Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 3197, the ``National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act of 2008.'' This bill is important because it liberalizes the debt relief standard for those persons who are most deserving, our nation's heroes that serve in the National Guard. This bill is important because the President has made it more difficult for people to claim bankruptcy. Specifically, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (2005 Bankruptcy Act) was signed into law by President George W. Bush on April 20, 2005. The 2005 Bankruptcy Act is the most comprehensive overhaul of bankruptcy law in more than 25 years. The 2005 Bankruptcy Act makes particular changes to the consumer bankruptcy. The changes to consumer bankruptcy included, among other things, the establishment of a means testing mechanism to determine a debtor's ability to repay debts. Under this test, a chapter 7 bankruptcy case is presumed to be an abuse if it appears that the debtor has income in excess of certain thresholds. S. 3197 would exempt certain qualifying reserve component members of the Armed Services and National Guard members from the means test's presumption of abuse. This bill responds to the fact that some who serve in the National Guard and the Reserves encounter financial difficulties and that they should not be subject to the additional proof requirements of the means test. Members of the armed services, National Guard, and reservists find themselves in a precarious economic situation. Before they are deployed they have stable employment and they expect a set amount of money. However, deployment brings with it change in livelihood and lifestyle. When a spouse is deployed, the spouse that remains behind must now work, find baby sitters, and are subject to a myriad of life-altering financial changes. Sometimes houses have to be sold and deployment can cause all sorts of financial hardships. Simply put, the armed services, National Guard, and reservists should not be penalized. I cosponsored the House version of this bill H.R. 4044, and I urge my colleagues to support it. This bill makes sense because often armed services personnel and reservists receive high compensation when they are away on hazardous tours or combat zones. However, when these individuals return, their income is not as high. Therefore, it is unfair to subject these individuals to the means test. Simply, the means test is whether the person has the means to pay his or her debts. Hazard pay and temporary high pay for combat work is not necessarily a good indicator of person's means or ability to pay. These individuals are serving our country and have legitimate financial concerns. I do not believe that they should be penalized. I believe we should help our armed services personnel for giving so much to fight for and protect this country. The least we can do is help them. I firmly believe that we should celebrate our National Guard and reservists, and I remain committed, as a Member of Congress, to ensuring that we demonstrate our respect for them. The National Guard and reservists have kept their promise to serve our Nation; they have willingly risked their lives to protect the country we all love. As the great British leader Winston Churchill famously stated, ``Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.'' We must always remember the debt that we owe our National Guard and reservists that are willing to lie down their lives for us and render the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom and security. Our gratitude must continue to be unwavering. In the words of President John F. Kennedy, ``As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.'' It is not simply enough to sing the praises of our Nation's great veterans; I firmly believe that we must demonstrate by our actions how proud we are of our American heroes. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6838, ``Center to Advance, Monitor, and Preserve University Security Safety Act of 2008'', introduced by my colleague Congressman Bobby Scott of Virginia. Sadly, this legislation is in reaction to the numerous tragedies occurring at colleges and universities, including the disastrous events that occurred at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University. The Virginia Tech shooting resulted in the slaying of over 30 members of the Virginia Tech family and many others being wounded. The shooting that occurred on the campus of Northern Illinois University on February 14, 2008 also killed and injured several individuals on the campus. Unfortunately, because these events were the first of their kind for the schools, they were not fully knowledgeable on how to respond.

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 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. Many have claimed that this is a historic vote. Historic votes are not ubiquitous. Historic votes come about through necessity and not through the failures of people. This problem has persisted for a while and now Congress must rush before the recess to a vote. While I would have liked more time, time has seemingly run out. I would begin by saying that I had concerns about the bill that was presented to the Congress on Monday. After much deliberation and a return visit to my district, I vote ``yes'' for this bill. Given these dire economic times, it is the responsible thing to do to vote ``yes'' when the mass of Americans are suffering. Let me give you a picture of the tough economic times which face Americans. The economy is shredding jobs. The U.S. economy has lost jobs in every single month of 2008. In September, the economy suffered its biggest 1-month job loss,-159,000, in over 5 years. In total, the economy has shed 760,000 jobs since the beginning of the year. Poor labor markets are significantly increasing unemployment. Within the past year, the number of unemployed Americans has increased by 2.2. million. In September, there were 9.5 million unemployed workers, keeping the unemployment rate at a 5-year high of 6.1 percent. Thus, it has become harder for Americans to find jobs. The economy is faced with credit crunches. Individuals have found it difficult to get first or second mortgages, credit, credit cards, and loans, including student loans. Because of the compendium of these economic concerns, coupled with the drying up of the credit market, I have changed my vote from a few days ago from a ``no'' to a ``yes.'' I changed my vote because of my concern for the well-being of the American people. 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 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. Seventh, 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. There are certain redeeming qualities to the bill. 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. Therefore, these sections provide some oversight over the financial crisis and help to add one piece to the economic puzzle. Without bankruptcy I offered an amendment that $10 billion 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. The administration has labeled the current economic situation as a crisis that requires emergency measures. Our vote today in favor of the legislation is a first attempt at addressing these dire economic times. 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. I am not satisfied that this bill is perfect, but this bill does allow Treasury to buy toxic assets from financial institutions, including our small and community banks. Once these toxic assets are purchased, the Treasury should be encouraged to restructure loans that are in foreclosure. This is indeed encouraging news. 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. 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 reinvest 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 the passage of this bill, it is my hope that H.R. 1424 will help the financial markets and make America secured. I am cautious and hopeful that there is enough in the bill to help Americans struggling with their mortgages. Although I have certain lingering concerns regarding this bill, I have voted for this bill. After meeting with an Assistant Secretary for the Treasury, some of my concerns were answered; others remained. For example, the Assistant Secretary indicated Treasury's intervention in the markets will afford it the opportunity to purchase toxic assets. After Treasury purchases these toxic assets at fair market value, it is expected that the purchase price will set a marker so that other similar classes of assets will be purchased at the same or higher price level. This is a positive development for banks and financial institutions to recapitalize themselves. By itself this would be a help to commercial banks that desire to sell off their toxic assets. In my conversation with the Assistant Secretary, he indicated that as time goes on, Treasury will develop guidelines for identifying and helping troubled small and community banks. It is intended that small and community banks and small, women, and minority-owned businesses will all be aided by this legislation. These latter institutions will be aided because it is expected that there will be more liquidity in the market available to these entities and that more credit can be extended to them. Lastly, the Assistant Secretary indicated that under sections 109 and 110, that Treasury has every incentive to renegotiate the terms of troubled mortgages. Importantly, the Assistant Secretary indicated that not all homeowners who are facing mortgage foreclosure will be helped. The goal, however, is to help as many Americans as possible. I have drafted a letter to Chairman Frank of Financial Services, and I have raised several questions to which I would like answers. First, I have asked Chairman Frank that should something go wrong with this bailout, whether Congress can be called to reconvene at any time before or after the election. Second, I have asked Chairman Frank to share the constitutional grant of authority that would prevent the Secretary of Treasury from having unfettered power so that there will be a balance between the interests of the banks and individual homeowners. Third, I have asked Chairman Frank what members of Congress can expect in the 111th Congress regarding follow-up on this bill and the financial situation generally. Fourth, I have asked Chairman Frank to answer how members can ensure that community and regional banks can take advantage of this bill. These are critical questions that need to be answered. I believe that Wall Street is an important and vital part of the Nation's economy. I believe that the people who work there are good. It is a well known fact that financial markets do not always serve small businesses and minorities. I have personally had experiences where good hardworking people and small business owners were denied access to financial markets. I believe in America and I believe in its Constitution. I believe that this bill would allow constant monitoring and vigilance and would help the American people. I am reminded of the Preamble to our Constitution, which reads: ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'' I would like to end with a quote from Alexander Hamilton: ``the sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.'' I hope that this legislation will provide the American people with the sun beam. It is my hope that this legislation works and that it serves the American people.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, thank you for your leadership in bringing this very important bill to the floor. I support this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. This bill is good and it is necessary. The bill is sponsored by Mr. Klein and has bi-partisan support. It has 21 cosponsors, including the following Judiciary members: Chairman Conyers, Chairman Scott, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Sutton, and Ms. Wasserman Schultz. A child goes missing every 40 seconds. The successful recovery of missing children often requires a quick response. In 1997, Sherry Friedlander, the founder of A Child is Missing (ACIM), saw the need for a rapid-response program to persons who go missing, especially in situations that do not involve abductions. In response to this need, she established ACIM, a national non-profit organization that offers free assistance to law enforcement 365 days of the year, 24 hours per day. The program is not limited to children, but extends to elderly persons (suffering from senility or Alzheimer's), mentally challenged or disabled individuals and college students. When law enforcement receives a call regarding a missing person, the first-responder can immediately call ACIM for help. The officer provides critical information to ACIM, such as the person's age and description and the last time/place seen. ACIM uses that information to record a message that, within minutes, is sent via phone to 1000s of locations within a radius of the last sighting of the person. Through their computer mapping system, ACIM also can identify ``hot spots,'' such as water or wooded areas. ACIM complements the Amber Alert program by providing different services. While Amber Alert focuses on children who are abducted, ACIM covers all ``persons'' who go missing, including situations where criminal intent may not be at issue. Amber Alert uses television and highway signs to broadcast information about the abducted child and the related vehicle, while ACIM uses a rapid response telephone alert system and covers cases where there is no vehicle involved. The ACIM notification system often can respond more quickly than the Amber Alert program. ACIM would use the requested money to operate and expand the existing ACIM office in Florida, to develop Regional Centers for on-site training and communication with local law enforcement, to maintain and expand their computer and phone technologies, and to assist the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the AMBER Alert Coordinator, and appropriate law enforcement agencies with training. H.R. 5464 authorizes $5 million annual grants for 2009 through 2014 to A Child is Missing Alert and Recovery Center (ACIM) to assist law enforcement in the rapid recovery of missing children and other individuals. I support this bill and I urge my colleagues to support it also.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 3641, ``A bill to authorize funding for the National Crime Victim Law Institute to provide support for victims of crime under Crime Victims Legal Assistance Programs as a part of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984,'' introduced by Senator Kyl. National Crime Victim Law Institute (NCVLI) Doug Beloof is professor of law at Lewis & Clark Law School. He founded the National Crime Victim Law Institute, NCVLI, in 1998, with the understanding that so many victims of crimes are in the dark about not only their cases, but their rights. The institute promotes balance and fairness in the justice system through crime-victim-centered legal advocacy, education, and resource sharing. NCVLI provides legal technical assistance to attorneys and advocates of victims and educates lawyers, judges, law students, victims' advocates, the law enforcement community, and the public about victims' rights. NCVLI also administers Federal grants to 8 clinics across the Nation that offer pro bono legal help for victims of sexual assault, homicide, domestic violence, fraud, and more. Over the past 4 years alone, NCVLI's clinics have represented more than 735 victims, made nearly 1,000 court appearances, and filed over 500 documents on behalf of victims. Over the same time period, NCVLI's headquarters office has responded to nearly 2,000 requests for legal technical assistance and trained over 12,000 people in victims' rights. Sadly, more than 17 States have no victims' rights amendment to their constitutions. Even in Texas, one of the 33 States that have made rights for crime victims constitutional, victims and criminal justice professionals often do not know the rights exist, let alone whether those rights are routinely asserted and enforced in criminal courts. Rights that are enforceable afford victims critical information such as timely notification of upcoming hearings and proceedings involving their case, and also provide victims participatory status, including the right to be present in the courtroom to watch the proceedings, the right to confer with the prosecutor, the right to protection from the accused and those acting on behalf of the accused, the right to be heard at sentencing following the conviction of their offender, and the right to restitution. Juvenile Victims Even more disturbing, is the growing number of victims who are children. Between 1980 and 2002, an estimated 46,600 juveniles were murdered in the United States--1,600 in 2002. Homicides of juveniles peaked in 1993 at 2,900. The number of juvenile homicide victims in 2002 was 44 percent below the 1993 peak, reaching its lowest level since 1984. Juveniles represented about 10 percent of all murder victims in 2002. In 2002, 36 percent of murdered juveniles were female, 45 percent were Black, and 48 percent were killed with a firearm. Of the juvenile murder victims with known offenders in 2002, 38 percent were killed by family members, 47 percent by acquaintances, and 15 percent by strangers. In 2002, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control within the Centers for Disease Control, listed homicide as the fourth leading cause of death for children ages 1 through 11 and third for youth ages 12 to 17. Between 1980 through 2002, juvenile offenders participated in 1 of every 4 homicides of juveniles in which the offenders were known to law enforcement. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports tracking all murder victims, in 2006 about 50 percent of murder victims were Black, 47 percent were White, and 3 percent were Asians, Pacific Islander, and Native Americans. Conclusion There is an Angolan Proverb that says: ``The one who throws the stone forgets; the one who is hit remembers forever.'' The National Crime Victim Law Institute ensures that the ones who are hit, the ones who are raped, the ones who are murdered--are never forgotten. They and their loved ones are aided in this overly complicated criminal justice system where often the rights of the victim get lost. This legislation allows us to finally spend time on those who need our help the most--the victims. I urge, my colleagues to support S. 3641 and ensure that the victims are not forgotten.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, even as I stand here on the floor of the House, the residents of the gulf region, the gulf coasts of Louisiana and Texas, are still suffering from Hurricane Ike. We know as well that Hurricane Kyle has been making its way up the east coast. As we look back over the landscape this past year, we see the devastation of so much that has impacted our country through natural disasters--flooding, wind, hurricanes--and we realize that that is, by Mother Nature's way, something that will occur in this Nation on a regular basis. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee and a chairperson of the Transportation Security and Critical Infrastructure Committee, I introduce today Save America's Utility Infrastructure and Secure America Act of 2008, H.R. 7230. I do so with the hope that Americans will be better prepared, not necessarily the Americans in their homes but the utility companies who every day receive our payments for electricity and finding out in times of trouble they are not prepared. For example, the blackout of August, 2003, in the northeast, midwest, and adjoining parts of Canada highlighted the need for infrastructure operating improvements. As the chairperson of this committee, I believe that one of the ways of securing America and making America safe is to go throughout the Nation and address the questions of the sectors that predominately are controlled by the private community. Eighty-five percent of our critical infrastructure is controlled by the private community. By that they sense that they have sort of a pass. They don't have to invest in improving the infrastructure. So today I introduce this bill because I believe they do have to make a commitment to the rate payers to improve the infrastructure. For example, in our own State of Texas, our public utility commission instructed, recommended to our utility company in a heavily treed area like my city of Houston to prepluck the trees that would entangle themselves in the above-ground wires. They recommended to them, if you will, to substitute the wooden polls for steel polls. They recommended to them that they should, in fact, secure the transformers. None of this was done. And they were quoted as saying, it is far more inexpensive to clean up after the fact than to do this work beforehand. So what do we have? What we had in Texas is a tragedy of hundreds and hundreds of people, maybe thousands, impacted negatively by the lack of electricity. People were on oxygen and dialysis in hospitals that were shut down, and the tragedy of a 14-year-old asthmatic boy who lost his life, among others. For me that is intolerable and unacceptable. If you want the benefit of doing business here in the United States, then you must do it well. So I have introduced this bill to subject those utilities who believe cavalierly that we don't have to do it, we want to keep the money in our pocket, to criminal penalties for those who don't develop vulnerable lists that will know where the hospitals and nursing homes are and where elderly persons and asthmatic persons live so that we can accept the fact that Mother Nature does not come with an appointment, but that we can be as prepared as we possibly can be. So this bill provides criminal penalties. As well, the bill requires the establishment of vulnerable lists and vulnerable neighborhoods so that we are well aware of what to do. And it also instructs the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that our infrastructure is meeting the standards that it should meet. This I believe is the way government corrects and reforms a system to make it work for the American people. Madam Speaker, today as a complement to my remarks, we looked to try and correct the market. We didn't quite get there. But certainly I want to express my appreciation for the hard work of the Democratic leadership. It is clear that our friends on the other side could not muster the support for their own administration. I believe however we can make this a better bill. We can make it a better bill by ensuring that homeowners are protected, by putting money into this bill that is particularly set aside for homeowners who may be going into foreclosure. And let it be totally disregarded that people were living above their means. Yes, there are hardworking Americans who saw the opportunity to improve their lives. But the banking institutions gave them the permission to do so. And don't put this on the backs of minorities. Hardworking minorities likewise are working to make their lives better. But it was the banking entities that gave them this, if you will, predatory loan. We can do better by making this bill better, working to ensure that there is no short selling by borrowing it, and we can as well bail out Main Street as we look to reform Wall Street.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise with great concern regarding H.R. 3997, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. I would like to thank Chairman of Financial Services Barney Frank for bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor. I also rise with a sense of the solemness 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 and credit of our Government will protect Main Street America while we reform America's Wall Street. Leadership has worked without tiring to alter the language provided by the administration for the betterment of the American people. Our leadership has created a miracle by modifying the 2 page document sent by the Treasury Department last week into a 109 page document. I thank leadership for that. We toiled long into the night to incorporate Democratic principles--many of which have still not been included. Where was the FDIC? Where was the SEC? Where was the Federal Reserve? I have worked with leadership to offer consistent amendments that would have strengthened the punitive 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 is absent from this legislation. For example, the legislation is devoid of bankruptcy restructuring, devoid of real enforcement, and devoid of any meaningful judicial review. These are all issues that I have been very concerned about. 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: 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; Add Sense of the Congress language that Bankruptcy Code should be reviewed and amended in the future to permit bankruptcy judges to address the question of individual home mortgage restructuring; 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; Create a new, independent commission to exercise oversight over the current financial situation with enforcement powers; Allow criminal liability for persons or corporate entities that have engaged in criminal malfeasance; 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 investment firms--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 7 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 3 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 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 p.m. in a closed rule last night; debate on the rule immediately transpired with fewer than 10 members participating at approximately midnight. In less than 10 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 home. 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 2-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 dollar rescue bill when the President failed to sign for $60 billion dollars to provide economic stimulus to working-class Americans. In September, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Lehman Brothers all filed for bankruptcy. Merrill Lynch agreed to sell itself to Bank of America, MG 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 dollars in relief to middle-class working Americans. The President vetoed this bill. However, the Administration sends to us today this bill requesting $700 billion dollars 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 98 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 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 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 reinvest 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: Gives taxpayers a share of the profits of participating companies, or puts taxpayers first in line to recover assets if a company fails; and 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: 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. 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. my amendment language While the bill has some improvements, what is missing from the bill are serious enforcement mechanisms. The language of the bill was good and was marked improvement over what the administration sent to us last week, but more work needs to be done on the bill. There are still elements that need to be added to the bill. The bill provides for the creation of a Financial Stability Oversight Board in Section 104. The bill also establishes a special inspector general for the troubled asset relief program in Section 121. Last, section 125 establishes the Congressional Oversight Panel. Importantly, these sections lack any real enforcement. These sections require reports and investigation; however, there is no criminal sanction for any malfeasance perpetrated by employers. One of my amendments would have established an Oversight Board that would have had the authority to issue criminal penalties and civil sanctions. My amendment would have provided a strong enforcement mechanism and would have been effective in ensuring that this crisis does not occur again. It would send a clear message to Wall Street. Another of one of my amendments would have added serious judicial review to Section 119. Section 119 presently provides that no injunction or other form of equitable relief shall be issued against the Secretary other than to remedy a violation of the Constitution. My amendment would have allowed meaningful judicial review because it would have allowed injunctive and other forms of equitable relief insofar as the grant of such relief did not disrupt financial markets. These are remedies available at law and in equity. I see no compelling reason why such relief should not be granted in the financial context. The bill has no bankruptcy provisions. The bill does not permit homeowners who are presently in mortgage foreclosure from declaring Chapter 11 and 13 bankruptcy. Importantly, my amendment would allow homeowners in default of their mortgages to restructure their loan, thus providing immediate relief to the homeowner. Because the bill is devoid of bankruptcy relief, I offered another amendment to set aside $125 million as a firm allotment to address the question of individual American homeowners facing foreclosure. I believe that this would have provided relief in the absence of any extension of the bankruptcy code to address current homeowners in mortgage foreclosure. I believe that Wall Street is an important and vital part of the Nation's economy. I believe that the people who work there are good. It is a well known fact that financial markets do not always serve small businesses and minorities. I have personally had experiences where good, hardworking people and small business owners were denied access to financial markets. I believe in America, and I believe in its Constitution. I believe that we can create a bill that would allow constant monitoring and vigilance and would help the American people. I am reminded of the Preamble to our Constitution, which reads: ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States America.'' I would like to end with a quote from Alexander Hamilton: ``The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.'' Let us work to provide the American people with the sun beam. Let us work to provide legislation that works and that serves the American people.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, the Constitution of the United States is present to protect Main Street. The full faith and credit of this constitutional document will protect the men and women of America. I will not stand here today and suggest that we do not have some challenges. I frankly believe that the bill we have before us is a miracle, and I thank the leadership for their strength in recharacterizing the two-page bill that anointed the Secretary of the Treasury that came from the White House. But my question is, where was the Securities and Exchange Commission? Where was the FDIC, the Federal Reserve? Under the control and domination of this administration. So when we ask the question why, we need to look back at those who controlled the policies of America for the last 8 years. Where was the Secretary of the Treasury? But I don't stand here to cast aspersions. I will say to you that this has been diagnosed, but America needs a second opinion. There is no enforcement in this legislation. The Financial Stability Oversight Board, no enforcement provisions; the Congressional Board, no enforcement provisions; the Inspector General, no enforcement provision. There are no criminal penalties for those who have been charged with malfeasance and criminal activities, no barring of individuals who are convicted of malfeasance and criminal activities from doing business with the United States. So, in essence we give this money, and who does it go to? No listing by the Secretary of the Treasury where the first dollar will go. No separating a certain amount to help those in foreclosure in America in the small towns, hamlets and villages, when in fact we know that we could establish a Homeowners Loan Corporation and help those on Main Street. Yes, I do believe we are challenged. But I believe we can come back, watch the markets, and work forward. This is a bill that hands out; it doesn't hand up. I ask my colleagues to consider the fact that we are protecting Main Street, not Wall Street.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. As I quickly speak, the amendments I offered all capture the idea of protecting the consumer. It, in essence, provides judicial relief. In this bill, it specifically prohibits the judiciary intervening for equitable or/and injunctive relief. That means that if the assets are being misused by the officer that we have designated, then the courts cannot go in. Where are the checks and balances? I believe that these amendments that I offered dealing with these questions of balance and providing money for mortgages, and et cetera, would have made this a better bill. So I ask my colleagues to consider that, and of course to consider these 400 economists quoted.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the gentlelady from New York as the chairman of the Rules Committee, and particularly for the very hard work of the committee, and make note of the fact that it's almost 12:40 a.m. and there has been a lot of heavy lifting. And I want to acknowledge the work of our leadership, and particularly Chairman Frank and his staff, along with Speaker Pelosi and the entire team of very agile and very, if you will, comprehensive thinking team that was thrown a hard ball just a week ago by the administration, a two-and-a- half-page document that simply said, move the deity, if you will, from the person of faith and give it to the Secretary of Treasury. We had a tough job. And I, frankly, believe that we did everything we could to ensure that we looked at this in the best way possible. But, Mr. Speaker, I come to suggest that all of the goals that were intended--transparency and consumer protection--clearly need further edification. And frankly, I would like to use the Texas term ``whoa.'' I believe that we need to stand back, monitor the markets, and to begin to craft legislation that is truly reform. Let me tell you why. First of all, I know that my good friend from California gave us a detailed essay on some of the things that were not in this bill, and he mentioned that people in America are living above their means. Well, I've been in a number of hearings, listening to homeowners from around the country on the issue of their mortgages. And I will tell you that these are hardworking Americans who were not living above their means; they were accepting the banking products that were given to them. They were hardworking, they saw the opportunity to invest in America's dream, a home, and they continued to work and pay their mortgages. But no one explained to them about adjustable rates so that their mortgage would be at one rate, and then a couple months or a year later it was accelerating into an unbelievable and intolerable amount. And then of course we've heard some Members of this body accuse minorities for being the cause of this debacle. How insulting. How unreal. And how untrue. What we need to do is to work together, as my constituents have asked. One constituent said, show me what the catastrophic event would be. One said, I'm a community banker, and I have never loaned, if you will, a subprime loan. And I'm well capitalized, why am I being victimized? This bill, at this status, will not protect any of the homeowners or get them the kind of relief we would like. And so I say to this body, the Financial Stability Oversight Board does not have any enforcement. The Congressional Oversight Panel does not have any enforcement.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6600, the ``Medicare Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2008'' I would like to thank my colleague Congressman Doggett and the Ways and Means Committee. This legislation today to require the federal government to remove Social Security numbers from Medicare identification cards and communications to Medicare beneficiaries. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which administers the Medicare program, has fallen behind most other public and private organizations in recognizing the danger of displaying Social Security numbers. The Social Security Number Protection Act ensures that the Social Security numbers of Medicare beneficiaries are properly protected. Every year, millions of Americans are victims of identity theft--many after their Social Security numbers are stolen. Instead of leading by example, the federal government is lagging behind private health insurers and other public agencies in protecting Medicare recipients from identity theft. CMS's continued use of Social Security numbers on Medicare cards needlessly places people at risk. This bill ensures that a premium is placed on security and that personal information is protected. It makes no sense for a CMS to continue exposing Medicare beneficiaries to the risk of identity theft. We should pass this bill quickly and fix this problem once and for all. I believe that this is one of those clear-cut problems that is easy to fix. With identity theft on the rise, removing social security numbers from Medicare beneficiary cards is the smart thing to do. Identity theft is one of the fastest-growing crimes in the nation. Nearly 8.4 million people were victims of identity theft last year alone, and these crimes accounted for more than $49.3 billion in fraudulent charges. Nearly three years ago, Senator Durbin raised concerns about the use of Social Security numbers on Medicare cards. Because of his efforts, CMS issued a report to Congress hat outlined the steps that would be required to remove Social Security numbers from Medicare cards, but has failed to implement those changes. In May 2008, the Inspector General of the Social Security Administration issued a report which concluded that: ``Given the millions of individuals at risk for identity the and OMB's directive to eliminate unnecessary uses of Social Security numbers, we believe immediate action is needed to address this significant vulnerability. Today's legislation sets a timeframe for CMS to remove Social Security numbers from Medicare cards and communications to beneficiaries. The bill will: Require the Health and Human Services Secretary to implement procedures to eliminate the unnecessary collection, use, and display of Social Security numbers of Medicare beneficiaries within three years; Prohibit the display or the unencrypted electronic storage of Social Security numbers on newly issued Medicare cards; Prohibit the display or the unencrypted electronic storage of Social Security numbers on all Medicare cards with five years of enactment; and Prohibit the display of Social Security numbers on written and electronic communications to Medicare beneficiaries, unless essential for the operation of the Medicare program. I am proud to cosponsor legislation that will protect our elderly. 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 today in support of S. 3296, a bill to extend the authority of the United States Supreme Court Police to protect court officials of the Supreme Court grounds and change the title of the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice. This bill makes sense and it should be supported. I urge my colleagues to support this very important bill. Four years ago, Supreme Court Justice David Souter was assaulted by two men while jogging near his home. While this attack was deemed only a random assault, this should serve as a wake-up call for us all. The Supreme Court, like the Office of the President, is more important than the person serving in the position. Protecting them, isn't just about protecting the person, it's about protecting the sanctity of the court. Edmund Burke said that ``Good order is the foundation of all things.'' To keep this order, we much protect those who provide that order. As this country becomes more and more partisan, we risk that the more extreme factors in our society will lash out and circumvent the system by focusing their anger at the officers of the court. Already the court is coming under increased attack from both sides of the aisle as being ``activist.'' This bill does something fundamental for the American way of life, it protects it. The legacy of all those who came before us depends on making sure that those who come after can do the job duty requires. Nothing is more fundamentally American than protecting those who protect our rights. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we pass this bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1777, the ``Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2007.'' This bill is co-sponsored by Representative Delahunt. This bill makes sense and it should be supported. I urge my colleagues to support this very important bill. H.R. 1777 would make permanent an exemption to the antitrust laws that permits the Ivy League schools to agree to award financial aid on a need-blind basis and to use common principles of needs analysis in making their determinations. The exemption also allows for agreement on the use of a common aid application form and the exchange of the student's financial information through a third party. Without this legislation, the exemption will expire on September 30, 2008. I support this bill. Beginning in the mid-1950s, a number of prestigious private colleges and universities agreed to award institutional financial aid, i.e., aid from the school's own funds solely on the basis of demonstrated financial need. These schools also agreed to use common principles to assess each student's financial need and to give the same financial aid award to students admitted to more than one member of the group. This practice remained undisturbed until the late 1980s. In 1989, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice brought suit against the nine Ivy League schools to enjoin this practice. In 1991, the eight Ivy Leagues, except MIT, agreed to a consent decree that ended this practice. In 1992, Congress passed a temporary antitrust exemption to allow the schools to agree to award financial aid on a need-blind basis and to use common principles of needs analysis. This temporary exemption prohibited any agreement as to the terms of a financial aid award to any specific student. It was to expire on September 30, 1994. In 1994, Congress passed another temporary exemption from the antitrust laws. This exemption, similar to the 1992 exemption, allowed agreements to provide aid on the basis of need only and to use common principles of needs analysis. It also prohibited agreements on awards to specific students. Unlike the 1992 exemption, it allowed agreement on the use of a common aid application form and the exchange of the student's financial information through a third party. The exemption was to expire on September 30, 1997. In 1997, Congress passed a law to extend the expiration date until September 30, 2001. In 2001, the exemption was extended to September 30, 2008. H.R. 1777, introduced by Representative Bill Delahunt and Ranking Member Lamar Smith, would make the exemption passed in 1994 permanent. It would not make any other change to the substance of the exemption. This is a good bill because need-based financial aid serves social goals that the antitrust laws do not adequately address, namely, making financial aid available to the broadest number of students solely on the basis of demonstrated need. But for the existence of financial aid, and laws like this one, many of us today in Congress and in America, generally, would not have benefited from a post-secondary school education. We must pass this bill today to ensure that Americans continue to benefit from need-based financial aid at institutions of higher learning.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5057, the ``Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act of 2008'' (reauthorizing Title II of P.L. 108-405). This Act authorizes funding to eliminate the large backlogs of DNA crime scene samples awaiting testing in State forensic labs. I am in support of this bill. In recent years, law enforcement agencies have realized the critical value that DNA evidence has in quickly solving cases. Often, a DNA sample result can scientifically link a perpetrator to a crime or prove a defendant's innocence with virtual certainty. Many of the Nation's Federal and State criminal forensics laboratories currently are overwhelmed with innumerable samples awaiting DNA analysis. Named for Debbie Smith, who was kidnapped in her Virginia home and raped in nearby woods by a stranger, the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program authorized grant money to states to collect samples from crime seems and convicted persons, conduct DNA analyses, and enter these results into a comprehensive national database. Debbie Smith's attacker remained unidentified for over six years, until a DNA sample collected from a convicted person serving time in a Virginia State prison revealed his involvement in her rape. Although eventually identified, the six years between crime and identification allowed Ms. Smith's attacker to engage in more criminal activity. Re-authorization of the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program will help law enforcement throughout the Nation. It will facilitate the development of a comprehensive national data base against which samples from current crime scenes can be compared. It will allow laboratories to reduce the currently unacceptable delays in processing DNA samples. Finally, it will provide law enforcement and prosecutors strong tools to quickly identify and prosecute criminals, minimizing the costs of investigation and prosecution, the possibility of prosecuting the wrong person and the possibility of future heinous crimes. Recognizing that the backlog of biological evidence that had to be entered in State databases was preventing law enforcement officials from solving many of the Nation's most heinous crimes, like the tragedy that befell Debbie Smith, Congress passed the DNA ``Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000'' (P.L. 106-546). The bill authorized the Attorney General to make grants to eligible States to collect DNA samples from convicted individuals and crime scenes for inclusion in the Federal DNA database, Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), and to increase the capacity of State crime laboratories. The Act required the Bureau of Prisons and the military to collect DNA samples from convicted individuals and forward these samples for analysis, and required the FBI to expand its CODIS database to include the analyses of these DNA samples. The Act also amended the criminal code to require all defendants on probation or supervised release to cooperate with the collection of a DNA sample. The Act expressed the sense of Congress that State grants should be conditioned upon the State's agreement to ensure post- conviction DNA testing in appropriate cases; and that Congress should work with the States to improve the quality of legal representation in capital cases. Finally, the Act authorized an unspecified amount of appropriations to the Attorney General to carry out the Act. In 2004, DNA backlog elimination was incorporated into the Justice for Act of 2004'', P.L. 108-405 and was renamed the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, which became Title II of P.L. 108-405. While the Act authorized $151 million for each fiscal year 2005-2009, Congress did not appropriate any money until FY 2008, at which time it appropriated $147-4 million. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program expires at the end of FY 2009. H.R. 5057, the ``Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act,'' which has strong bipartisan support, would renew the law and authorize $151 million for each fiscal year 2009-2014. H.R. 5057 specifies that not less than 40% of the total amount awarded in grants must be used for DNA analyses of samples from crime scenes, rape kits and other sexual assault evidence, and in cases that do not have an identified suspect.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support S. 3325, the ``Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act of 2007.'' I was a co-sponsor of this legislation when it was introduced before the House as H.R. 4789, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in support of this legislation. I am confident that this bill can address and strengthen criminal and civil enforcement of United States intellectual property law. The purpose of the Senate bill is to strengthen criminal and civil enforcement of United States intellectual property law focusing, in particular, on copyright violations (piracy) and trademark violations (counterfeiting). In addition, the PRO-IP Act seeks to modernize and improve U.S. government efforts for coordination and enforcement of our nation's IP laws. The knowledge and innovation of American citizens contributes significantly to the economic strength of our nation. Intellectual property law provides the principle incentives that are calculated to lead to the creation and production of new works. This bill is needed because the effect of piracy and counterfeiting on the economy is devastating. Total global losses to United States companies from counterfeiting and copyright piracy amount to $250 billion per year. Every company in every industry is vulnerable. Because these illegal activities represent a growing public health, safety and law enforcement problem, S. 3325 provides additional targeted resources for investigation, enforcement and prosecution; requires the development and promulgation of a national Joint Strategic Plan to combat counterfeiting and piracy; and provides for enhanced Presidential level leadership and coordination among federal agencies involved with preserving and protecting intellectual property rights. Title I of S. 3325 provides enhancements to civil intellectual property laws. Specifically, Title I makes it clear that a certificate of registration will satisfy registration requirements regardless of whether there is any inaccurate information on the registration application, unless the inaccurate information was included with knowledge that it was inaccurate. Title I also broadens the civil remedies for infringement by broadening the scope of articles that may be ordered impounded by the court upon a finding that the article was made or used in violation of a copyright. This Title also directs the court to enter a protective order to ensure that confidential information is not improperly disclosed. Title II provides enhancements to criminal intellectual property laws by addressing repeat offender penalties for criminal acts contained within the criminal copyright statute. Title II clarifies that a repeat offender is a person that commits the same criminal act twice. The bill clarifies that any property subject to forfeiture must be owned or predominantly controlled by the violator in order to be seized and directs the United States Sentencing Commission to consider whether the sentencing guidelines should be expanded to include the export of infringing items. There are enhanced maximum statutory penalties for counterfeit offenses that endanger public health and safety. Title III of S. 3325 provides greater coordination and strategic planning of federal efforts against counterfeiting and piracy. Specifically, this Title establishes within the Executive Office of the President, the Office of the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative and, within that Office, the United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Representative, appointed by the President of the United States. Lastly, Titles IV and V provide international enforcement, national, and local enforcement. While I supported the House version of the bill and I support this Senate version, I would like to consider ways to ensure diversity in the Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property (CHIPs) units that are established by this bill. I would like to work to ensure that minorities be represented in the hiring and that special recruitment initiatives be launched at historically black colleges and universities and other minority serving institutions. We should do all within our efforts to guarantee that minorities receive the necessary training and be recruited to help in the IP enforcement at the Executive, State, and local levels. Simply, Mr. Speaker, S. 3325 is a first step toward the promotion of the American economy. It ensures that American innovation will remain crucial to the United States economy and that American innovation will allow the United States to remain a global economic power. Indeed, this bill ensures that the United States IP laws are enforced and that the American intellectual property system remains one of the best in the world. I urge all members to support this much needed and thoughtful legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act of 2008. This legislation is a timely, necessary, and comprehensive approach to addressing our energy crisis. I support efforts to extend the expiring business tax provisions. Opponents of H.R. 6049 are concerned that the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to this bill would permanently increase taxes on businesses to pay for a temporary, one-year extension of expiring business tax provisions. I fail to see the merits of the opponent's contention and I believe that the benefits far outweigh any potential costs. Given the circumstances, the American economy is spiraling downward, energy prices are high, and unemployment is high, some kind of relief must be granted. To the extent that this body can grant some kind of relief, it is to be supported. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I am committed to working with industry actors to make sure that some balance is struck in the future. The following are provisions that are widely supported by various interest groups: Extension of Expired and Expiring Business Tax Provisions-- Legislation is urgently needed to extend critically important provisions. A number of provisions--such as the R&D credit, the election to deduct state and local general sales tax, and the railroad track maintenance credit--already have expired. Others--such as the exception under subpart F for active financing income and the look- through treatment of payments between related controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) under the foreign personal holding company rules-- expire at the end of this year. Clean Energy Tax Incentives--The extension of the clean energy tax incentives. These incentives will go a long way toward the development of the renewable and alternative energy technologies essential to America's energy future. The Chamber believes it is critical to promote the responsible use of all energy sources. To reach this goal, government and business should support investment in new technologies that expand alternative energy and enable traditional sources of energy to be used more cleanly and Cleanly and efficiently. Some business interests have concerns with revenue offset provisions included in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 6049, including those related to: Punitive Oil and Gas Taxes--Business claim that Congress must be mindful of the crosswinds hitting the American economy from the financial sector to the housing sectors. Many believe tax increases on the oil and gas industries are out of sync with an American economy showing great demand for increased domestic energy production, which could provide the opportunity for the energy industry to add a significant number of high-wage jobs. Many are concerned with provisions that would freeze the section 199 deduction for oil and gas companies. This change would discourage energy investment, resulting in the loss of jobs, a decrease in the supply of oil and gas, and an increase in the costs for businesses that rely on oil and gas. Many businesses interest groups are also concerned with the proposed modifications of the foreign tax credit rules for oil and gas companies, as this change would place domestic firms at a competitive disadvantage to foreign oil and gas manufacturers. FUTA Surtax--Some businesses are concerned with the proposed extension of the FUTA surtax, which was added to the tax code in 1976 as a temporary measure and should have been allowed to expire long ago, having outlived the purposes and term that served as the rationale for its enactment. Nonqualified Deferred Compensation--Some acknowledges that tax deferred plans used by offshore partnerships are created as part of complex legal agreements between managers and limited partners who are usually passive foreign investors. Foreign investors utilize these deferral arrangements to better align the interests of the manager with the investors. Altering these economic arrangements could cause these investments to migrate to other countries. I will end, as I began. I believe that this bill is solid and makes great strides toward providing relief to the American people. I support this bill, and I am committed to working with industry and businesses to make sure that their concerns are heard and addressed. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have reservations about the rapid way in which H.R. 7081, the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act, was brought to the House floor without consideration and amendment in the Foreign Affairs Committee of which I am a member. However, despite my concerns and my steadfast commitment to non-proliferation, I rise in support of this legislation and our Nation's important relationship with India. The United States' relationship with India is of paramount importance to our nation's political and economic future. With the receding of the Cold War's global divisions and the new realities of globalization and trans-national terrorism, we have embarked on a new era of promise, possibility and uncertainty. This means the United States bears an especially heavy responsibility to remain engaged in all regions of the world, with all nation-states. It is in the national interest for the United States to continue our policy of engagement, collaboration, and exchange which has served the nation well in the past, particularly in the South Asia region. This legislation approves the U.S.-India Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation, notwithstanding the procedures in the Atomic Energy Act and the Hyde Act. It declares that the Bush Administration's past statements are authoritative interpretations of the agreement, but also reiterates the policy directives in the Hyde Act that the U.S. will seek to prevent other nations from nuclear trade with India if U.S. halts U.S. trade to India because of a nuclear test. Furthermore, the supply of U.S. fuel supply to India should match India's reactor needs, rather than a stockpile to weather an international fuel sanction should India resume nuclear testing. Importantly, this legislation ensures Congress retains the ability to review and disapprove (via a joint resolution of disapproval enacted within 30 days) a subsequent agreement to permit India to extract plutonium and uranium from U.S.-origin spent reactor fuel. It re- establishes Congressional authority to legislatively reject (via a joint resolution of disapproval within 60 days) a Presidential decision to resume nuclear trade with any country that detonates a nuclear explosive device. It is also vital that this legislation requires the President to certify that the India Agreement is consistent with U.S. NPT commitment not to assist in any way in the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Mr. Speaker, I visited India and met with India's Prime Minister in July of this year where we discussed how our two Nation's continue to collaborate economically, politically, and technologically. In this Nation and in my city of Houston, we have a large and vibrant Indian- American community which makes significant contributions to the vitality of our democracy. I am confident that we can work with India so that they can meet their energy needs through nuclear technology. Accordingly, that is why it is important that this legislation urges India to sign and implement an IAEA Additional Protocol for Safeguards, as India has committed to do. It also restricts issuance of U.S. export licenses under the Agreement (which has entered into force) until India completes the process of bringing its Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into force. Mr. Speaker, this legislation also requires the Administration to keep the Congress fully and completely informed regarding new initiatives for civil nuclear cooperation agreements. It requires additional reporting requirements for an Annual Report to Congress on implementation of the Agreement required by the Hyde Act. It also requires a Presidential certification that it is U.S. policy to seek greater restrictions on transfer or uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing equipment technology at the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) or with NSG governments before entry-into-force of the India Agreement. Finally, this legislation declares that the India Agreement does not supersede the Atomic Energy Act or Hyde Act. Peaceful nuclear cooperation with India can serve multiple U.S. foreign policy objectives so long as it is undertaken in a manner that minimizes potential risks to the nonproliferation regime. This will be best achieved by sustained and active engagement and cooperation between the India and the United States. This landmark legislation serves both our strategic interests and our long-standing nonproliferation objectives. We should heed the sage words of the Iraq Study Group which recommends engaging rather than abandoning the possibilities dialogue offers. Our engagement and subsequent abandonment of Iran has resulted in their current pursuit of nuclear technology. We should not make the same mistake in South Asia. We need to remain engaged with India and Pakistan so that they remain our most important allies rather than our adversaries. We are on the path to fostering an enduring relationship of mutually beneficial cooperation with India. The new realities of globalization and interdependence have brought a convergence of interests between the world's largest democracy and the world's most powerful one. I accompanied President Clinton in his groundbreaking trip to India marking a new phase in the bonds that bind our two countries. This legislation builds on this relationship by permitting an invigorated relationship in the field of nuclear cooperation, an area of critical importance given India's increasing energy demands. I am hopeful that the nonproliferation measures in this legislation anchor India in the international nonproliferation framework by including: safeguards between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); end use monitoring of U.S. exports to India; and strengthening the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which are the group of countries that restrict nuclear proliferation throughout the world. In addition, this legislation maintains Congressional oversight over the ongoing relationship of nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and India. We must continue to enhance our nonproliferation policy and bolster our argument that the rest of the world should agree to this robust inspection regime. In conclusion, I support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the chairman very much, and let me quickly thank him for the thoughtfulness on this legislation, and as well the ranking member, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. I am a strong supporter of nuclear nonproliferation. I am a supporter of India. And I also believe in balancing the needs of India and our friend and ally against terrorism, Pakistan. But this is an important statement about our friendship with India, and I believe that this nuclear civil agreement is just that, 1.1 billion people who are attempting to invest and grow their economy. The restrictions that we have are meaningful: no stockpiles; fuel supplies should match the nuclear reactor needs; no accumulation, as I said, of stockpiles; Congress having the right to disapprove by resolution any agreement that permits India to extract plutonium and uranium from U.S. fast reactor fuel. It is important to note that this particular agreement is one that we should support. The Indian Government has put forward their best effort. They are our friend, and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentlelady very much. Mr. Speaker, I think it's important for the American people and my colleagues here to understand just what we are discussing. I am delighted that the gentlelady from Florida indicated, she used the word, the appropriate word, it is the economic emergency stimulus package. What we are doing right here is to insist that we are able to move that package forward as quickly as possible. To my good friend from Oregon, I think it's important to note that we do care about rural schools. In fact, we had a bill by Peter DeFazio to fund those rural schools. Of course, it was not responded to warmly by our friends on the other side of the aisle. But what we do have, as was indicated, $3 billion to green our schools. Whether they be rural or whether they be urban, that creates jobs much that is the public-private partnership that this economic stimulus package addresses. Now I stand here wearing several hats. One, my whole area now in the gulf region has been impacted by Hurricane Ike. Hurricane Gustav came through and a number of other hurricanes. We need this emergency economic stimulus package. Let me tell you why, very briefly, and I think it's important for us to realize, whatever the government does, it has impact in the private sector. If we put $3.6 billion to purchase buses and equipment to the American people, it is the private sector that will provide that for us. This is an emergency economic engine. As a chairperson of the Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee, I can tell you that airport improvement grants are crucial in determining major safety and security. That is the private sector that will be put to work. Now, some 84,000 Americans have lost their jobs. It is important to have an extension of unemployment benefits to help these people restart their lives to pay their rent or mortgage. It is equally important to fund Amtrak and public housing, then, of course, to break down this thing called highway infrastructure, crumbling, that is, by its very nature, a partnership with the private sector. Thousands upon jobs of contractors, of engineers, architects and designers will be working to put the Nation's crumbling infrastructure back to work, and fixing crumbling schools. I have 180 schools out because the power is down. That's an infrastructure issue that needs to be fixed and rebuilt. What we are doing here is responding to the emergency needs of America. This is an economic stimulus package that is thoughtful, that is sound, and it addresses the concerns of the American people. My people, or these people in the gulf region, are strong, they are resilient, they are rebuilding. But I must say to you this economic is something that we need. It is crucial that we begin to put America back together again. I am supporting this legislation because it balances the needs of America, but, yet, yields to the concept of public and private partnership. It helps a broken system with Medicaid assistance because it recognizes that people who are unemployed cannot provide for themselves. Pass this same-day rule and pass the stimulus package.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Pass this stimulus package, because on behalf of the gulf region and all of those, the gulf region, the Midwest who suffered horrific devastation by Mother Nature's devastation, this economic stimulus passage is needed today, not yet today, not tomorrow, but needed today.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, the United States economy has spiraled downward within the last few years of the Bush administration. Sadly, the state of the U.S. economy has worsened as a result of recent crises, such as the impending mortgage crisis, financial crisis on Wall Street, and Hurricane Ike, which has inflicted hardship upon the people of Houston. Consumers are finding that their wages have decreased, yet food and gasoline prices have been steadily rising. By the end of the year it has been estimated that 15 million Americans could have mortgages worth more than the value of their homes. It is absurd that home prices could fall enough to produce about 20 million Americans with a negative equity. While there is not much time to take action, Congress must act responsibly. A crisis of this magnitude requires a significant bipartisan response, but Democrats will work to protect American taxpayers from undue exposure and believe a properly designed legislative package could ultimately allow taxpayers to be paid back for this emergency measure. The Congress will not simply hand over a $700 billion blank check to Wall Street and hope for the best. Not after having pushed for greater oversight, regulation and accountability from Wall Street for years while the Bush administration refused to take action. Congress must implement strict limitations and restrictions along with rigorous oversight over any and all monies disbursed, as well as new regulations. We must work together to strengthen our economy and conduct vigorous oversight. It is imperative that Congressional committees hold a series of hearings that will examine the Bush administration's mismanagement of financial market regulation and how it led us to this remarkable failure. Wall Street CEOs should not be pocketing millions while taxpayers are forced to bail them out. Democrats will continue to work to secure reasonable limits on executive compensation for CEOs and other top executives I came across a quote that I would like to share with everyone from the former chairman of AT&T: ``The ancient Romans had a tradition: whenever one of their engineers constructed an arch, as the capstone was hoisted into place, the engineer assumed accountability for his work in the most profound way possible: he stood under the arch.'' There needs to be accountability somewhere, especially since the American people are going to be paying for the mistakes of Wall Street with or without a bailout. The Federal bailout of the U.S. mortgage market is going to cost the government upwards of $700 billion. The mortgage bailout is more than the war in Iraq has cost the U.S. Government thus far. To put that number in perspective, it amounts to more than the GDP of Turkey and only modestly smaller than that of Australia. Additionally, there have been unforeseen costs which have been incurred over the past few years due to natural disasters such as the recent Hurricane Ike. Houston and the other affected areas suffered a minimum of $6 billion and as much as $16 billion in property damage. That estimate does not include the cost of inland flooding, a type of damage not covered by conventional insurance policies. Due to insurance companies pulling out of the Gulf coast after previous hurricanes, the state-led insurance pool must pay much of the cost, yet only has $2.3 billion, leaving the state of Texas potentially responsible for billions of dollars in claims. Due to hurricane Ike, gas prices have surged in Texas and the impact of Hurricane Ike will be felt throughout America. Oil refineries near Houston provide more than 20 percent of the transportation fuel used in the U.S. Many of the operations were shut down in anticipation of the storm's arrival and gasoline prices jumped in parts of the country as a result. The American people are struggling as it is to pay their mortgages, feed their families, fill their cars with gas and find employment. More than a week after Hurricane Ike passed through, there are still parts of the Houston metropolitan area without electrical power and it may take weeks to restore normal life in the most devastated areas, like Galveston. In order to get the U.S. economy back on track we must work in a bipartisan manner. Nevertheless, Americans ought not forget the catastrophic choices of the last eight years under Republican leadership, choices that led to financial meltdown, massive job losses, a disastrous energy policy that prioritizes oil company profits over people, skyrocketing health care costs, a costly war that should never have been waged, and a surplus turned into a deficit that will burden generations to come. It is a necessity that the government create jobs through investment in our Nation's infrastructure, extend unemployment benefits, ensure families don't go hungry with food stamp assistance, make certain that Americans do not lose health coverage as a result of State budget crises, provide additional foreclosure assistance to families and make home heating assistance available at a time of record energy prices. Americans are suffering and this decision must be hard thought and given much deliberation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6049, the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act of 2008. This legislation is a timely, necessary, and comprehensive approach to addressing our energy crisis. I support efforts to extend the expiring business tax provisions. Opponents of H.R. 6049 are concerned that the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to this bill would permanently increase taxes on businesses to pay for a temporary, one-year extension of expiring business tax provisions. I fail to see the merits of the opponent's contention and I believe that the benefits far outweigh any potential costs. Given the circumstances, the American economy is spiraling downward, energy prices are high, and unemployment is high, some kind of relief must be granted. To the extent that this body can grant some kind of relief, it is to be supported. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I am committed to working with industry actors to make sure that some balance is struck in the future. The following are provisions that are widely supported by various interest groups: Extension of Expired and Expiring Business Tax Provisions-- Legislation is urgently needed to extend critically important provisions. A number of provisions--such as the R&D credit, the election to deduct state and local general sales tax, and the railroad track maintenance credit--already have expired. Others--such as the exception under subpart F for active financing income and the look- through treatment of payments between related controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) under the foreign personal holding company rules-- expire at the end of this year. Clean Energy Tax Incentives--The extension of the clean energy tax incentives. These incentives will go a long way toward the development of the renewable and alternative energy technologies essential to America's energy future. The Chamber believes it is critical to promote the responsible use of all energy sources. To reach this goal, government and business should support investment in new technologies that expand alternative energy and enable traditional sources of energy to be used more cleanly and efficiently. Some business interests have concerns with revenue offset provisions included in the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 6049, including those related to: Punitive Oil and Gas Taxes--Businesses claim that Congress must be mindful of the crosswinds hitting the American economy from the financial sector to the housing sectors. Many believe tax increases on the oil and gas industries are out of sync with an American economy showing great demand for increased domestic energy production, which could provide the opportunity for the energy industry to add a significant number of high-wage jobs. Many are concerned with provisions that would freeze the section 199 deduction for oil and gas companies. This change would discourage energy investment, resulting in the loss of jobs, a decrease in the supply of oil and gas, and an increase in the costs for businesses that rely on oil and gas. Many businesses interest groups are also concerned with the proposed modification of the foreign tax credit rules for oil and gas companies, as this change would place domestic firms at a competitive disadvantage to foreign oil and gas manufacturers. FUTA Surtax--Some businesses are concerned with the proposed extension of the FUTA surtax, which was added to the tax code in 1976 as a temporary measure and should have been allowed to expire long ago, having outlived the purposes and term that served as the rationale for its enactment. Nonqualified Deferred Compensation--Some acknowledges that tax deferred plans used by offshore partnerships are created as part of complex legal agreements between managers and limited partners who are usually passive foreign investors. Foreign investors utilize these deferral arrangements to better align the interests of the manager with the investors. Altering these economic arrangements could cause these investments to migrate to other countries. I will end, as I began. I believe that this bill is solid and makes great strides toward providing relief to the American people. I support this bill, and I am committed to working with industry and businesses to make sure that their concerns are heard and addressed. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5244, the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act. This legislation is timely and necessary, and importantly, it should alleviate the economic woes that consumers are experiencing during these tough economic times. The purpose of this bill is to provide crucial protections against unfair, but unfortunately common, credit card practices. While the Federal Reserve will likely issue regulations on this same topic, it is important that we as legislators do not abdicate our responsibility to the Administration. As members of Congress, we must do all that we can to ensure that the credit interests of the American people are well taken care of. Any regulation passed by the Federal Reserve will likely be the subject of judicial challenge. Thus, legislation will be needed. H.R. 5244, ends unfair, arbitrary interest rate increases by preventing card companies from unfairly increasing interest rates on existing card balances. The bill makes clear that retroactive increases are permitted only if a cardholder is more than 30 days late, if a pre- agreed promotional rate expires, or if the rate adjusts as part of a variable rate. Under this bill, a credit card company has to give 45 days notice of all interest rate increases so consumers can pay off their balances and shop for a better deal elsewhere. This bill is the first of its kind to stop excessive ``over-the- limit'' fees and it ends unfair penalties for cardholders who pay their balances in full on time. H.R. 5244 also protects cardholders from due date gimmicks and prevents companies from using misleading terms and damaging consumers' credit ratings. Perhaps, most important is that the bill protects vulnerable consumers from high-fee subprime credit cards and it bars issuing credit cards to minors. This bill should help Americans and will require credit companies to employ fair credit card practices. I recognize that the credit card industry and other members of the financial services community may oppose this bill. They argue that the limits this legislation would place on the competitive market come with unintended consequences, such as higher costs for consumers and reduced access to credit. The legislation would also result in the elimination of policies that benefit consumers, and disregards efforts by Federal regulators to complete and promulgate new credit card regulations. Opponents of H.R. 5244 claim that the bill includes a number of prescriptive mandates that will increase costs and/or limit options that consumers have today. For example, the cost associated with requirements that dictate how a customer's payment can be attributed to their outstanding balance will likely result in the end of promotional rate offers. Importantly, these opponents do not indicate that the consumers will be provided with more disclosure and fair and accurate information on rates that will not likely be changed by the credit card companies. It is immaterial that the Federal Reserve will be issuing regulations that govern credit card practices. It is the purview of this Congress to legislate and it is by legislative authority that agencies promulgate regulations. I do not find the arguments in opposition to this bill to be persuasive. The credit card market is highly competitive. Although we are experiencing tough economic times and the credit card companies are feeling economic pressure, so too, are the American consumers. The consumers are merely working-class people. If the credit card companies think they are squeezed, imagine the plight of the American people. Something must be done. H.R. 5244 is balanced and is a step in the right direction. I support the bill and I look forward to working with the credit card industry and the consumers on this very important issue. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on S. 3023, Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2008. This bill is so important to our men and women who have served, are currently serving, or will serve one day. As President John F. Kennedy once said, ``As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.'' Every day on this Floor, we praise the efforts of the soldiers who defend our way of life and our safety. If it is not time that we live by President Kennedy's words, and not just pay them lip service, when will it be? Veterans face some of the greatest hardships that any of us can ever imagine. When they return from service, a large number of them can't acclimate back in to their life in an easy manner. This number goes up when you look at the members of the service who have seen action in one of the theatres that we have fought wars in. As of September 24, 2008, we have lost 4,125 men and women. As you all know, death is not the only sacrifice that these brave Americans make. Over 10 times that number of soldiers killed, 10 times that amount have been wounded. When they do return, they expect that the benefits they were promised are there to help them transition. This bill provides a few things that will help the period of transition run smoothly. First off it says that veterans who need disability assistance can get it with ease. As anyone who has ever filled out a government form, they know that they were not designed with simplicity in mind. These forms often take trained professionals and a large amount of time to understand how and where to file this paperwork. The current way to file is just as confusing as how you file other governmental forms. If this bill passes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs would be required to publish regulations relating to how people in need would request disability assistance. This bill would require clear and concise words as well as input from the public on what they think. The best way to prevent confusion is to get interested stakeholders to be brought into the process. Second, this bill will standardize the process's time limits. No time limits on how long a person has to file claims exist today. This means that if the agency decides they want to deny a claim based on time, there is no mechanism to appeal. The 60 day deadline allows disabled veterans who are denied to fight back and get the coverage. Our soldiers, and the patriotism that they inspire in Americans, need to be protected. This bill will help the veterans of the past, and the solders of the future, worry about their safety and not worry about what they will do when they get home. We need to help these heroes out anyway we can.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on a very important issue to me, House Resolution 7006, the Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008. Right now, over 800,000 people in the greater Houston area are without power; this is not acceptable. We must pass responsible legislation to make it easier for people to get back on their feet after natural disasters ravage their communities. It is time to show the Nation that we learned the lessons of Katrina and Rita and now Ike as well as the other natural disasters we have faced in recent memory. Katrina and Rita taught FEMA quite a lot on how to recover from natural disasters that destroy thousands of people's homes and livelihood. We now have more advanced warning systems in place, a better plan to evacuate those in the storm's path and our first responders are better trained to deal with the medical crisis for those whose best option is to stay. All these things helped save countless lives in my district, but now we face the true test of how a nation responds to a natural disaster. While we have plenty to praise about the response, sadly, we also have plenty to criticize. The utility companies were told to improve their infrastructure so that a disaster like this would not cripple the region; however, more than a week after Hurricane Ike, these utility companies left my constituents to clean up with flashlights and candles. Power still has not been restored to almost a million people, and we face an emerging health crisis because of it. I have taken every opportunity to talk to people facing this crisis and to find out what the Government can do to help them rebuild their shattered lives. A number of stories that I have heard have been inspirational, they want, more than anything, to help their friends, family and neighbors. My staff has received hundreds of calls from people begging to be of any assistance. These brave souls look at the devastation and refuse to sit by and watch as people they don't know, as well as their loved ones, suffer. This bill will honor those wonderful human beings by helping ease the burden they have willingly placed on themselves to help. They will get a higher reimbursement for the miles they drive in the service of others. The limit that corporations are allowed to write off on their taxes would be waived. This will allow companies to help the communities they support and still remain responsible officers for the employees who work for them. Madam Speaker, this legislation would also help people's way of life remain protected during Federal disasters. Being able to deduct a greater cost for their damaged property help keep homes in the affected areas instead of them not being rebuilt and relocating. Allowing small businesses to write off expenses relating to these disasters assures that the jobs for those who return still exist. Businesses would also be able to focus on healing before they focus on gathering what is owed to them. Moving the carry-back period, the statue of limitations on claiming damages from natural disasters, from 2 years to 5 years would provide financial assistance as well as peace of mind. Since the time of the founding of our country, the Government has been helping out towns and cities affected by disasters. In 1803 a small fire ravaged the town of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and the Congress reacted. This is widely considered the first use of any type of disaster relief. Today, a lot of my constituents are no better off than they were a week ago; this must be remedied. This bill is a great step forward to help communities recover, and we must pass this bill. With that, I am also pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation with my Texas colleagues, Congressman Al Green and Congressman Kevin Brady.