Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank you very much. This is such a wonderful story that I'm listening to as we honor Stephanie Tubbs Jones, so I'm going to speak on some issues that showed her in her fullness and in her love of life. And that was as a House basketball coach. She was that woman with a smile. She was a Good Samaritan. She was also like Ruth; if she was your friend, she was going to stick with you. She loved life, loved her family. How wonderful it was to be part of her family. And she allowed this Congress to be part of her family because everyone knew Mervyn, her husband; her son; her sisters; her mother and father, who I got a chance to know. But yet when she got on that basketball court and she was the coach, I tell you that was a winning smile, a winning coach, and a winning team. And there was nothing more exciting than being at the 2008 House basketball team game. This was a game for charity. But you couldn't tell Coach Stephanie Tubbs Jones that she was out there for charity. She was out there to win, and I think it was the NBA championship, for she ran up and down that court. She gave the best coaching. She told the guys, who happened to be Members of Congress and others, what they could and could not do. And even though she wasn't the referee and she wasn't the penalizer, she'd penalize her team. And what an exciting time to see in this year's 2008 winning basketball effort, Mervyn, her son, make the winning basketball shot. It was so exciting that those of us that were in the stands ran out onto the court, of course in violation, but we were able to get away with that. And I was so excited, in my short stature of 5'2\1/2\'', I asked the greatest coach that I knew that I work with her next year, and she gave me the greatest honor and said ``yes.'' That was Stephanie Tubbs Jones, the lover of life. But yet as a prosecutor, one would think she would be hard nosed and she'd be running toward prosecution and incarceration. But she teamed up with her dear friend Danny Davis, and they shed their light all around this campus, both the House and the Senate, to work on what we call the Second Chance bill. So I rise today on behalf of the incarcerated whom Stephanie loved whom she gave an opportunity, through her work with Danny Davis and those who cosponsored this legislation, to say to these individuals they could have a second chance. May God allow her to rest in peace, but may her star shine continuously through us. We love her and we love her family.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me note what a tragedy it is that we have to stand on the floor of the House in 2008 to speak about the exploitation of children as soldiers. Up to 250,000 children are exploited each day around the world in state-run armies, paramilitaries and guerilla groups. These child soldiers, boys and girls as young as 8 years old, are forced to serve as combatants and human mine detectors. They are often used to conduct suicide missions, and many are used as sex slaves. In fact, we have seen many of them turn themselves in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Colombia. In many cases they are provided with drugs and alcohol to numb them to the atrocities they are required to commit. In all cases, their childhoods are taken from them, their health and lives are endangered, and their psyches are destroyed. It is a war crime under customary international law to recruit or use children under 15 years of age as soldiers. I am reminded of an early amendment when I first came to the United States Congress that I added to an appropriations bill that we should restrain the use of appropriations foreign aid for those countries that would not commit to releasing their child soldiers. It is an ongoing and persistent problem. It is a violation of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which 110 countries, including the U.S., have ratified, to recruit or use child soldiers under the age of 18. But such actions do not currently violate U.S. criminal or immigration law. We are thus hindered in our ability to prevent those who use or recruit child soldiers from coming to our country, and we are unable to punish those perpetrators who make it here. In contrast, other grave human rights violations, including torture, are punishable under U.S. criminal and immigration law. The Child Soldier Accountability Act of 2008 would correct this disparity by making it a Federal crime and violation of immigration laws to recruit or use child soldiers under the age of 15. This bipartisan legislation was sponsored in the Senate by Senators Dick Durbin and Tom Coburn, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law. They worked together on this bill to ensure that war criminals who would exploit children cannot find safe haven in our country. The bill we vote on today is slightly changed from the bill that was sent to us by the Senate. It now includes changes agreed to in bipartisan and bicameral discussions between Senators Durbin, Coburn, Jon Kyl and Jeff Sessions, as well as numerous House Members, including Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and Ranking Member Lamar Smith, Crime Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Scott and Ranking Member Louie Gohmert, and Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren and Ranking Member Steve King. The United States must hold accountable the war criminals who steal the childhood of innocents by turning them into killers or human fodder. I thus urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Judiciary Committee, Bobby Scott of Virginia.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. By listening to my two colleagues from Iowa and from Virginia, you can see the commonality of viewpoints on this persistent and cancerous aspect of our world society, the continuous use of child soldiers. I offer to my colleagues the words of a child soldier, and I read them as follows: ``My parents refused to give me to the LITE, so about 15 of them came to my house. It was both men and women in uniforms with rifles and guns in holsters. I was fast asleep when they came to get me at one point in the morning. These people dragged me out of the house. My father shouted at them, saying, `What is going on?' Some of the LITE soldiers took my father away towards the woods and beat him. They also pushed my mother onto the ground when she tried to stop them.'' This girl was recruited by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka at age 16. Another story from a young child: ``Early on, when my brothers and I were captured, the LRA explained to us that all five brothers couldn't serve in the LRA because we would not perform well. So they tied up my two younger brothers and invited us to watch. Then they beat them with sticks until two of them died. They told us it would give us strength to fight. My youngest brother was 9 years old.'' Martin, recruited by the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda at age 12. This legislation of course is long overdue. And I would ask my colleagues to consider that it may be time after time and year after year that we have to continue to pass this legislation, but I would hope that we would be persistent, hope that the President signs this legislation, and, as well, that we can stamp out the cancer of using and victimizing these wonderful children. I would like to submit these statements into the Record from Human Rights Watch: Child Soldiers, The Voices of Child Soldiers. the voices of child soldiers ``The section leader ordered us to take cover and open fire. There were seven of us, and seven or ten of the enemy. I was too afraid to look, so I put my face in the ground and shot my gun up at the sky. I was afraid their bullets would hit my head. I fired two magazines, about forty rounds. I was afraid that if I didn't fire the section leader would punish me.''--Khin Maung Than, recruited by Burma's national army at age eleven. ``My parents refused to give me to the LTTE so about fifteen of them came to my house--it was both men and women, in uniforms, with rifles, and guns in holsters. . . . I was fast asleep when they came to get me at one in the morning. . . . These people dragged me out of the house. My father shouted at them, saying, ``What is going on?'' but some of the LTTE soldiers took my father away towards the woods and beat him. . . . They also pushed by mother onto the ground when she tried to stop them.''--girl recruited by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka at age sixteen. ``I was captured in Lofa County by government forces. The forces beat me, they held me and kept me in the bush. I was tied with my arms kept still and was raped there. I was fourteen years old. . . . After the rape, I was taken to a military base. . . . I was used in the fighting to carry medicine. During the fighting I would carry medicine on my head and was not allowed to talk. I had to stand very still. I had to do a lot of work for the soldiers, sweeping, washing, cleaning. During this time, I felt really bad. I was afraid, I wanted to go home, but was made to stay with the soldiers.''--Evelyn, recruited in Liberia by government forces at age fourteen. ``I had a friend, Juanita, who got into trouble for sleeping around. We had been friends in civilian life and we shared a tent together. The commander said that it didn't matter that she was my friend. She had committed an error and had to be killed. I closed my eyes and fired the gun, but I didn't hit her. So I shot again. The grave was right nearby. I had to bury her and put dirt on top of her. The commander said, ``You did very well. Even though you started to cry, you did well. You'll have to do this again many more times, and you'll have to learn not to cry.''--Angela, joined the FARC-EP in Colombia at age twelve. ``Early on when my brothers and I were captured, the LRA explained to us that all five brothers couldn't serve in the LRA because we would not perform well. So they tied up my two younger brothers and invited us to watch. Then they beat them with sticks until two of them died. They told us it would give us strength to fight. My youngest brother was nine years old.''--Martin, recruited by the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda at age twelve.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2135) to prohibit the recruitment or use of child soldiers, to designate persons who recruit or use child soldiers as inadmissible aliens, to allow the deportation of persons who recruit or use child soldiers, and for other purposes, as amended.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I ask my colleagues to enthusiastically support this particular legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to return to the most do-something Congress in the last 8 years, the Congress that has addressed the plight of soldiers and education benefits and health care, and the Congress that is going to solve the energy crisis: The working Congress. That's why I stand here today because I would like us to continue to work to help the automobile dealers in Detroit, and as well to help those homeowners who need mortgage repair and mortgage refinance, and give them an opportunity for the American Dream. I am saddened by the conflict between Georgia and Russia, not Georgia in the United States, but I believe that is a NATO issue. And I would ask that we not give $1 billion for repairing Georgia; we need to give $1 billion to help repair our auto industry and to help those in mortgage crisis. Yes, we can be a partner in their rebuild, we believe in their democracy, but it is time now to reinvest in home. Give them a contribution, along with the NATO efforts. Give them the ability to stand strong. Provide for them the opportunity to engage in conflict resolution between Russia and Georgia. But it is time now not to give excessive funds to ensure that they stand up, we need to stand up here in America. I ask my colleagues to reflect on this so that we can rebuild America in this do-something Congress.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation enacts a new Federal Rule of Evidence, proposed by the Judicial Conference, to address a growing problem that is adding inordinate and unnecessary burden, expense, uncertainty, and inefficiency to litigation. The new rule 502 reaffirms and reinforces the attorney-client privilege and work product protection by clarifying how they are affected by, and withstand, inadvertent disclosure in discovery. As the author of the companion bill, H.R. 6610, in the House, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Senate-passed bill so that we can send it to the President and enact it into law without further delay. Doing the research on this legislation and spending time with a number of lawyers, and the American Bar Association, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that this has no negative impact on those lawyers representing defendants or those lawyers representing plaintiffs. In fact, unlike the courthouse and the courtroom, plaintiff lawyers and defendant lawyers, the plaintiff bar and the defendant bar, have come together in a unanimous voice, indicating that this will in fact enhance their ability to represent their clients and to ensure that they may have the broadest based discovery possible. We have asked and answered a series of questions that impact this particular legislation, including engaging the Federal bench. And so I move that my colleagues view this enthusiastically and that it be supported. The attorney-client privilege and work product protection are crucial to our legal system. They encourage businesses and individuals to obtain legal counsel when appropriate by protecting the confidentiality of communications between clients and their attorneys, and documents prepared by attorneys to assist their clients in litigation. In fact, this is the backbone, the infrastructure of civil and criminal litigation. These legal protections are not absolute, however. Traditionally, persons seeking to rely on them must maintain the confidentiality of the information involved. If the information is shared outside the circle of confidentiality provided by the law, the legal protection is forfeited, or waived, as the purpose for it no longer applies. This traditional principle can work unfair results in modern-day litigation when privileged information is disclosed by accident. Fast- moving litigation or expensive and vast litigation has both plaintiff and defendant shooting back and forth various documents, particularly in extensive discovery. In the course of the kind of voluminous discovery that often takes place, this can happen, where a privileged document is seen by the other party. When vast amounts of documents are transmitted and stored electronically and can be searched and collected in the same manner, it is all too easy for a document containing privileged information to be overlooked, despite careful efforts to prevent it. Even in my practice of some years ago, the technology has made it different. I remember being in a massive case, a personal injury case, where documents were going back and forth, but I might say, Mr. Speaker, that it moved a lot slower than it does today. Unfortunately, the case law has not kept up with these developments of expedited discovery and the electronic use of passing documents. Outdated legal precedents from an earlier era continue to create uncertainty. There are precedents, for example, holding that an inadvertent disclosure of a single document or communication not only can waive the privilege as to that one item, but can result in a blanket waiver as to all information concerning the same subject. That can collapse a case. Concern about the potential adverse consequences has in recent years forced clients and their lawyers to undertake exhaustive, time- consuming, and expensive examination of documents item by item, often page by page, before they can be comfortable turning them over in discovery. That impacts, of course, negatively plaintiffs and defendants. The document reviews can be grossly disproportionate in cost to the stakes of the underlying litigation and significantly impede the efficient processing of cases through the courts. Courts have developed a balance rule in the case law that appropriately protects confidentiality, while guarding against abuses. But one court's order and one district's order and one circuit's order has uncertain authority, at best, in another court. Only a uniform rule can bring the certainty needed, and a uniform rule in the area of evidentiary privileges can only be achieved by an act of Congress. The rule we are submitting today, submitted to Congress last year by the Judicial Conference, is a product of careful deliberations in its Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, informed by years of examination of the issue in its Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Advisory Committee enlisted the help of eminent jurists, practitioners, and legal scholars, and sought and obtained extensive public comment both in written submissions and at two hearings. The rule that resulted has wide support in the legal community. I know, Mr. Speaker. I have spent time, my staff has spent time with lawyers on both sides of the bar, and I can assure you their voices were one in arguing for the passage of this change. In order to more fully explain how the new rule is to be interpreted and applied, the Advisory Committee also prepared an explanatory note, as is customary, for publication alongside the text of the rule. The text of the explanatory note appears in the Record in the Senate debate. The proposed rule has now also undergone careful review in the House, as well as the Senate. During its consideration in the House Judiciary Committee, a number of questions arose regarding the scope and contours of the effect of the proposed rule on current law regarding attorney- client privilege and work product protection. That is a very important and cherished right, to ensure that privilege does not interfere or hamper the rights of a plaintiff, sometimes the underdog, and the defendant. The Judicial Conference was able to answer all these questions satisfactorily, without need to revise the text of the rule as submitted to Congress. In order to further reduce any potential uncertainty regarding how the rule is to be interpreted and applied, the committee has asked and the Judicial Conference has agreed to augment the explanatory note. I would like to insert the agreed addendum to the explanatory note in the Record at this point. Statement of Congressional Intent Regarding Rule 502 of the Federal Rules of Evidence During consideration of this rule in Congress, a number of questions were raised about the scope and contours of the effect of the proposed rule on current law regarding attorney-client privilege and work-product protection. These questions were ultimately answered satisfactorily, without need to revise the text of the rule as submitted to Congress by the Judicial Conference. In general, these questions are answered by keeping in mind the limited though important purpose and focus of the rule. The rule addresses only the effect of disclosure, under specified circumstances, of a communication that is otherwise protected by attorney-client privilege, or of information that is protected by work-product protection, on whether the disclosure itself operates as a waiver of the privilege or protection for purposes of admissibility of evidence in a federal or state judicial or administrative proceeding. The rule does not alter the substantive law regarding attorney- client privilege or work-product protection in any other respect, including the burden on the party invoking the privilege (or protection) to prove that the particular information (or communication) qualifies for it. And it is not intended to alter the rules and practices governing use of information outside this evidentiary context. Some of these questions are addressed more specifically below, in order to help further avoid uncertainty in the interpretation and application of the rule. Subdivision (a)--Disclosure vs. Use This subdivision does not alter the substantive law regarding when a party's strategic use in litigation of otherwise privileged information obliges that party to waive the privilege regarding other information concerning the same subject matter, so that the information being used can be fairly considered in context. One situation in which this issue arises, the assertion as a defense in patent- infringement litigation that a party was relying on advice of counsel, is discussed elsewhere in this Note. In this and similar situations, under subdivision (a)(1) the party using an attorney-client communication to its advantage in the litigation has, in so doing, intentionally waived the privilege as to other communications concerning the same subject matter, regardless of the circumstances in which the communication being so used was initially disclosed. Subdivision (b)--Fairness Considerations The standard set forth in this subdivision for determining whether a disclosure operates as a waiver of the privilege or protection is, as explained elsewhere in this Note, the majority rule in the federal courts. The majority rule has simply been distilled here into a standard designed to be predictable in its application. This distillation is not intended to foreclose notions of fairness from continuing to inform application of the standard in all aspects as appropriate in particular cases--for example, as to whether steps taken to rectify an erroneous inadvertent disclosure were sufficiently prompt under subdivision (b)(3) where the receiving party has relied on the information disclosed. Subdivisions (a) and (b)--Disclosures to Federal Office or Agency This rule, as a Federal Rule of Evidence, applies to admissibility of evidence. While subdivisions (a) and (b) are written broadly to apply as appropriate to disclosures of information to a federal office or agency, they do not apply to uses of information--such as routine use in government publications--that fall outside the evidentiary context. Nor do these subdivisions relieve the party seeking to protect the information as privileged from the burden of proving that the privilege applies in the first place. Subdivision (d)--Court Orders This subdivision authorizes a court to enter orders only in the context of litigation pending before the court. And it does not alter the law regarding waiver of privilege resulting from having acquiesced in the use of otherwise privileged information. Therefore, this subdivision does not provide a basis for a court to enable parties to agree to a selective waiver of the privilege, such as to a federal agency conducting an investigation, while preserving the privilege as against other parties seeking the information. This subdivision is designed to enable a court to enter an order, whether on motion of one or more parties or on its own motion, that will allow the parties to conduct and respond to discovery expeditiously, without the need for exhaustive pre-production privilege reviews, while still preserving each party's right to assert the privilege to preclude use in litigation of information disclosed in such discovery. While the benefits of a court order under this subdivision would be equally available in government enforcement actions as in private actions, acquiescence by the disclosing party in use by the federal agency of information disclosed pursuant to such an order would still be treated as under current law for purposes of determining whether the acquiescence in use of the information, as opposed to its mere disclosure, effects a waiver of the privilege. The same applies to acquiescence in use by another private party. Moreover, whether the order is entered on motion of one or more parties, or on the court's own motion, the court retains its authority to include the conditions it deems appropriate in the circumstances. Subdivision (e)--Party Agreements This subdivision simply makes clear that while parties to a case may agree among themselves regarding the effect of disclosures between each other in a federal proceeding, it is not binding on others unless it is incorporated into a court order. This subdivision does not confer any authority on a court to enter any order regarding the effect of disclosures. That authority must be found in subdivision (d), or elsewhere. The new rule protects the confidentiality of privileged information against waiver in several ways. It protects information inadvertently disclosed in discovery, as long as the party has taken reasonable efforts to avoid disclosing privileged information and, upon learning of the disclosure, promptly takes reasonable steps to rectify it. It protects against a waiver extending to other, undisclosed documents except where privileged information is being intentionally used to mislead the fact finder to the disadvantage of the other party, so that fairness requires that other information regarding the same subject matter also be available. And it authorizes courts to enter orders enforceable in all jurisdictions permitting parties to make initial discovery exchanges efficiently without waiving the right to appropriately assert privilege later for documents culled for actual use as evidence. This is sort of a back-up protection. This is your guarantee. This is an assistance to the idea of protecting privilege. This is extremely important, in that vast majority of documents exchanged in discovery, in some cases running to millions of pages, ultimately prove to be of no interest. Importantly, the rule does not alter the law regarding when the attorney-client privilege or work product protection applies in the first instance. It is narrowly targeted to address the question of when the specified kinds of litigation-related disclosures do or do not operate as a waiver of the privilege that would otherwise apply. Mr. Speaker, this legislation enjoys strong support in the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee and, of course, the House Judiciary Committee, with both sides of the aisle supporting it. I would like to especially commend Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner for encouraging the Judicial Conference when he was chairman of the committee to pursue developing a new rule of evidence to address this problem. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his very kind remarks about the bipartisan negotiations at the level of the House Judiciary Committee. I was delighted again to also have the companion bill, H.R. 6610, on that legislation. I do want to add a particular point of contention dealing with subdivision E, party agreements. This subdivision simply makes clear that while parties to a case may agree among themselves regarding the effect of disclosures between each other in a Federal proceeding, it is not binding on others unless it is incorporated into a court order. I think this is very important, and it was certainly a point that others, various counsel raised, because of the impact that it might have, the far-reaching impact it might have. This particular subdivision does not confer any authority on a court to enter any order regarding the effect of the disclosures. That authority must be found in subdivision D or elsewhere. So we see that this rule has been meticulously refined in order to ensure that the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege is preserved. This is good legislation, and I would ask my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time, asking for support of this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2450) to amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to address the waiver of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, allow me to rise for a brief moment to congratulate the Senators from Virginia and my good from friend and colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Scott, and, of course, the manager of this legislation and the minority manager as well. No one who has benefited from the civil rights of the law, if you will, could ignore the contributions of Spottswood William Robinson III. So I rise today to again add my respect for the naming of this courthouse after these two jurists, both Robert Merhige and of course Spottswood W. Robinson III, but particularly want to add my appreciation to what Judge Robinson did for education in the lawsuit that was filed on behalf of 100 parents and 450 students at Moton High School in Prince Edward County, convinced that their only chance was getting this case before the Supreme Court. In addition, his work on the 1954 Brown versus Board of Education, the work of his efforts with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, he laid the pathway for those of us who are the beneficiaries of his great work. Let me also suggest that the same with Robert Merhige and his work on civil rights issues but also dealing with major corporate litigation cases. These namings sometimes are alluded to as not being very important, but as we proceed on many important issues such as solving the energy crisis, I'm glad, Mr. Speaker, that we stop for a moment to give honor to individuals who laid the groundwork not only for me and those like me but really for America, and those who stand on the floor of the House that value democracy and equal opportunity, these individuals are deserving of the respect and admiration of this United States Congress and certainly are deserving of the naming of the courthouse after them. I rise today in support of S. 2403, which designates the new Federal courthouse in Richmond, Virginia as the ``Spottswood W. Robinson III and Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Federal Courthouse.'' I want to thank Senator Warner and the Senate Transportation and Infrastructure, and Senator Webb, for remembering a great educator, civil rights attorney, and judge, along with U.S. Representative Bobby Scott of Virginia who has championed this legislation. background Spottswood William Robinson III Spottswood William Robinson III, was born in Richmond, Virginia, on July 26, 1916. He attended Virginia Union University and then attended Howard University School of Law, graduating first in his class in 1939. Like his fellow jurist, Thurgood Marshall, he often credited the law school with instilling in its students the notion of social responsibility. He said, ``one of the things that was drilled into my head was . . . `This legal education that you're getting is not just for you, it was for everybody. So when you leave here, you want to put it to good use.' '' Spottswood Robinson argued one of the Supreme Court cases that led to the 1954 decision striking down school segregation. In early 1951, Robinson, who would later become a Federal judge, and his law partner in Richmond had no plans to attack school segregation in Virginia as unconstitutional. They were more focused on forcing local school systems to invest more in segregated black schools. But that was before Barbara Johns, a high school junior, called their law office in April. She complained that nothing at her school--buses, textbooks, facilities--even approached the quality of those provided at White schools. Robinson and his then-law partner Oliver Hill filed suit on behalf of 100 parents of 450 students at Moton High School in Prince Edward County, Va., convinced that their only chance lay in getting the case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The issues in that case and four others--including Brown vs. Board of Education--were decided in the high court's historic 1954 Brown decision declaring ``separate but equal'' schools unconstitutional. Former Virginia Gov. Douglas Wilder wrote in a tribute to Robinson that, ``Where one can ride on a bus, a train, or plane, or where one can live and rent or buy a house, or whether public education has to be given the same level to all people are basic Issues. Spottswood Robinson has been there . . . in his quiet, unassuming . . . way, charting and paving a path for countless Americans . . . who owe to him a great debt of gratitude.'' Judge Robinson was a faculty member of the Howard University School of Law from his graduation in 1939 until 1947. Judge Robinson was one of the core attorneys of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund from 1948 to 1960. Through the NAACP LDF Robinson worked on important civil rights cases including Brown v. Board of Education and Chance v. Lambeth, 4th Cir., 1951, establishing the invalidity of carrier- enforced racial segregation in interstate transportation. From 1960-64 Spottswood Robinson became Dean of the Howard University School of Law. He then served as a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights from 1961 to 1963. In 1964, Judge Robinson was the first African-American to be appointed the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In 1966, Judge Robinson became the first African-American appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit when he was appointed by President Johnson. On May 7, 1981, Judge Robinson became the first African-American to serve as Chief Judge of the court. Judge Robinson took senior status in 1989 and later retired. He passed on in 1998. Leaving behind a legacy of civil rights leadership and legal advocacy. Robert R. Merhige, Jr. Robert R. Merhige Jr., was the U.S. District Court judge who ordered Virginia schools desegregated and presided over major corporate litigation cases. His unusually long tenure on the Federal bench--31 years--brought him many cases of national importance. He wrote the decision for a three-judge panel that threw out the appeals of Watergate figures G. Gordon Liddy, Bernard Barker, and Eugenio Martinez, after they were convicted of breaking into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist. He ordered the University of Virginia to admit women in 1970. He clarified the rights of pregnant women to keep their jobs. He presided over the trials of Ku Klux Klan and American Nazi Party members accused of injuring and killing members of the Communist Workers Party in Greensboro, NC, in 1979. No decision made him more unpopular than his orders to integrate dozens of Virginia's school systems. He was widely considered the most hated man in Richmond in the early 1970s and required 24-hour protection by U.S. marshals. Segregationists threatened his family, spat in his face, and shot his dog to death after tying its legs. Protesters held weekly parades outside his home. A guest cottage on his property, where his mother-in-law lived, was burned to the ground. Not long ago he told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that he was still amazed, disappointed and angry at the public reaction to his rulings. He was known for his kindness and integrity and for brooking no delays or foolishness in his court, part of the Eastern District of Virginia known as the ``rocket docket.'' He once ordered a marshal to remove a man who had fallen asleep in the courtroom. The man, it turned out, was his father. Born in New York, Mr. Merhige attended High Point College in North Carolina and received his law degree from the University of Richmond's T.C. Williams School of Law in 1942. He served in the Army Air Forces in World War II as a crewman on a B- 17 bomber based in Italy. Mr. Merhige practiced law in Richmond from 1945 until he was appointed to the Federal bench in 1967 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Two weeks into his job, the new judge drew the first of the controversial cases that became the hallmark of his career. He ordered the release of African-American activist H. Rap Brown, who was imprisoned in Virginia after making an impassioned and militant speech in Maryland. In 1968, Mr. Merhige ruled that the conflict in Vietnam was a war, whether or not it was a declared war. That ruling came in a case in which 96 Army reservists tried to avoid serving in Vietnam. Mr. Merhige denied their request. On a tour of his memorabilia-filled chambers two decades later, a reporter noted that among signed photographs, which ranged from former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover to former attorney general Ramsey Clark, a copy of President Richard M. Nixon's resignation adorned the mantelpiece. ``I wanted that since the day he was inaugurated,'' Mr. Merhige was quoted as saying. Conclusion Mr. Speaker, Judge Robinson and Judge Merhige were men who stood their ground, followed their conscience and the law. I am pleased to see the good State of Virginia--known as the Capitol of the South-- recognizing two men who sought to change it--for the better. I urge my colleagues to support S. 2403, and the new Federal courthouse that celebrates these two great civil rights advocates.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I feel like family has gathered here on the floor, and I thank my good and distinguished friend. We are like family. And his mother, and as he has come here, and the extended family relationship. And so, even as I spoke on the bereavement resolution, I wanted to come and be part of the Congressional Black Caucus special order because I could feel the warmth and spirit just continue to flow through. And I hope the Congressional Record doesn't mind us talking about spirit flowing through. I want to acknowledge her staff that is staying here till the end that are in the gallery there, and they are like family as well. And we know that Stephanie would say she loved her staff, both in Washington and in Cleveland. Certainly, I think the most poignant moment of the going home service was my friend and brother, the Honorable Kendrick Meek, and Congressman Ryan, having stood together, stoically, strongly, and specially to talk about Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones and, as well, as they did so, you could feel in that huge, huge Cleveland Convention Center, everyone just pouring love toward them. And I think it drew Mervyn, her son, out of his seat to go up on the stage and to see the most powerful embrace that one could ever see. It will be lasting. I think it will go down in the annals of her record, when you pull her up and you look at this celebration, this homegoing service, you will note that there was this kind of experience, this moving experience. And I want to thank my distinguished Member of Congress from Florida, Congressman Meek, for just pouring his heart out during that service. I think all of us just paused for a moment to see the largeness and the bigness of our relationship with Stephanie. So I wanted to come because I didn't get a chance to just mention more extensively, someone who allowed you to know most of her family members during her time here in Congress. And the goodness is, I think we should celebrate that her family members lived, her mom and dad lived to see her become a Member of Congress. Her husband, of which, someone mentioned they had celebrated 25 years together or more, lived to see her in the United States Congress and enjoyed being part of her commitment to the Congressional Black Caucus, with the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. They were a couple. They were a pair. In fact, I am envious and dream of the fact that I used to hear the stories about the yachting that they did together as a couple, and always said one day I would have the time to go. But just to think about how she used her life experiences of joy and large living to touch everyone's life. When we talked about airlines, when we talked about the troubles airlines were having, I remember her talking after 9/11. She would always get in there that her dad was a skycap. When they were talking about salaries or talking about working conditions at the airlines, she had an affinity because she would get in there that her dad was a skycap, and she was proud of that. And I want everybody to know, since we live in this kind of multi- cultural society, that being a skycap was a big, big deal for an African American and an African American man. It was a middle class, it was a working job that had benefits, but it was an important responsibility. I know that because my uncle was a skycap. So that was an important, if you will, connection for her dad who supported this family. And of course, her mom and her sisters, and the sister who I had a chance, as Congressman Meek mentioned, I had a chance to visit Barbara and Mervyn when I went to visit them at home. There were friends, and I know that I will get in trouble, but I know that the Mayor of Warrensville I believe is the name, Mayor Fudge, a dear friend and a part of the Delta family. But I know the guy that she calls Joe Hewitt; never a single name, just calling him Joe Hewitt, larger than life, someone that she cared about; he cared about her. We had a chance to fellowship with their family. So I wanted to just come and say that, as we talk about sisterhood, it is really real. And as we talk about traveling with her, it is really real. As we talk about being larger than life, it is really real as well. And I want to close simply by just adding to what my good friend, Marcy Kaptur from Cleveland said, as I looked at the three Congresspersons, one from Maryland, California and New York, three beautiful young women. And we lost Congresswoman Julia Carson, Juanita Millender-McDonald, and now Stephanie Tubbs Jones, all mentors. And look at the legacy that they have left. Look at the legacy of Stephanie Tubbs Jones, who I call a great patriot, a great American, because she could fight you for her love for America. She would not take a back seat. Whether or not she was talking about predatory lending or whether she was talking about health care that did not occur in her community around the Nation, or those incarcerated persons who were treated unfairly and didn't get a second chance, she still loved America. So I want to leave us with the words of Sojourner Truth. And it was when she was sitting in the back of the room, and it was during the abolitionist movement, suffragette movement. And it was crowded, and she saw they saw her hand raise up, and the person called on sir, or indicated that she was a man. And Sojourner Truth stood up and said, ain't I a woman? I born 13 children into slavery. Ain't I a woman? To Stephanie Tubbs Jones, there will be no doubt that she was a woman's woman and a leader's leader. And finally, in closing, if I can read from Philippians Chapter 4, verse 8: Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, think on these things.'' Let us think on the life of Stephanie Tubbs Jones, and let us, in all of our imperfections, and we have them, embellish those things in ourselves. And as the Congressional Black Caucus, let us live on, and the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, of which my distinguished colleague is the Chair, let her spirit live on as we do her work and do the work of the Lord. I rise today with a conflict of emotions to recognize Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones. I stand with a heavy heart enriched and gladdened that I had the opportunity of knowing and working with such a beacon of light here in Congress. Before heading to the funeral I was reminded of the words of, Mother Teresa, ``There is a light in this world, a healing spirit--more powerful than any darkness we may encounter. We sometimes lose sight of this force, when there is suffering, and too much pain. Then suddenly, the spirit will emerge through the lives of ordinary people who hear a call and answer in extraordinary ways.'' That is why although I rise with a heavy heart at the loss of a colleague and friend, I stand with a realization and gratefulness for all that Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones was able to do for her family, for her constituents, and for her country in her brief time here on this earth. I also believe that Congresswoman Tubbs Jones is in a better place and is looking down on us with that contagious smile and generous nature that made us all love working with her. As Women's Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus members, the Congresswoman and I spent a lot of time working together and talking about our lives, our unique work, and the issues facing our nation. History I had the opportunity to get to know this great woman and learn that she was born in Cleveland, Ohio, where she graduated from the city's public schools, later earning degrees from Case Western Reserve University, the Flora Stone Mather College, and Case Western Reserve University School of Law. I knew that she was a proud member of Delta Sigma Theta; and even more proud to have been married to the love of her life, Mervyn L. Jones, Sr., for over 27 years until his passing in 2003. Together she and Mervyn had one son; Mervyn Leroy Jones, Jr., who was the light of her life. Like me, Stephanie Tubbs Jones was a lawyer who had been a local judge. She served on the Cleveland Municipal Court in 1981, and later on the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County before becoming the Representative for the 11th District of Ohio. She was selected to be the Chairwoman of the House Ethics Committee to watch over the standards of ethical conduct for members of the House. She also served on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee where she fought for economic development and financial opportunities for all. She was loved by her district, and was routinely reelected against nominal opposition. Stephanie Tubbs Jones spent 58 years on this earth and she was a blessing and her memory will always be a treasure. She was loved beyond words, and will be missed beyond measure by all that knew her. Over the last few months, Congresswoman Tubbs Jones and I travelled across the country together. She was always focused on doing the ``right thing''. She understood that in this unique work of ours we serve the people, but we must also answer to our conscience. Doing the ``right thing'' in this job is not always an easy task--but she did it day in and day out as she worked to help the people of Ohio, Americans across this great Nation, and our men and women overseas. She was an outstanding example of what it means to be leader. She epitomized service before self. Indeed, as a society, we must do all we can do to build upon the strength of service to help strengthen the fabric of the Nation. I offer the Tubbs-Jones family encouragement in their time of bereavement by saying, ``Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.'' Her work on Earth is complete. We join the Lord in saying, well done, thou good and faithful servant. She was a fighter for issues that affect the least among us and in all the years she was in Congress--she never forgot that. Now let us not forget her. conclusion The Bible states in Philippians chapter 4 verse 8: ``Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.'' Let us remember Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a public servant, a colleague--a friend. [From the New York Times, Aug. 21, 2008] Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Lawmaker, Dies at 58 (By Dennis Hevesi) Stephanie Tubbs Jones, the first African-American woman elected to the House of Representatives from Ohio and a leader in the fight against predatory lending practices, died Wednesday. She was 58. The cause was a ruptured brain aneurysm that Ms. Tubbs Jones suffered Tuesday, Eileen Sheil, a spokeswoman for the Cleveland Clinic, which owns the Huron Hospital in East Cleveland where the congresswoman died, told The Associated Press. Ms. Tubbs Jones, a Democrat, was in her fifth term as representative of the 11th Congressional District, which includes most of the east side of Cleveland. Two years ago, she was re-elected with 83 percent of the vote. Before her first election to Congress, in 1998, she had been the chief prosecutor for Cuyahoga County in Ohio. Considered a liberal, Ms. Tubbs Jones was a co-sponsor of legislative efforts to broaden health care coverage for low- and middle-income people and of programs supporting the re- entry of convicts into their communities. She was also the author of legislation requiring certification for mortgage brokers and stiffer penalties for predatory loans. In June, Ms. Tubbs Jones voted against emergency supplemental financing for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. ``I feel it important that we have a plan for a timely redeployment of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan before we continue funding what has become a seemingly endless war,'' she said at the time. When Congress officially ratified President Bush's re- election in January 2005, Ms. Tubbs Jones joined Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, in initiating a rare challenge to what has historically been a polite formal ceremony. They were objecting to accepting Ohio's 20 electoral votes for Mr. Bush, citing voting irregularities in the state. Instead of holding a courteous joint session to certify the election, lawmakers were forced to retreat to their separate chambers for two hours of debate. In the end, the House voted 267 to 31 against the challenge; in the Senate, the vote was 74 to 1. Stephanie Tubbs was born in Cleveland on Sept. 10, 1949. She graduated from Case Western Reserve University in 1971 and received her law degree there three years later. From 1976 to 1979, she was an assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor. In 1981, she won election as a Cleveland Municipal Court judge, and 10 years later she was appointed chief prosecutor. As chief prosecutor, Ms. Tubbs Jones was at the center of a controversy in 1998 when she refused to reopen an investigation into the 1954 murder of the wife of Dr. Sam Sheppard, dismissing new DNA evidence that Dr. Sheppard's supporters said would have exonerated him. The case had received nationwide coverage in the 1950s. Dr. Sheppard spent 10 years in prison before the Supreme Court ruled that his trial had been prejudiced by publicity. He was acquitted at a second trial, in 1966, and died in 1970. With the new evidence, Dr. Sheppard's son was seeking to collect damages on behalf of his father. Ms. Tubbs Jones argued that the new DNA results would be inadmissible because the samples were too old. Ms. Tubbs Jones's husband of 27 years, Mervyn L. Jones Sr., died in 2003. She is survived by her son, Mervyn II.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on September 10, 2008.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow for morning-hour debate; and further, that when the House adjourns on Wednesday, September 10, it adjourn to meet at 11 a.m. on Thursday, September 11.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1332, ``Recognizing the importance of connecting foster youth to the workforce through internship programs, and encouraging employers to increase employment of former foster youth''. First, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague, Dennis Cardoza of California, for introducing this important piece of legislation. This resolution will recognize the significance of creating links between foster youth and the workplace through internship opportunities while also urging employers to pursue former foster youth. The creation of internship and employment opportunities for current and former foster youths has the potential to dramatically shape the lives of thousands for the better. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this act. There are over 500,000 children and youth in foster care. As the youth age out of the system, 50 percent become homeless within the first 18 months of emancipation. Less than half of these youth are employed 2.5-4 years after leaving the system. Only 38 percent remain employed for over a year. Former foster care youth are twice as likely to have children in foster care. This problem is systemic, yet through opportunities and internships we can break this cycle of impoverishment and failure. This bill is an appeal to our Nation's employers to help us address this issue by providing internships for disadvantaged foster youth, and by providing employment once they ``age-out'' of the foster care system. Such action will instill knowledge and work-ethic. These experiences will open up a new world of opportunity to a group that was struggling, not due to a lack of inherent qualifications, but rather due to the misfortunes of their upbringing. This resolution will express the desire of Congress to address the problems of foster care youth, and this resolution will express Congress' widespread support of partnerships and initiatives between businesses and foster care programs, to help better prepare foster care youth for the working world. This resolution seeks to benefit the over 500,000 foster care children and youth by providing them with the opportunity to further themselves through educational and work experiences. As these experiences accrue, they will present the foster youth with an idea of the opportunities latent within their world, and will hopefully inspire them to move forward in pursuit of job and educational opportunities. As of 2003 there were 26,133 children in the Texas foster care system. Since then, the number has only risen. For many of these children the future will include stints in jail, poverty, and homelessness, yet strong action on the part of businesses and foster care programs in creating internships and partnerships may save many from this fate, leading them to secure jobs and successful lives. I have often concerned myself with issues regarding the safety and success of our future, our Nation's children. By preventing toxic lead levels in houses, by ensuring the safety of children in schools, and by encouraging businesses to form partnerships with foster care, we take small, but significant, steps toward guaranteeing the well-being of our children and the security our Nation's future. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 194, ``Apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African-Americans,'' introduced by my distinguished colleague from Tennessee, Representative Steve Cohen, of which I am a cosponsor. This important legislation expresses Congress's remorse for America's past treatment of African-Americans. Mr. Speaker, I know that many would think it a non-issue to address the events of over 135 years ago, but the legacy of slavery and racial segregation continues to have a profound impact on American society. The social and economic disparity lives on, as do hatred, bias, and discrimination. The consequences of the slave trade have been profound and the scars that it produced still have not healed. Despite two centuries of progress, the African American community continues to feel the impact of slavery and subsequent years of racism and persecution. Our fight for equality and against injustice against all must continue. We must recognize and in some small way try to rectify our past. As the famous saying goes, ``those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' This Bill will serve as a testimony to the great injustices that African-Americans suffered at the hands of the United States, and subsequently allow Members of Congress to learn from the past in order to not repeat similar injustices in the future. The United States today serves as a moral compass for the rest of the world and as such we must provide a voice for race issues. Our willingness to confront our Nation's past and to address the impact which slavery and racial segregation have had on our society strengthens our undeterred commitment to serving as an advocate for human rights and freedom in the international community. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 194, ``Apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African-Americans.'' This legislation acknowledges the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery and racial segregation in the United States. By doing so, the United States will remember our Nation's wrongdoings in order to not repeat our mistakes.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 3295, to amend title 35, United States Code, and the Trademark Act of 1946 to provide that the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, shall appoint administrative patent judges and administrative trademark judges. S. 3295 amends both the Patent Act and Lanham Act with regard to administrative judge appointments. I support the bill and I encourage my colleagues to do likewise. S. 3295 proposes that the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the PTO Director, appoint administrative patent judges and administrative trademark judges. H.R. 6362 also states that the Secretary of Commerce may deem the appointment of an administrative patent judge or administrative trademark judge who previously held office pursuant to an appointment by the PTO Director to have taken effect on the date when the administrative patent judge or administrative trade judge was originally appointed by the PTO Director. Additionally, the bill creates a defense to a constitutional challenge of an administrative patent judge or administrative trademark judge appointment, declaring that the administrative patent judge or administrative trademark judge was acting as a de facto officer after being appointed by the PTO Director. Before March 2000, administrative patent judges were appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. In November 1999, new legislation gave the appointment power to the director of the PTO. That legislation took effect on March 29, 2000. Since then 47 of the 74 administrative patent judges currently serving on the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences were appointed by the director of PTO. S. 3295 is necessary because it creates a defense to constitutional challenge of an administrative patent judge or administrative trademark judge's appointment. This bill was introduced in response to several challenges. In those challenges, parties are contesting the validity of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decisions based upon the alleged unconstitutionality of the appointment of certain administrative patent judges who participated in those decisions. The challengers argue that the director of the PTO does not have the power of appointment under Article 2 of the Constitution. If courts hold these appointments unconstitutional, the effects could be widespread, affecting potentially thousands of patents and patent applications. This situation alone would lead to a greater patent backlog. The PTO already faces what seems to be an insurmountable patent backlog. Specifically, this challenge creates arguments for patent applicants whose patent application rejections were affirmed by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, as well as a potential defense for patent litigants where the patent in suit resulted from the Board's overturning an examiner's final rejection. S. 3295 is necessary to preserve the integrity of the administrative patent judge and administrative trademark judge appointment system. I support this Act and encourage my colleagues to support it also.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4255, the ``United States Olympic Committee Paralympic Program Act of 2008.'' First, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague, Bob Filner of California, for introducing this important legislation. This bill will give a grant to the USOC for the planning, developing, management and implementation of a Paralympic program for physically disabled veterans and members of the United States Armed Forces. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this act. There are currently over 2.9 million disabled veterans. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have contributed to a 25 percent raise in this number since 2001. Many are struggling to rehabilitate, to cope, and to regain their purpose. We must staunchly support our soldiers and veterans by giving them the opportunity to again represent our country with pride. It may be impossible to ever fully repay the services that the many brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces have given for our country, but it is critical that we do what we can to support those that were injured and disabled in our defense. H.R. 4255 will help to provide the many physically disabled veterans and servicemembers with an outreach program of encouragement and support that will allow them to represent their country as athletes and ambassadors of goodwill. Upon enactment of the act, the Secretary of Veteran Affairs will be authorized to make a grant to the U.S. Olympic Committee, USOC, to plan, develop, manage, and implement the Paralympic Program for veterans and members of the Armed Forces. The bill directs the USOC to use the grant to plan, develop, manage, and implement the Paralympic Program for veterans and members of the Armed Forces. The Paralympic Program that this bill establishes will benefit the millions of disabled veterans and members of the Armed Forces. This bill will allow many servicemembers to experience the pride of representing their Nation, and will provide many more with the outreach and support network necessary to rehabilitate and regain their strength. At the time of the 2000 census there were 1.75 million veterans living in Texas. Many from Houston and Texas' 18th have served. It is in memory of their service that I ask my colleagues to support this bill, giving our disabled veterans and servicemembers a chance to represent our Nation through their competitive spirits.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker. I support this resolution and encourage my colleagues to do the same. This resolution is important today as Americans are desirous of making America a better, safer place. This resolution recognizes the importance of community policing and crime prevention. Because the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne- JAG) Program at fiscal year have been severely cut in America, we must be vigilant and ensure that America and our neighborhoods remain safe. The Byrne-JAG monies are supposed to be used to make America a safer place. Byrne-JAG allows states and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime and to improve the criminal justice system, which states and local governments have come to rely on to ensure public safety. They support: law enforcement, prosecution and court programs, prevention and education, corrections and community programs, drug treatment, planning, evaluation, technology improvement programs, and crime victim and witness programs (other than compensation). In short, they are an indispensable resource that states use to combat crime. Unfortunately, in fiscal year 2008 the Byrne-JAG program was cut by two-thirds. Although Congress authorized over $1 billion, only $520 million were appropriated for fiscal year 2007. The appropriation was then drastically reduced to $170.4 million in fiscal year 2008, and the President has proposed further cuts for the fiscal year 2009 budget. The continuing cuts seem to indicate that information regarding the success of the program has not been brought to the attention of members of Congress or to the Administration. Therefore, H. Res. 1324, recognizes that the President should focus on neighborhood crime prevention. The trend to reduce the grant funding may result, in part, from instances where Byrne-JAG funding has been abused. For example, in 1999 Byrne-JAG funding was used in the infamous Tulia outrage in which a rogue police narcotics officer in Texas set up dozens of people, most of them African-American, in false cocaine trafficking charges. In other instances, jurisdictions used the funding to fund task forces focused solely on ineffective, low-level drug arrests, which has put the task force concept-and the diminished standards of drug enforcement that it has come to represent-in the national spotlight. The most well-known Byrne-funded scandal occurred in Tulia, Texas where dozens of African American residents (representing 16 percent of the town's black population) were arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to decades in prison, even though the only evidence against them was the uncorroborated testimony of one white undercover officer with a history of lying and racism. The undercover officer worked alone, and had no audiotapes, video surveillance, or eyewitnesses to collaborate his allegations. Suspicions eventually arose after two of the accused defendants were able to produce firm evidence showing they were out of state or at work at the time of the alleged drug buys. Texas Governor Rick Perry eventually pardoned the Tulia defendants (after four years of imprisonment), but these kinds of scandals continue to plague the Byrne grant program. These scandals are not the result of a few ``bad apples'' in law enforcement; they are the result of a fundamentally flawed bureaucracy that is prone to corruption by its very structure. Byrne-funded regional anti-drug task forces are federally funded, state managed, and locally staffed, which means they do not really have to answer to anyone. In fact, their ability to perpetuate themselves through asset forfeiture and federal funding makes them unaccountable to local taxpayers and governing bodies. But, reducing the funding is not the answer. Instead, we should encourage the President to invest in America and keep our neighborhoods safe, H. Res. 1324 does just that. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1279, ``Recognizing the Special Olympics 40th anniversary''. First, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague, Lee Terry of Nebraska, for introducing this important piece of legislation. This resolution will recognize the significance of the Special Olympics in establish lasting competitive bonds and teaching the world that all people possess the same courage and profound joy in the face of athletic competition. Through its 40 years the Special Olympics has dedicated itself to empowering individuals with intellectual disabilities to become physically fit, productive, and respected members of society through sports training and competition. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this act. The Special Olympics currently serves over 2,500,000 people with intellectual disabilities in more than 200 programs in over 180 countries. The organization has over 700,000 volunteers and 500,000 coaches worldwide. Indeed, every four years the Special Olympics requires a massive undertaking of athletes, volunteers and coaches. Throughout all this the organization has stood true to its oath ``Let me win, but if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt''. Indeed, the bravery of the Special Olympics and its intellectually disabled athletes is inspiring, and well worth this commendation. This bill recognizes not only the importance of an organization such as the Special Olympics, but also its effects. Children and adults with intellectual disabilities who participate in Special Olympics develop improved physical fitness and motor skills, greater self-confidence and a more positive self-image. These competitors grow not only physically, but mentally, and emotionally. In the process new powerful ties are made between individuals and between nations regardless of the barriers of language and geography. This legislation will express the desire of Congress to recognize the tireless compassion of those volunteers and coaches working with the Special Olympics, as well as the unshakeable bravery of its athletes. Through its 40 years of service the Special Olympics has helped millions of intellectually disabled children and adults to find their true voice. Whether it is through their 40 years of international competition, or their work regionally, where chapters such as Special Olympics Texas work to bring out both athleticism and joy from the intellectually disabled in 21 sports, this organization has shown a commitment to bringing out the best in both volunteer and competitor alike. To think that from a small summer day camp for intellectually challenged children and adults could evolve into a world-wide organization, is a testament to the lasting vision of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, its founder, and the commitment of volunteers, such as the 40,000 from Texas, to this dream.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6073, ``To provide that Federal employees receiving their pay by electronic funds transfer shall be given the option of receiving their pay stubs electronically.'' First, I would like to thank my colleague, Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, for introducing this important legislation. This bill will allow all Federal employees receiving their pay by electronic funds transfer to receive their pay stubs electronically. This will bring much needed reform to a system that has become less transparent due to the advent of electronic, online banking. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this act. H.R. 6073 is important because of the need to create a streamlined, direct pay system that is at the same time transparent with clear authentication, allowing the over 1 million Federal employees to be able to back up their electronic funds with electronic pay stubs. These pay stubs will provide a necessary, substantive back-up to ensure that the many employees using electronic funds transfer have the same access to a transparent financial record. H.R. 6073, ``To provide that Federal employees receiving their pay by electronic funds transfer shall be given the option of receiving their pay stubs electronically,'' is a fair, equitable step that will bring the Federal Government toward a clearer, more direct standard for all Federal employees using electronic funds transfer. Upon enactment of the act, the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, would be required to provide Federal employees that receive their pay through electronic transfer with the option of also receiving their pay stubs electronically. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementation of this act will have no effect on the budget, and this act does not contain any intergovernmental or private sector mandates, and hence does not apply to local or State governments. This bill will benefit the many thousands of Federal employees receiving their pay by electronic funds transfer by giving them the option to receive their pay stubs electronically. This option will provide greater authentication and transparency, without costing taxpayers, and without affecting private businesses, and State and local government. This bipartisan bill will benefit the many Federal Government employees in Houston, Texas, and the Nation as a whole, while coming at no cost to the taxpayers of Texas' 18th. This simple reform should create an improved electronic pay system, benefiting countless Government employees.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6309 the ``Lead Safe Housing for Kids Act''. First, I would like to thank my distinguished colleague, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, for introducing this important legislation. This bill will amend the ``Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992'' by setting the environmental intervention level for lead to 10 micrograms per deciliter. Its purpose is to enact stricter provisions concerning the hazards resulting from lead-based paint in households. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this act. The ``Lead-Safe Housing for Kids Act'' is important because of its potential to ensure greater protection for children. Children are most at risk of suffering from the toxicity of lead paint. Lead is a dangerous substance, especially so for children under the age of six, who are only beginning the process of developing their bodies and brains. Lead paint can cause nervous system damage, loss of hearing, stunted growth, severe kidney damage, and can even disrupt the development of the brain and the faculty of cognition. Lead-contaminated household dust, resulting from lead paint is the primary cause of lead poisoning in children throughout the United States. Though the number of children in the United States with dangerous levels of lead has dropped from 13.5 million in 1978, roughly 300,000 children still have unsafe blood lead levels that are in excess of 10 micrograms per deciliter. 300 thousand, a number equaling half of the population of Texas District 18, are currently at a distinct risk of suffering from lead poisoning. Indeed, this is a major problem. Of the $43.4 billion spent in the United States annually on pediatric environmental disease, a great majority goes to combating and treating childhood lead poisoning. It is because of this that we must act now in putting forth more stringent testing requirements to combat the grave danger posed by lead paint. Upon enactment of the act, the HUD will have 90 days to comply with the new environmental intervention blood lead level of at or above 10 micrograms of per deciliter, the point at which the CDC has found cause for concern. This bill will save countless children from suffering from the myriad ailments that come hand in hand with lead paint. The tragedies of these children and others have exposed the fundamental problem which this bill addresses. For too long there has been no clear federally mandated standard to indicate excess blood lead levels in households, or to require action. This bill will go far to ensure that the children of our Nation are able to enjoy good health, by making certain that all houses become lead safe. Recently I amended H.R. 2352, the ``School Safety Enhancement Act of 2007'', which sought to enhance the safety of our elementary schools, secondary schools, and institutions of higher learning, by increasing the amount of money available for school safety. It is critical especially that we make funds available for poor communities, and specifically to require the creation of a tip hotline for school officials, parents, and students, to report the existence of hazards and chemicals. I also provided amendments that would require institutions to create a safety plan, dealing with potential terror, chemical, or otherwise hazardous situations. These concerns for the safety of children in schools are similar to those concerns that I have for the wellbeing of children in their homes. In both situations, I believe children should be free from the dangers presented by hazardous materials and situations, including the threat of lead paint. As the safety of children should be critical to all Americans, I urge my colleagues to support this act to protect our Nation's children and our Nation's future from harm's way.