see the specific catastrophic events/consequences that the U.S. public will experience if this bailout does not occur. I am cautious because I believe that we as members of Congress need to take the time to craft a real recovery plan for our economy, a plan that puts people first and addresses our multiple economic crises, including good jobs, affordable housing, health care, retirement security, infrastructure, and disaster relief (Katrina, Ike, etc.). Last week, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced $1.5 billion in public spending cuts. I do not believe that this was prudent. Schools, fire departments, police stations, parks, libraries, and water projects are getting cut. The persons who are feeling the effects of this economic decision are the more vulnerable populations, the elderly, the children, and the working-class. Mayor Bloomberg's reaction is not the solution either. It is clear that something must be done, but this bill does not provide the answer that America seeks. Recently, Congress sent an economic stimulus package to the President that would have provided $60 billion in relief to middle-class working Americans. The President vetoed this bill. However, the Administration sends to us today this bill requesting $700 billion to bail out Wall Street. I would offer that we need to restructure our present financial system. However, the kinds of reform that I believe are necessary are not included in this bill. For example, the Federal Reserve itself needs to be reformed. As members of Congress we should be looking at establishing greater oversight, preventing predatory practices and establishing public alternatives to the reckless privatized system that brought us the crisis in the first place. We need to prevent the victims of predatory lending from losing their homes and restrict lobbying by the financial sector. I have heard from my constituents that they are not supportive of this bill. Many themselves were community bankers. One community banker, for example, wrote: ``I am a community banker who is deeply concerned about the recent developments on Wall Street and the bailouts that our government has undertaken. The great, great majority of banks in this country never made one subprime loan, and ninety-eight percent are well-captialized . . . we don't ask for or need a bailout.'' Little Relief for the Nation's Homeowners Because of the way that the bill is written, few if any homeowners will get mortgage relief, which is why I offered an amendment that would give $125 million directly to the homeowners facing mortgage foreclosure. The bill does not contain any provision allowing the terms of a mortgage to be changed without the consent of all the investors who own the mortgage. Few homeowners will benefit. For example, the bill would not provide relief to the majority of homeowners. The bill does not contain any provision allowing the terms of a mortgage to be changed without the consent of all the investors who own the mortgage. The bill is little more than a Wall Street earmark and is not really a bill for homeowners. Although the bill does not provide for parachutes for executives, the executives' compensation remains the same. This is because the Treasury will chiefly purchase mortgage-backed securities which will make the federal government one of several co- owners of millions of mortgages. Whether or not any mortgages are modified will be determined by the loan servicer acting on behalf of all the various investors who own a piece of the mortgage. That is why Section 108(d) states in part, ``The Secretary shall request loan services servicing the mortgage loans to avoid preventable foreclosures.'' Congress has already requested all loan servicers nationwide to avoid preventable foreclosures, so an additional request from the Treasury is unlikely to change current behavior. Republican Commentary Republican critics of the bill argue that the bill rescues persons that lack financial responsibility because they were living beyond their means or that the bill helps minorities who did not exercise fiscal responsibility. There is simply no credibility to these arguments. As I have attempted to stress today, the mortgage foreclosure crisis affects all Americans. Financial institutions engaged in speculation on Wall Street that we now see has had a deleterious effect on Main Street. Speculation, in a financial context, is the assumption of the risk of loss, in return for the uncertain possibility of a reward. Speculation is one of the main causes of various economic crises around the world. In fact, speculators have played a major role in the present crisis. The speculators were greedy. Nonprofits such as ACORN, NACA, and Homefree USA, among many others, have long been waging consumer campaigns to educate borrowers about the various financial instruments. And, I am resoundingly grateful to them for their hard work. We cannot make them the scapegoats. These organizations have allowed persons who might not otherwise have the knowledge or the opportunity to purchase a home, the opportunity to do so in the right way. These nonprofits should be applauded. Everyone deserves the economic dream of owning their own home. But the financial institutions were dilatory in their responsibility to assess the borrower's ability to pay for loans and purchase a home. It was the squandering of this responsibility and preoccupation with greed and avarice that has led us to where we are today. There are substantial improvements in the present version of the bill compared to the Bush administration proposal. However, the bill as it is presently written does not provide the necessary relief to middle- class America. Frankly, the bill provides no panacea to our present economic woes. Our markets will have the full faith and credit of the United States. This bill has not sent a sufficiently clear message because it lacks enforcement. There are provisions now that address accountability measures by requiring a plan to ensure the taxpayer is repaid in full, and requiring Congressional review after the first $350 billion for future payments. Principally, there are three phases of a financial rescue with strong taxpayer protections: reinvest, reimburse, and reform. One of the phases is to re-invest in the troubled financial markets to stabilize the markets. Another, reimburses the taxpayer and requires a plan to guarantee that they will be repaid in full. The last is to reform how business is done on Wall Street. The current legislation provides for fewer golden parachutes and, to its credit, provides sweeping Congressional oversight. There are critical improvements to the rescue plan that yield greater protection to the American taxpayers and even to Main Street. The protection for taxpayers include the following: (1) gives taxpayers a share of the profits of participating companies, or puts taxpayers first in line to recover assets if a company fails; and (2) allows the government to also purchase troubled assets from pension plans, local governments, and small banks that serve low- and middle-income families. For companies publicly auctioning over $300 million: (1) there will be no multi-million dollar golden parachutes for top five executives after auction, although nothing prevents these executives from still reaping enormous salaries. (2) there will be no tax deduction for executive compensation over $500,000. However, with a ``pause'' we can help the financial markets and make America secured.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I support the National Silver Alert Act. I also urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is necessary. Thousands of vulnerable older adults go missing each year as a result of dementia, diminished capacity, foul play or other unusual circumstances. The Alzheimer's Foundation of America estimates that over five million Americans suffer from Alzheimer's disease, and that 60 percent of these are likely to wander from their homes. Alzheimer's disease and other dementia related illnesses often leave their victims disoriented and confused and unable to find their way home. According to the Alzheimer's Association, up to 50 percent of wanderers risk serious illness, injury or death if not found within 24 hours. The problem can be exacerbated greatly by national disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, that can, in a matter of hours, increase the number of missing persons by the thousands. At least eight States, along with non-profit organizations such as the National Center for Missing Adults, Project Lifesaver International and the Alzheimer's Foundation of America, have developed programs to address various aspects of the problem of missing adults, but the need for a coordinated national approach, similar to the Amber Alert Program for children, still exists. In addition, financial support is needed for existing and new local and State programs. The Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program, administered by the Department of Justice, is the only Federal program that currently provides grant funding to locate vulnerable elderly individuals who go missing. Authorization for this program ceased in 1998, but Congress has continued to appropriate some monies for it through fiscal year 2008, when it appropriated $940,000. Another Federal law, Kristen's Act, had authorized annual grants in the amount of $1 million for fiscal years 2001 through 2004 to assist law enforcement agencies in locating missing adults and for other purposes. Between fiscal years 2002 through 2006, Kristen's Act grants were made through the Edward Byrne Discretionary Grants Program, primarily to the National Center for Missing Adults, a non-profit organization. In 2006, Congress appropriated $150,000 for this purpose. A. H.R. 6064, the ``National Silver Alert Act'' Importantly, today I urge my colleagues to support another important piece of legislation, H.R. 6064, the National Silver Alert Act. H.R. 6064 sets forth a comprehensive national program. It directs the Attorney General to establish a permanent national Silver Alert communications program within the Department of Justice to provide assistance to regional and local search efforts for missing seniors. The bill requires the Attorney General to assign a Department of Justice officer as a Silver Alert Coordinator. The Silver Alert Coordinator acts as a nationwide point of contact, working with States to encourage the development of local elements of the network, known as Silver Alert plans, and to ensure regional coordination. The bill requires the Coordinator to develop protocols for efforts relating to reporting and finding missing seniors and to establish voluntary guidelines for States to use in developing Silver Alert plans. The bill requires the Coordinator to establish an advisory group (1) to help States, local governments and law enforcement agencies with Silver Alert plans, (2) to provide training and educational programs to States, local governments and law enforcement agencies, and (3) to submit an annual report to congress. The bill also requires the Coordinator to establish voluntary minimum standards for the issuance of alerts through the Silver Alert communications network. H.R. 6064 directs the Attorney General, subject to the availability of appropriations, to provide grants to States for the development and implementation of programs and activities relating to Silver Alert plans. The bill authorizes $5 million for fiscal year 2009 for this purpose. The bill also authorizes an additional $5 million for fiscal year 2009 specifically for the development and implementation of new technologies. The Federal share of the grant may not exceed 50 percent and amounts appropriated under this authorization shall remain available until expended. B. My Past Amendments on Elder Justice Bills In similar elder legislation, namely the Elder Justice Act and the Elder Abuse Victims Act, I co-sponsored amendments with Ms. Maxine Waters of California to provide funding to State, local, and non-profit programs to locate missing elderly. Specifically, my amendment would allow a voluntary electronic monitoring pilot program to assist with the elderly when they are reported missing. In these particular bills, my amendment would allow the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to issue grants to States and local government to carry out pilot programs to provide voluntary electronic monitoring services to elderly individuals to assist in the location of such individuals when they are reported missing. C. Elder Legislation Is Important Elder legislation such as the legislation before us today and the prior elder bills that I mentioned are important. As elder Americans enter their twilight years, we must do more to protect and ensure their safety. Nothing reminds me more of the necessity of this kind of legislation than my very own experiences in Houston, Texas. A few years ago, the family of Sam Kirk, a native of Houston, Texas, called me to help look for him. Mr. Kirk was elderly and suffered from dementia. He had wandered off and could not be located for several days. His family looked for him for many days but could not find him. In an act of desperation, they called on me to lend my services to help them find him. I helped his family look for him and we found him. When we found Mr. Kirk, he was dehydrated and in need of medical attention. We searched for hours and days to find him. It was worth the time and effort we spent to find him alive and well. Legislation that helps America find and take care of its lost and missing elders is extremely important. sammy kirk amendment I fought hard to get an amendment to this bill, H.R. 6064, the National Silver Alert. The amendment would authorize a voluntary electronic monitoring program to be used to assist in the location of elderly persons. Specifically, the amendment requires the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to award grants to States and units of local government to carry out programs to provide for voluntary electronic monitoring services to elderly individuals to assist in the location of such individuals in the event that such persons are reported missing. It is authorized for $2 million for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2014. The amendment is named after Mr. Sammy Kirk, a former constituent of the 18th Congressional District who suffered from Alzheimers and was lost. I, along with his family, searched for him for 3 days only to find him dead near the bayou. The Sam Kirk amendment ensures that other senior Alzheimer patients do not suffer the same fate as Mr. Kirk. I believe that my amendment and these bills help elderly people. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 440, 110th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the speaker very much, and again for his leadership. I rise not because I would have wanted this vote today on the Emergency Economic Stabilization rescue package to be characterized as it has been characterized as ``a vote of the moment'' historic vote because I believe historic votes are votes that are absolutely imperative, that no one could foresee, that the challenges cannot be handled in any other way. In this instance, we have been floating money for the past 8 years, ignoring regulation, ignoring the spiraling unemployment. And even though the motives were good to give opportunities to those who eagerly work every day and seek the American Dream, the vehicles, the facilities by which we allowed them or gave them the opportunity to seek and to attain those dreams was not theirs, it was the financial houses that saw big dollars in the eyes, the minds and the hearts of hardworking families that simply wanted to provide a homework desk for their children, their children's own room. So it caught Members, if you will, cast about in the suggestion and the characterization made by the administration, but made as well by media rushing to hysteria. Then, of course, in the midst of this debate did not come the Senate's vote, which many people will think was one-upsmanship, but really what came as startling numbers--the numbers of 159,000 people who lost their jobs in this last month, the highest in 5 years; the fact that we needed to extend unemployment, not because people are deadbeat, but because they're out of luck, because they need this opportunity; came the number of 759,000 jobs that we have lost; came the unfortunate facts that credit crunching was going on, not necessarily for the seventh grader who may want to go to college 5 years from now, but for the person who desperately needs to buy a car or the small business that desperately needs to make their payroll. So as a person who voted no because I believe the restraints on the Secretary of the Treasury were unfettered, the vote that I took on Monday, these rising issues drew on my conscience. No one had to call me. I wasn't pushed by this candidate or that candidate. It was the deliberation that Members individually reflected upon as they listened to constituents, as we, in essence, refuted some of their points or agreed with some of those, no to the bailout. But I think we have to take stands sometimes that are painful; and not that anyone should be sympathetic to that, that is our job. But this was not a historic moment. And the only reason I say that is it was the making of something that did not have to happen. So how do we go forward? Well, I am grateful to a leadership that understood that we had to take this particular position. And they did it with diplomacy and acumen and smartness. So I thank them, all of them, the Democratic leadership. But at the same time, we have to be vigilant. My support came today because I believe that we are, if you will, recessed at the call of the Chair. If we find that this is not helping Mr. and Mrs. America, Mr. and Mrs. Main Street, this Congress can come back lickity split, and I will be there. We also recognize that there may be unfettered powers by this particular Secretary of the Treasury, but we have the Constitution, we have our powers to stop any use of power that may be abusive. In addition, we can again question the FDIC and make them function, the SEC, and make it function, the Federal Reserve, and make it function. We should continue to emphasize that those who engage in criminal improprieties should be subject to criminal prosecution. We should press for the American man and woman and homeowner the rights of bankruptcy so individually they can go in in a dignified way and restructure their loan and keep their house. We should recognize that section 109 should be a section that is required. It has to do with working out mortgages. It says ``encourage it.'' We want to make sure that we prioritize those who are holding bad mortgages, who have a home they want to save, and make sure that the Secretary is working to require them to change. And on judicial review, we need to make sure that it really works. We need to put aside money for those who need that to restructure their loans. Mr. Speaker, I close by saying yes, I voted ``aye,'' because those who were victims needed something to move the credit crunch along so that they could be helped, and I hope that we have done something that makes a difference.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the chairman for having the wisdom to bring this legislation up. If you look at my State, you will see that Texas is just a smidgeon below turning red, and not on politics, but on the numbers of individuals unemployed. As was indicated, we just voted on an emergency stimulus package on which I originally voted no. But looking at these numbers, having my car dealerships call me and tell me about the freezing of credit, with great difficulty I voted yes. But today is an acknowledgement that we are in crisis. 159,000 people today are unemployed, making a total of 759,000 people. This emergency stimulus package or this emergency rescue package has got to focus on Mr. and Mrs. America. That is what the extension of unemployment benefits represents, so that Ms. Jackson in my district who has a high adjusted mortgage rate can still keep her job. We have got to keep her job and keep a house. And that is what my vote was today on the rescue package. That is why I am supporting these extenders, because we have got a crisis, folks. And this party, this Democratic Congress, this new President must address this question. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6867, the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act introduced by Congressman McDermott of Washington. Background On June 30, 2008, the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC08) program was created by Public Law 110-252. This new temporary unemployment insurance program provided up to 13 additional weeks of unemployment benefits to certain workers who had exhausted their rights to regular unemployment compensation (UC) benefits. Unfortunately, over 1 million workers have joined the ranks of the unemployed since Congress enacted the Extended Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program in June, and over 800,000 workers are projected to exhaust their current extended benefits if we do not act now. Hurricanes Rita, Gustav, and Ike have wreaked havoc on the gulf coast, and in my district of Houston, Texas I have seen people with out food and water. This devastation has also clearly affected the job market and has forced many hardworking Houstonians into the unemployment lines. General--Statistics The U.S. economy has lost jobs in every single month of 2008. This past month, the economy suffered its biggest 1-month job loss (-159,000) in over 5 years. With over 9.5 million unemployed workers the national unemployment rate is at a 5-year high of 6.1 percent. New claims for unemployment benefits just hit a 7-year high in mid- September. In total, the economy has shed 760,000 jobs since the beginning of the year. Over the past year, the number of unemployed Americans has increased by 2.2 million. New claims for unemployment benefits just hit a 7-year high in mid-September. In July, there were 2.6 jobless workers for every available job. More than one out of every five unemployed workers has been jobless for over 6 months. The number of long-term unemployed (2 million) is up 57 percent over the last 12 months with 89 metropolitan areas having a jobless rate of at least 7 percent. From January to May, 5 consecutive months, the U.S. economy has lost jobs. The unemployment rate had its biggest 1-month increase in over 20 years in May of this year. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, says that extending unemployment benefits is one of the most cost-effective and fastest acting forms of economic stimulus because the money is spent quickly. Congress has enacted federally-funded extended unemployment benefit programs on seven different occasions over the last 50 years in response to economic weakness (1958, 1961, 1972, 1975, 1982, 1991, and 2002). In addition to those already seeking employment, statistics from recent years show an average of 100,000 additional job seekers entering the labor market in Texas alone, between the months of April and June. The unemployment rates for adult men (4.9 percent), adult women (4.8 percent), teenagers (18.7 percent), whites (4.9 percent), and blacks (9.7 percent) rose in May. The jobless rate for Hispanics (6.9 percent) was unchanged. The unemployment rate for Asians was 3.8 percent. Conclusion Unemployment is at record highs. This affects the very heart of our American families. We must act now to extend these benefits. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 6867 and support American families.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of financial services Barney Frank for bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor. I also rise with a sense of the solemnity of this moment. However, I rise today with the confidence that our system of government is strong and the constitutional protections of the full faith and credit of our government must protect Main Street America while we reform America's Wall Street. The first three articles of the United States Constitution address the three branches of government and their enumerated powers. These articles govern the legislature, the executive, and the judicial branches. Because there is no specific grant of constitutional authority for the actions that will be taking place here today, we the members of Congress need to exercise oversight over the powers and actions of the executive. Should the executive or its agencies exceed the powers granted to it in the Constitution, the judicial can review the determinations made by the executive and the legislative branches. These concepts are fundamental to our Constitution and our system of constitutional checks and balances. These checks and balances were established by the Founding Fathers to reign in the unbridled power of the executive. Today we are engaged in a fundamental exercise of the constitutional powers extended to the Congress. Today's vote is critically important. Several questions come to mind when I consider the present financial crisis: Where was the FDIC? Where was the SEC? Where was the Federal Reserve? I have worked with leadership to offer consistent amendments, not once but twice unsuccessfully, that would have strengthened the enforcement measures over the past week to change the Administration's proposal to make it more encompassing, effective, and better for the American people. While the present legislation is impressive, it is also impressive regarding what needs clarification in the present legislation. For example, the legislation needs clarification on its bankruptcy restructuring; enforcement; and judicial review. These are all issues that I have been very concerned about. Because I am concerned and desire that the maximum number of Americans get relief from this bill, I offered amendments yesterday. To ensure that this bill provides relief for Americans, I offered the following amendments: First, many are concerned about the dollar amount that will be set aside for those individuals facing mortgage foreclosure. Therefore, I asked that language be inserted into the bill so that $10 billion be utilized for the Secretary of the Treasury to restructure mortgages. Second, as Senator Barack Obama has recently stated, he is committed to altering the Bankruptcy Code in the future to assist homeowners on the question of restructuring their mortgages. Therefore, I believe that there should have been Sense of Congress language that the Congress should review and amend the Bankruptcy Code to permit bankruptcy judges to address the question of individual home mortgage restructuring. This would have sent a clear message that Congress is interested in helping Americans pay off their debt despite its not changing the Bankruptcy Code at this time. Third, there needs to be greater enforcement. In the section on judicial review (section 119), there should have been language that specifically states that ``the courts should be able to exercise their discretion to grant injunctive and/or equitable relief if the court determines that such relief would not destabilize financial markets.'' Fourth, the legislation should have created a new, independent commission to exercise oversight over what happened and the commission should regularly provide reports to Congress. This Commission would be backward looking. Fifth, the legislation should have been narrowly crafted so that corporate executives who may be convicted of criminal malfeasance in the financial sector might be barred from conducting financial business with the government for a period of seven (7) years. Sixth, the legislation should have permanently lifted the present insurance cap of $100,000 that the FDIC has established to insure funds stored in FDIC-backed banking institutions to $250,000. I believe that this has already been included in the Senate bill; but, my amendment would have made the change permanent. Eighth, in section 109, which addresses ``foreclosure mitigation efforts,'' the language should be changed from ``shall encourage'' to ``shall require'' to provide stronger relief for Americans. Specifically, current section 109(a) states in pertinent part that ``the Secretary shall implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners and use the authority of the Secretary to encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages . . . to minimize foreclosures.'' I believe if the true intent is to bailout ``Main Street,'' the Secretary should be ``required'' to minimize foreclosures. Can you clarify how this legislation has any enforcement? I understand that H.R. 1424 establishes a Financial Stability Oversight Board in section 104; Oversight and Audits in section 116; and a Congressional Oversight Panel in section 125. However, none of these sections appear to provide penalties or sanctions for non-compliance. I intend to have the following questions answered: Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Can you explain why the bankruptcy provisions were removed from the bill? Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Without bankruptcy I offered an amendment that $10 billion dollars should be set aside so that the Department of Treasury could use those funds to address the question of individuals facing home mortgage foreclosure. I considered it important to set aside money because I wanted to ensure that Main Street received something from this bailout and not just Wall Street. Can you explain what provisions in the bill would ensure that the monies are spent on persons in mortgage foreclosure? Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Can we add report language indicating to the Secretary how monies are to be used when it comes to Americans in mortgage foreclosure and can we add language that the Secretary should attempt to restructure the mortgages of homeowners that are in mortgage foreclosure? Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. The Administration has labeled the current economic situation as a crisis that requires emergency measures. Because these are ``exigent'' circumstances that are in need of correction, what in the bill prevents the Secretary from using all the $350 billion by January 2009? Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Above all, my concern is to ensure that the American people receive the relief that they deserve. If the American people are facing mortgage foreclosure, it is my desire that monies be provided to them so that they can continue to stay in their home and pay their mortgages and their bills. Everyone deserves the economic dream of owning their own home. But the financial institutions were dilatory in their responsibility to assess the borrower's ability to pay for loans and purchase a home. It was the squandering of this responsibility and preoccupation with greed and avarice that has led us to where we are today. There are substantial improvements in the present version of the bill compared to the Bush administration proposal. However, the bill as it is presently written, in my view needs some clarification as to how it provides the necessary relief to middle-class America. Frankly, the bill provides no panacea to our present economic woes. Our markets will have the full faith and credit of the United States. There are provisions now that address accountability measures by requiring a plan to ensure the taxpayer is repaid in full, and requiring Congressional review after the first $350 billion for future payments. Principally, there are three phases of a financial rescue with strong taxpayer protections: reinvest, reimburse, and reform. One of the phases is to re-invest in the troubled financial markets to stabilize the markets. Another, reimburses the taxpayer and requires a plan to guarantee that they will be repaid in full. The last is to reform how business is done on Wall Street. The current legislation provides for fewer golden parachutes and, to its credit, provides sweeping Congressional oversight. There are critical improvements to the rescue plan that yield greater protection to the American taxpayers and even to Main Street. However, with a ``pause'' we can help the financial markets and make America secure. I still have concern that there is enough in the bill to help Americans struggling with their mortgages. Is there some bright hope you can share with me to relieve me of my anxiety? Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Chairman Frank, on many occasions, you have reiterated the concern of the American people, which we both share, the wish that this legislation had stronger and more comprehensive relief for home owners facing foreclosures. Please elaborate on your interest, willingness, and commitment for us to work together to introduce and pass stronger and more comprehensive housing foreclosure legislation in the next Congress? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to you and your staff, for your commitment to this issue.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. We are here to do the people's business. That business must be done in the context of the Constitution. And so I will support this rule, but I will raise a number of questions dealing with the constitutional protections of Americans, the restraining of the power of the Secretary of the Treasury, the understanding of this body being called back to be able to immediately respond if the irresponsible actions of this administration continue with the monies that may be given through the passing of this bill. I tried to put more structure into the bill by giving $10 billion in amendments, $10 billion just for mortgages for people who want to restructure. We talked about bankruptcy language that should have been put in that I offered; we talked about making it stronger and how you restructure the mortgages, rather than encourage them to restructure the mortgage, requiring them to do it. I had language that would address the question of making sure the courts were stronger, that courts had the ability to render equitable or injunctive relief. I also had an amendment to give us a 9/11-type commission, criminal liability. We tried to make the bill better, but we are going to work through this process. I am going to watch this process, and determine whether or not we can do the people's business. That is what I think is important. Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today on H. Res. 1525, providing for consideration of the rule on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. I want to begin by stating that I worked very hard. I worked hard to make this bill better. I will be listening intently to the debate throughout the day to establish the perspective and the legislative history we need for my constituents, the State of Texas, and for all of America. I offered several amendments to make the Act better. The first amendment that I would like to offer sets aside $10 billion as a firm allotment to address the question of individual American homeowners facing foreclosure in light of the absence of a bankruptcy provision in the bill. I believe that the amount in reality should be higher; however, $10 billion is a good starting point. This provision is important because the American people that are currently in mortgage foreclosure are facing a real and present crisis. Indeed, these are tough economic times. This money can be given to them by the Secretary of Treasury. This is a modest attempt at addressing the present crisis and it ensures that those on Main Street get the relief that they long deserve. The second amendment that I would like to offer permits bankruptcy judges to allow persons in default of their mortgage on their primary residence to alter the terms of their mortgage. As Senator Barack Obama has recently stated, he is committed to altering the Bankruptcy Code in the future to assist homeowners on the question of restructuring their mortgages. Therefore, I believe that there should Sense of Congress language that provides that the Bankruptcy Code should be reviewed and amended in the future to permit bankruptcy judges to address the question of individual home mortgages. This would send a clear message that Congress is interested in helping Americans pay off their debt despite its not changing the Bankruptcy Code at this time. The third amendment that I would like to offer makes an addition to Section 109 of the bill, which addresses ``foreclosure mitigation efforts.'' The present language of 109 provides that the Secretary of the Treasury should be encouraged to allow individual homeowners who face mortgage foreclosure to modify the homeowners' loans to prevent mortgage foreclosure. My amendment would change the words from ``shall encourage'' to ``shall require'' to provide stronger relief for Americans. In listening to the discussions that have been coming out of the mouths of voters across America, there is confusion as to what the monies will be used for. It would be very helpful in the legislative history or report language to designate how the monies will be utilized. My fourth amendment addresses enforcement. There needs to be greater enforcement. In the section on judicial review there should be language that specifically provides that ``the courts should be able to exercise their discretion to grant injunctive and/or equitable relief if the court determines that such relief would not destabilize financial markets.'' These are remedies available at law and in equity that inure to the litigants benefit. There has been no compelling reason put forth to vitiate or limit these remedies insofar as their implementation does not unduly affect or destabilize the financial markets. My fifth amendment would create a new independent, commission to exercise oversight over what happened and the commission should regularly provide reports to Congress. This Commission unlike the one presently in the bill would be backward looking. My sixth amendment would provide for narrowly crafted enforcement language. It provides that corporate executives who have been convicted of criminal malfeasance in the financial sector would be barred from conducting financial business with the government for a period of seven (7) years. This is important because those corporate executives who have been convicted of criminal wrongdoing should not be allowed to continue in conducting business with the government. They should be barred for a period to attenuate the taint of their wrongdoing. My seventh, amendment would permanently lift the present insurance cap of $100,000 that FDIC has established to insure funds stored in FDIC-backed banking institutions. This is different from the Senate bill because it makes the increase to $250,000 permanent. My eighth, and final, amendment concerns Section 109 of the bill. Specifically, in Section 109, which addresses ``foreclosure mitigation efforts,'' the language should be changed from ``shall encourage'' to ``shall require'' to provide stronger relief for Americans. Specifically, current section 109(a) states in pertinent part that ``the Secretary shall implement a plan that seeks to maximize assistance for homeowners and use the authority of the Secretary to encourage the servicers of the underlying mortgages . . . to minimize foreclosures.'' I believe if the true intent is to bailout ``Main Street,'' the Secretary should be ``required'' to minimize foreclosures.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Scott from Virginia for his critical insight into this much needed legislation before us. H.R. 3971, the Death in Custody Reporting Program reauthorizes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, BJS, program, which is designed to report the deaths of prisoners and immigration detainees in local and State custody. The Death in Custody Reporting Act is a critical oversight tool which allows State and local corrections officials and advocates to monitor in-custody suicides, homicides, drug and alcohol overdoses and other critical issues. Due to the current lack of transparency and accountability, the public and advocacy groups have to rely on word-of-mouth and media accounts to find out about deaths of immigration detainees. According to the ACLU, at least 69 immigrants have died in custody since 2004. A significant number of these deaths occurred in Federal detention facilities. I am pleased that the Senate amended this legislation to ensure that Federal detention center authorities also had to report under the same circumstances and the State detention centers; finally closing the loophole that allowed deaths of immigration detainees in Federal detention facilities to go unreported. This program which began in 2000, is supposed to receive death records quarterly from each State's prison and juvenile justice systems and from nearly 18,000 State and local law enforcement agencies. The reports include the age, gender and race of the deceased, the criminal history of the deceased and the circumstances surrounding the death. Sadly, according to a report by Human Rights Watch the U.S. criminal justice system fails to meet many international standards for the treatment of crime victims. Among other proposed measures in the report, HRW recommended that the United States ratify the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Colleagues, nearly 300,000 men, women, and children are detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, each year, the majority of whom have no criminal history whatsoever. Thousands arrived on our shores fleeing persecution and torture, only to be locked up like criminals in one of over 400 detention facilities around the country. We must not let go of our belief in the innate value of human life, or stray from our fundamental values while detaining immigrants or criminal offenders. In 1995, after a one-year investigation by journalist Mike Masterson into prison conditions and the death rate of persons in custody, Ashberry Park Press of New Jersey, ran a series of award winning editorials which listed the following abuses resulting in death that were occurring in our jails and prisons: Racially motivated violence, overzealous police investigations, cover-ups and general law enforcement incompetence. This prompted the Death In Custody Act of 2000 which required reporting of deaths of persons in custody. Since then, The Bureau of Justice Statistics has compiled a number of statistics. My colleague, Congressman Bobby Scott at one point testified to the most astounding statistic--that since reporting deaths have been made mandatory, the latest report dated August 2005 shows a 64 percent decline in suicides and 93 percent decline in homicides for individuals in custody. He stated that these statistics suggest that the oversight measures play an important role in ensuring safety and security of prisoners in State facilities. I agree with his finds and that is why I support H.R. 3971. We need continued oversight over the conduct of law enforcement in the arrest and imprisonment of citizens and immigrants. The Bureau of Justice Statistics date shows that between 2001 and 2005, there were 15,308 State prisoner deaths, 5,935 local prisoner deaths and 43 juvenile deaths during incarceration. In my district alone, in the last decade, 106 deaths have occurred in Harris County jail, many because of inability to secure meds or to secure med care after an attack. Immigrants in Jails Survivors of torture, asylum-seekers, families with small children and individuals with serious mental health and medical conditions such as HIV/AIDS, are routinely locked up in jails or under jail-like conditions. Studies conducted by the bipartisan Commission on International Religious Freedom, New York University's Bellevue Program, and Physicians for Human Rights have demonstrated that, even in well-run jails, detention itself poses a serious threat to the psychological health of the detainees. Without the right to appointed counsel and often detained in remote locations, detainees are unable to exercise fully what rights they do have. While I do not stand here and advocate allowing duly processed criminals to be released, or those breaking our immigration law to be simply be set loose, there are safer and more cost-effective alternatives to detention for most immigrants ICE currently detains. conclusion Angela Davis, an activist who went from being on the most wanted list to a distinguished and tenured professor in California, said that ``Jails and prisons are designed to break human beings, to convert the population into specimens in a zoo-- obedient to our keepers, but dangerous to each other.'' Is that our goal? Are jails and prisons rehabilitating or are they simply creating more dangerous criminals? We need to better understand what is happening in our society and take account for it. This legislation maintains a log--a report that will track deaths in custody. The more we know what is going on, the more responsible we must become. It is my belief that this is just the beginning of a criminal justice system that needs reform.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 2352, the ``School Safety Enhancements Act of 2007'', which is aimed at making America a safer place. The bill under consideration addresses health and safety issues for children. I support this bill and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. H.R. 2352 is necessary and will ensure the protection and safety of our children in a learning environment. Violence at our schools have increased at an alarming rate in States such as California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin over the last few years. H.R. 2352 seeks to curb that stem of violence. H.R. 2352 increases authorized annual funding from $30 million to $50 million for FY 2008-2009 for the Secure Our Schools grant program, and decreases the non-Federal grant participation percentage from 50 percent to 20 percent. It requires institutions of higher education to conduct annual campus safety assessments and develop and implement campus emergency response plans. This bill seeks to address the violence in our schools. It will ensure the safety of students and teachers and will make sure that education is the paramount concern of educators. The Act also increases the Federal portion of the funding from 50 percent to 80 percent, which decreases the non-Federal portion from 50 percent to 20 percent. According to the Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, Office of the Department of Justice, which administers the Secure Our Schools grants, many of the poorer communities that need help the most have been unable to participate in the program because they cannot afford the previously required 50 percent non-federal grant match. The proposed change in non-Federal funding is more in line with the COPS traditional 75/25 percent split, and should allow more participation in the program. The Act increases the possible uses of funding to include surveillance equipment, hotlines to report potentially dangerous situations and capital improvements to make school facilities more secure. Finally, the Act requires the establishment of an interagency task force to develop and promulgate advisory school safety guidelines. The Act amends the existing requirements for grant applications, and requires each grant application to be accompanied by a report, signed by the chief education officer and the attorney general or other chief legal officer, demonstrating that the proposed use of the grant funds is an effective means for improving school safety, is consistent with a comprehensive approach to preventing school violence, and meets the individualized needs of the particular school. Finally, the Act amends the Higher Education Act and requires each eligible participating institution to conduct an annual campus safety assessment, and develop and implement a campus emergency response plan to address emergency situations, including natural disasters, active shooter situations, and terrorist attacks. The bill is sponsored by Mr. Rothman, and has 52 cosponsors.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, thank you for your leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. I support H.R. 6503, to amend the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to reauthorize the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Thousands of vulnerable older adults go missing each year as a result of dementia, diminished capacity, foul play or other unusual circumstances. The Alzheimer's Foundation of America estimates that over 5 million Americans suffer from Alzheimer's disease, and that 60 percent of these are likely to wander from their homes. Alzheimers diseases and other dementia related illnesses often leave their victims disoriented and confused and unable to find their way home. According to the Alzheimers Association, up to 50 of wanderers risk serious illness, injury or death if not found within 24 hours. The problem can be exacerbated greatly by national disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, that can, in a matter of hours, increase the number of missing persons by the thousands. H.R. 6503 reauthorizes the existing Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program. The bill authorizes $5 million for each fiscal year through 2015 for competitive grants to nonprofit organizations. The money may be used to pay for the ``costs of planning, designing, establishing, and operating locally based, proactive programs to protect and locate missing patients with Alzheimers disease and related dementias and other missing elderly individuals.'' The bill states a preference for ``national nonprofit organizations that have a direct line to patients, and families of patients, with Alzheimers disease and related dementias.'' When I consider the necessity of this bill, I am reminded about the time when I was personally called upon by a constituent in the 18th Congressional District in Texas. A few years back, the family of Mr. Sammy Kirk, enlisted my help in searching for Mr. Kirk. Mr. Kirk was an elderly man, suffering from Alzheimers and he had wandered away from his family in Houston. He was lost. His family called me to help search for him. I, along with his family, searched many hours and many days. In total, I searched for 3 days for Mr. Kirk. Finally, Mr. Sammy Kirk was found. He was found and he was dead. He wandered many miles away from his family and was found dead along the bayou. It would have been so much easier, and his life could have been spared if there was an electronic monitoring service that could have been used to help keep Mr. Kirk close to his family and it would have certainly aided in our search for Mr. Kirk. An innocent, yet vulnerable, life could have been saved. This bill is necessary and I encourage my colleagues to support it.