Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3195, the ``ADA Restoration Act of 2007.'' I wholeheartedly support this bill and urge my colleagues to support it also. The changes embodied by this Act, that restore the with Disabilities Act of 1990, ``ADA'', to its original purpose, are long overdue. This is a civil rights bill and the rights of the disabled must be restored. H.R. 3195, the ``ADA Restoration Act of 2007,'' amends the definition of ``disability'' in the ADA in response to the Supreme Court's narrow interpretation of the definition, which has made it extremely difficult for individuals with serious health conditions--epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis and severe intellectual impairments--to prove that they qualify for protection under the ADA. The Supreme Court has narrowed the definition in two ways: (1) by ruling that mitigating measures that help control an impairment like medicine, hearing aids, or any other treatment must be considered in determining whether an impairment is disabling enough to qualify as a disability; and (2) by ruling that the elements of the definition must be interpreted ``strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled.'' The Court's treatment of the ADA is at odds with judicial treatment of other civil rights statutes, which usually are interpreted broadly to achieve their remedial purposes. It is also inconsistent with Congress's intent. The committee will consider a substitute that represents the consensus view of disability rights groups and the business community. That substitute restores congressional intent by, among other things: disallowing consideration of mitigating measures other than corrective lenses, ordinary eyeglasses or contacts, when determining whether an impairment is sufficiently limiting to qualify as a disability; maintaining the requirement that an individual qualifying as disabled under the first of the three-prong definition of ``disability'' show that an impairment ``substantially limits'' a major life activity but defining ``substantially limits'' as a less burdensome ``materially restricts; clarifying that anyone who is discriminated against because of an impairment, whether or not the impairment limits the performance of any major life activities, has been ``regarded as'' disabled and is entitled to the ADA's protection. Background on Legislation Eighteen years ago, President George H.W. Bush, with overwhelming bipartisan support from the Congress, signed into law the ADA. The act was intended to provide a ``clear and comprehensive mandate,'' with ``strong, consistent, enforceable standards,'' for eliminating disability-based discrimination. Through this broad mandate, Congress sought to protect anyone who is treated less favorably because of a current, past, or perceived disability. Congress did not intend for the courts to seize on the definition of disability as a means of excluding individuals with serious health conditions from protection; yet this is exactly what has happened. A legislative action is now needed to restore congressional intent, and ensure broad protection against disability-based discrimination. Court Rulings Have Narrowed ADA Protection, Resulting in the Exclusion of Individuals that Congress Clearly Intended to Protect Through a series of decisions interpreting the ADA's definition of ``disability,'' however, the Supreme Court has narrowed the ADA in ways never intended by Congress. First, in three cases decided on the same day, the Supreme Court ruled that the determination of ``disability'' under the first prong of the definition--i.e., whether an individual has a substantially limiting impairment--should be made after considering whether mitigating measures had reduced the impact of the impairment. In all three cases, the undisputed reason for the adverse action was the employee's medical condition, yet all three employers argued--and the Supreme Court agreed--that the plaintiffs were not protected by the ADA because their impairments, when considered in a mitigated state, were not limiting enough to qualify as disabilities under the ADA. Three years later, the Supreme Court revisited the definition of ``disability'' in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams. In that case, the plaintiff alleged that her employer discriminated against her by failing to accommodate her disabilities, which included carpal tunnel syndrome, myotendonitis, and thoracic outlet compression. While her employer previously had adjusted her job duties, making it possible for her to perform well despite these conditions, Williams was not able to resume certain job duties when requested by Toyota and ultimately lost her job. She challenged the termination, also alleging that Toyota's refusal to continue accommodating her violated the ADA. Looking to the definition of ``disability,'' the Court noted that an individual ``must initially prove that he or she has a physical or mental impairment,'' and then demonstrate that the impairment ``substantially limits'' a ``major life activity.'' Identifying the critical questions to be whether a limitation is ``substantial'' and whether a life activity is ``major,'' the court stated that ``these terms need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled.'' The Court then concluded that ``substantial'' requires a showing that an individual has an impairment ``that prevents or, `` severely restricts the individual; and ``major'' life activities, requires a showing that the individual is restricted from performing tasks that are ``of central importance to most people's daily lives.'' In the wake of these rulings, disabilities that had been covered under the Rehabilitation Act and that Congress intended to include under the ADA--serious health conditions like epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis--have been excluded. Either, the courts say, the person is not impaired enough to substantially limit a major life activity, or the impairment substantially limits something--like liver function--that the courts do not consider a major life activity. Courts even deny protection when the employer admits that it took adverse action based on the individual's impairment, allowing employers to take the position that an employee is too disabled to do a job but not disabled enough to be protected by the law. On October 4, 2007, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties held a legislative hearing on H.R. 3195, the ``ADA Restoration Act of 2007.'' Witnesses at the hearing included Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer; Cheryl Sensenbrenner, chair, American Association of People with Disabilities; Stephen C. Orr, pharmacist and plaintiff in Orr v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Michael C. Collins, executive director, National Council on Disability; Lawrence Z. Lorber, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and Chai R. Feldblum, professor, Georgetown University Law Center. The hearing provided an opportunity for the Constitution Subcommittee to examine how the Supreme Court's decisions regarding the definition of ``disability'' have affected ADA protection for individuals with disabilities and to consider the need for legislative action. Representative Hoyer, one of the lead sponsors of the original act and, along with Representative Sensenbrenner, lead House co-sponsor of the ADA Restoration Act, explained the need to respond to court decisions ``that have sharply restricted the class of people who can invoke protection under the law and [reinstate] the original congressional intent when the ADA passed.'' Explaining Congress's choice to adopt the definition of ``disability'' from the Rehabilitation Act because it had been interpreted generously by the courts, Representative Hoyer testified that Congress had never anticipated or intended that the courts would interpret that definition so narrowly: [W]e could not have fathomed that people with diabetes, epilepsy, heart conditions, cancer, mental illnesses and other disabilities would have their ADA claims denied because they would be considered too functional to meet the definition of disabled. Nor could we have fathomed a situation where the individual may be considered too disabled by an employer to get a job, but not disabled enough by the courts to be protected by the ADA from discrimination. What a contradictory position that would have been for Congress to take. Representative Hoyer, joined by all of the witnesses except Mr. Lorber, urged Congress to respond by passing H.R. 3195 to amend the definition of ``disability.'' Mr. Lorber, appearing on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, opposed H.R. 3195 as an overly broad response to court decisions that accurately reflected statutory language and congressional intent. Since the subcommittee's hearing, several changes have been made to the bill, which are reflected in the substitute that will likely be considered by the committee. The substitute, described section-by- section below, represents the consensus of the disability rights and business groups and is supported by, among others, the Chamber of Commerce. Importantly, section 4 of the bill, amends the definition of ``disability'' and provides standards for applying the amended definition. While retaining the requirement that a disability ``substantially limits'' a ``major'' life activity under prongs 1 and 2 of the definition of disability, section 4 redefines ``substantially limits'' as ``materially restricts'' to indicate a less stringent standard. Thus, while the limitation imposed by an impairment must be important, it need not rise to the level of preventing or severely restricting the performance of major life activities in order to qualify as a disability. Section 4 provides an illustrative list of life activities that should be considered ``major,'' and clarifies that an individual has been ``regarded as'' disabled, and is entitled to protection under the ADA, if discriminated against because of an impairment, whether or not the impairment limits the performance of any major life activities. Section 4 requires broad construction of the definition and prohibits consideration of mitigating measures, with the exception of ordinary glasses or contact lenses, in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity. I support this bill and I urge my colleagues to support it also.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enthusiastically support the legislation that we just debated on the floor of the House. Having been detained in my Committee on Transportation Security and Critical Infrastructure during the debate, I wanted to come and support H.R. 3195, the ADA Restoration Act of 2007. This is truly a civil rights initiative, and it is important to restore the basic support and rights of those who are disabled in America. Unfortunately, through the Supreme Court's narrow decision and definition of the word ``disability,'' it made it very difficult for individuals with serious health conditions such as epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, and severe intellectual impairments to prove that they qualify for protection under the ADA. The Supreme Court narrowed that definition in two ways: one by ruling that mitigation measures that help control an impairment, like medicine or hearing aids or other devices, must be considered a deserving disability; and, two, ruling that the elements of the definition must be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. The civil rights of all Americans are an important constitutional element. We hold these truths to be self- evident that we are all created equal. This legislation, H.R. 3195, restores those rights. And I would like to affirm that my vote in the Judiciary Committee was a resounding ``yes.'' The fact that I was detained, I want that to be reflected in the report. This is an important bill. This bill is heavily supported, and I throw my support to a new civil rights law in America.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If we do not extend funding to airline programs, many negative consequences will ensue, including the cutting of services, such as air traffic control, certification, and inspection, as well as the inability by the airlines to buy new equipment for aging infrastructure. As I travel around the country on behalf of my constituents, I'm also hearing from small towns who are concerned that because of the high cost of flying, those centers will be cut off. Although I live in the fourth largest city in the Nation, I'm not interested in seeing others in the surrounding areas of Texas not have air transport. The Airport and Airway Trust Fund was established in 1970 ``to provide for the expansion and improvement of the Nation's airport and airway system.'' It has provided funds for the Federal Aviation Administration. And so this is an important extension because we need air travel, but we need it in the right way. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues and addressing the question of high fuel costs, of looking at ensuring the safety and security of our fellow travelers, and as well to ensure that we have opportunities for minority businesses to work on these large projects that are coming forward. This is a necessary bill. I ask my colleagues to support it. I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 6327, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, and for other purposes, introduced by my distinguished colleague from New York, Representative Charles B. Rangel. This important legislation will extend funding in order to improve transportation for Americans across the Nation. The costs of air travel have increased rapidly in the last few months. Airlines have not only increased the price of air fare, but they have been forced to put charges on extra baggage, cut flights, and lay off hundreds of employees. Air travel is essential, as it is beneficial environmentally, socially, and especially economically. Without the ability to travel by air cheaply and easily, the flow of people, goods, and ideas would substantially decrease. If we do not extend funding to airline programs, many negative consequences will ensue, including cutting services, such as air traffic control, certification, and inspection, as well as the inability by the airlines to buy new equipment for the aging infrastructure. It is obvious that something must be done to solve this pressing problem. It is necessary for airlines to look into alternative means in order to increase their effectiveness. However, it is also necessary for the United States to fund several programs. The Airport and Airway Trust Fund was established in 1970 ``to provide for the expansion and improvement of the Nation's airport and airway system.'' Since then, it has provided funds for the Federal Aviation Administration. Various pieces of legislation have come before the Congess to extend this fund, and yet partisanship has stalled these bills. It is necessary for us to extend this program in order to modernize our air traffic control system. NextGen, a state-of-the-art air traffic control system, would allow control towers to pinpoint the exact locations of aircraft, making the skies less chaotic, and air travel much more efficient. Additionally, the extension of the Airport Improvement Program is necessary in order to improve safety and efficiency in our air travel. Airports are sites used by millions and millions of Americans every single day. It is vital that airports, travelers, and air flight personnel be secure, and thus it is important to continue to fund this program. Even though air travel is obviously important, other forms of travel contribute to the Nation as well. The Highway Trust Fund was created by the Highway Revenue Act of 1956 to ensure a dependable source of financing for the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. This is the premier fund for Government spending on highways, with approximately 45 percent of all highway spending coming from this fund. The Congressional Budget Office predicts the fund will run a deficit of $1.7 billion at the end of 2009 and $8.1 billion by the end of 2010. The Highway Trust Fund balance must be restored. This bill will extend the taxes that fund the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, extend the expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, extend the Airport Improvement Program, and restore the Highway Trust Fund balance. This will be important to keep airports modernized and we should also ensure that minority-owned and women- owned and small businesses have equal chances for construction work. This is a vital bill for cities like Houston, Texas, which happens to have one of the top 10 airports in the Nation. I urge my fellow members of Congress to support H.R. 6327 in order to increase efficiency, safety, and functioning of our Nation's transportation systems.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank Mr. Neal for his leadership and as well thank my good friend Chairman Rangel and fellow Texas friend Mr. Brady, Mr. Costello, and others who have been engaged in this legislation. I chair the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection. We have much overlapping concerns as relates to the aviation industry. So I rise to support these extensions because I believe that we do have a challenge in not disallowing these payments to go forward. The costs of air travel have increased rapidly in the last few months. Airlines have not only increased the price of air fare, but they have been forced to put charges on extra baggage, cut flights, and lay off hundreds of employees. But safe, secure air travel is essential, as it is beneficial environmentally, socially, and especially economically necessary. Without the ability to travel by air cheaply and easily, the flow of people, goods, and ideas would substantially decrease. I represent Houston Intercontinental Airport and the headquarters for Continental Airlines. I see it firsthand. In order to be able to have safe secure travel, the necessary resources must be in place. I look forward to meeting with the leadership of my hometown airline to discuss what Congress can do as it relates to jet fuel. Although we know how many of our consumers are suffering because of price per gallon for gasoline, the need for jet fuel and the cost has risen exponentially, with no relief in sight. In fact, let me applaud Continental Airlines for its alliance with Star Alliance just last week to be able to provide more services and other necessary support matters being taken care of. It is standing independently, but as well, it has its own concerns.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5876, ``Stop the Child Abuse in Residential Programs for Teens.'' I would like to thank my colleagues on the Committee on Education and Labor for bringing this very important legislation to the floor. On Capitol Hill we often debate matters that can address varying viewpoints. I believe that this legislation can only be looked at from two angles--right and wrong. They are everybody's children, and nobody's children. They are the forgotten children in the Texas foster care and residential care system. Black, White, Hispanic, and Asian--they all need the love of a mother, the nurturing of a family, and the support of their community. Some of them find homes with caring foster parents or in treatment centers with experienced and caring providers. And some do not. This legislation allows us to keep our children safe with: New national standards for private and public residential programs-- Prohibit programs from physically, mentally, or sexually abusing children in their care; Prohibit programs from denying children essential water, food, clothing, shelter, or medical care--whether as a form of punishment or for any other reason; Require that programs only physically restrain children if it is necessary for their safety or the safety of others, and to do so in a way that is consistent with existing federal law on the use of restraints; Require programs to provide children with reasonable access to a telephone and inform children of their right to use the phone; Require programs to train staff in understanding what constitutes child abuse and neglect and how to report it; and Require programs to have plans in place to provide emergency medical care. Prevent deceptive marketing by residential programs for teens-- Require programs to disclose to parents the qualifications, roles, and responsibilities of all current staff members; Require programs to notify parents of substantiated reports of child abuse or violations of health and safety laws; and Require programs to include a link or web address for the website of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which will carry information on residential programs. Hold teen residential programs accountable for violating the law-- Require states to inform the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services of reports of child abuse and neglect at covered programs and require HHS to conduct investigations of such programs to determine if a violation of the national standards has occurred; and Give HHS the authority to assess civil penalties of up to $50,000 against programs for every violation of the law. Ask States to step in to protect teens in residential programs-- Three years after enactment, the legislation would provide certain Federal grant money to States only if they development their own licensing standards, that are at least strong as national standards, for public and private residential programs for teens and implement a monitoring and enforcement system, including conducting unannounced site inspections of all programs at least once every 2 years. The Department of Health and Human Services would continue to inspect programs where a child fatality has occurred or where a pattern of violations has emerged. This legislation seeks to protect the unprotected--our children--from abuse, neglect and exploitation. Many of these children are not safe, and their futures are uncertain. The groups serving children and adolescents with mental health or substance use conditions need better regulation. The youth boot camps and other ``alternative placement facilities'' should be forced to provide greater transparency as to the policies and practices of their programs. This legislation is a welcomed and needed response to numerous studies documenting the ineffectiveness of these programs and, in several instances, the tragic deaths as a result of child abuse and neglect as reported by the GAO in October 2007. Too many families struggle mightily in nearly every state to find placements, when appropriate, for their children that will address their complex mental health needs. These facilities flourish, in part, because parents lack the necessary information about the operation and practices of these programs. The promise of help cannot be allowed to obscure the fact that these kinds of program are not science-based and have not been forthcoming about the incidence of neglect or abuse. This addresses the challenges facing many families. It seeks relief from these risks by (1) establishing standards for these programs that are consistent with current child protection laws; (2) ensuring that personnel is qualified; (3) shifting these programs to be family- centered, as well as culturally and developmentally appropriate; (4) creating mechanisms for the monitoring and enforcement of these goals; (5) calling for greater transparency and accessibility to the compliance of these standards; and (6) providing grants to states for the prevention of child abuse and neglect and for the treatment of children's mental health or substance use conditions. Additionally, the annual report to Congress is an effective tool in ensuring that these critical issues emerge from the shadows and see the light of day. I share the vision and commitment of Chairman Miller and the Education and Labor Committee in protecting our youth from such predators. I urge my colleagues to vote for our children, vote for our families, and vote for H.R. 5876.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the manager of this legislation, Mr. Lacy Clay, and my special appreciation to the chairperson of the full committee, Chairman Waxman. He expressed a great deal of appreciation and sensitivity for this legislation; and to the ranking member, Mr. Tom Davis, to the staff of the committee for their untiring work and dedication, and certainly to the manager on the minority side on this legislation. I am delighted to see a number of Members on the floor of the House, and I am especially appreciative of the gospel singers and advocates who have helped encourage this legislation to move forward. Let me also thank Senator Blanche Lincoln who authored this legislation in the Senate, along with Senator Hutchinson and my cosponsor, Congresswoman Bono Mack. We understand that this Congress has an opportunity on many occasions to celebrate and commemorate important historical cultures of this Nation. Gospel Music Heritage Month is that, for it is not with respect to race, color or creed, or even religion. As I was told by one artist singing in Japan, singing gospel music borne out of the seeds of slavery, that those in Japan were celebrating and clapping to that gospel music. Gospel music has been woven into the fabric of American society for centuries, deeply impacting hundreds of generations, from rock and roll, country, the blues, R&B, and even hip-hop. And so H. Con. Res. 370 designating the month of September is intended to offer to America an opportunity to pause for a moment and be able to celebrate gospel music. According to the Gospel Music Channel, which has been very helpful with this legislation, gospel music sales now account for nearly 8 percent of all music purchased in the United States, selling seven CDs for every 10 purchased in country music. Regardless of their musical styles, artists have turned to gospel music as a source of inspiration for their own music. And we recognize in this legislation a number of those cited, such as Tommy Dorsey, Mahalia Jackson, James Vaughan, Roberta Martin, and many more. And others who got their start through gospel music, Elvis Presley, Marvin Gaye, Aretha Franklin, Buddy Holly, Whitney Houston, Ray Charles, Dolly Parton, Mariah Carey, Bob Dylan, and Randy Travis, to mention a few. We know that Mahalia Jackson reigned as a pioneer interpreter of gospel music, and I know that she will be discussed with great admiration. I loved to hear her sing. And yes, of course, one of our other great and wonderful stars that we have here, the famous James Cleveland, someone that everyone knew, born in Chicago, Illinois, but no one can offer a voice likes James Cleveland, leading choirs, inspiring others, recognizing that choir rehearsals were the cause of the inspiration of music in our churches. As we recognize James Cleveland, we are still reminded of the great work he has done.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. James Cleveland was, of course, the choir director's choir director. It was in one of these rehearsals that James was singing, and he was noticed and made a choir mascot. The choir director, Thomas A. Dorsey, wrote a song for him which launched the career of what was to be a long line of performances. Through Dorsey's teaching and directing, James was influenced in a great way, and James Cleveland became himself, the great teacher, the great choir director, the great musician, and boy, he could move your spirit. James Cleveland will be remembered, and we will be able to celebrate him and his music in this wonderful month. Many of us know the wonderful songstress of Sandi Patty, still bursting with creative energy and magnetic talent three decades into her career. The Gospel Music Hall of Fame inductee with 39 Dove awards, 5 Grammy awards, and an armload of platinum and gold albums has seen professional peaks and personal valleys alike while in the spotlight, all of them tempered by the grace of God. Sandi Patty is one that will be a light as we honor Gospel Music Heritage Month. And then our own hometown girl, Yolanda Adams, who debuted her song, ``Just As I Am'' in the 1980s. I remember sitting on the seats of many churches and seeing Yolanda, a tall, regal young teacher, sing in the choir. And then when she came to her own and began to sing and win all of these awards being reminded of her songs, ``Mountain High . . . Valley Low,'' and of course many other songs that she had sung, winning many awards having that wonderful regal ability to convey her spirit, and particularly her song, ``I need you now.'' Yolanda Adams, along with Mary Mary, Kurt Carr, V. Michael McKay, Kathy Taylor, and many others in and around the State of Texas and elsewhere, are well to be remembered. Brenda Ward, Carl Preacher, and Shirley Joiner, as Gospel greats of BC&S. So many have offered a joy to this Nation. That is why I ask my colleagues to support this resolution celebrating and stopping for a moment in the month of September every year to commemorate gospel music heritage. Remember, it is not a respect of color or creed or religion; it is an opportunity to feel your spirit. So let me ask my colleagues to support this legislation. I thank Mr. Clay for his time. I thank my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my legislation, H. Con. Res. 370, Expressing support for designation of September 2008 as ``Gospel Music Heritage Month'' and honoring Gospel music for its valuable and longstanding contributions to the culture of the United States. I am delighted to stand on the floor of the House today to honor, recognize, preserve, and promote the legacy and contributions that Gospel music has made to our society. Gospel music has been woven into the fabric of American society for centuries, deeply impacting hundreds of generations. From rock and roll, country, the blues, R&B, and even hip hop, Gospel's musical roots can be heard throughout many musical genres that we love today. Not only has Gospel music entertained the masses, but its spiritual roots have spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ to millions, giving it the unique ability to minister to souls around the world. It is very important that we recognize and celebrate the vital role Gospel music has played in music history and also in contemporary times. That is why I am so proud of my legislation, H. Con. Res. 370, Designating September as ``Gospel Music Heritage Month.'' This bill recognizes Gospel music's contributions in American culture by celebrating its rich heritage and artists for a full month. I urge my fellow Members of Congress to support this vital legislation. As we know, Gospel music is an American art form that has spanned throughout hundreds of years. Its musical elements can be heard melodiously infused in many genres that we love today. It has grown beyond its roots to achieve pop-culture and historical relevance, touching audiences around the world. According to the Gospel Music Channel, ``Gospel music sales now account for nearly 8 percent of all music purchased in the United States, selling seven CDs for every ten purchased in country music.'' Regardless of their musical styles, artists have turned to Gospel music as the source and inspiration for their own music, which has blurred the boundaries between secular and Gospel music. Gospel music has provided a cultural and musical backdrop across all of mainstream media, from hit television series to major Hollywood motion pictures, including ``American Idol,'' ``Dancing with the Stars,'' ``Sister Act,'' and more. The history of Gospel music can be traced back to African American spirituals that blended diverse elements from traditional African music, folk songs and hymns, and ultimately borrowed from other American musical styles including ragtime, jazz, and blues. Let us not forget that the legacy of Gospel music includes some of the most memorable voices and pioneers in American history, such as Thomas Dorsey, Mahalia Jackson, James Vaughan, Roberta Martin, and many more. Gospel music has paved the way for legendary recording artists such as Elvis Presley, Marvin Gaye, Aretha Franklin, Buddy Holly, Whitney Houston, Ray Charles, Dolly Parton, Mariah Carey, Bob Dylan, and Randy Travis just to name a few. Let us now take a look at some of Gospel's most influential, recognizable artists: Mahalia Jackson reigned as a pioneer interpreter of gospel music whose fervent contralto was one of the great voices of this century. Both gospel and rhythm and blues had their roots in the sanctified church, but whereas blues and R&B departed on secular paths that led to rock and roll, gospel stayed the spiritual course. Nonetheless, the influence of gospel on R&B and rock and roll, especially through such force-of-nature voices as Jackson's, is inescapable. Little Richard has cited Jackson as an inspiration, calling her ``the true queen of spiritual singers.'' No other Christian artist at work today is better suited to sing about life's journey than Sandi Patty. Still bursting with creative energy and magnetic talent three decades into her career, the Gospel Music Hall of Fame inductee with 39 Dove Awards, five Grammy Awards, and an armload of platinum and gold albums has seen professional peaks and personal valleys alike while in the spotlight, all of them tempered by the grace of God. The Winans are a contemporary Christian music group formed by four brothers, Marvin, Carvin, Ronald and Michael Winans, from Detroit, Michigan, USA. The family has additionally produced two well-known solo/duo gospel performers, BeBe and CeCe Winans. After having sung in gospel choirs all their lives the brothers began their professional career in the early 80s. Staying close to their gospel roots but always maintaining a distinctive, jazzy sound, their reputation saw them work and perform with leading artists including Vanessa Bell Armstrong, Anita Baker and Michael McDonald, the latter pair both appearing on their 1987 album, Decision. Their two QWest albums of the early 90s, Return and All Out, saw the Winans attempt to convert their popularity into mainstream R&B success. Even this, however, was motivated by moral concerns: ``The whole purpose was to win over young people who might have been on the verge of going into a life of crime or going off track,'' Ronald Winans told Billboard magazine in 1995. Ever since her late-80s debut Just As I Am, Yolanda Adams has triumphantly carried the torch for contemporary gospel and inspirational music via 12 glorious albums. Stunningly beautiful, exceptionally educated, filled with the spirit and blessed with one of the most powerful voices in any genre of music, this Houston-native and one-time school teacher has been a stately beacon of God's light, earning numerous accolades and awards for her shining efforts; including the first American Music Award for Contemporary Gospel Artist, four Gospel Music Association Dove Awards and four National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences Grammy' Awards (including 1999's Best Contemporary Soul Gospel Album for Mountain High . . . Valley Low which featured her secular breakthrough hit ``Open My Heart,'' and 2005's Best Gospel Song for ``Be Blessed,'' for which she was a co-writer). Since his debut, 1993's Kirk Franklin & the Family, Kirk Franklin has been one of the brightest stars in contemporary gospel music. The album spent 100 weeks on the gospel charts (some of those on top), crossed over to the R&B charts, and became the first gospel debut album to go platinum. His second album, Kirk Franklin & the Family Christmas, became the genre's first Christmas album to make it to number one, and his 1996 album Whatcha Lookin' 4 went gold as soon as it was distributed. With such phenomenal success, it is small wonder that some have hailed him ``the Garth Brooks of gospel.'' Still, despite all the adulation and brouhaha, Franklin remains a humble, devout Christian, eschewing the title ``entertainer'' in favor of labeling himself as just a ``church boy.'' The Reverend James Cleveland was born in Chicago, Illinois, on December 5, 1931, to Rosie Lee and Benjamin Cleveland during the height of the greatest depression. James' grandmother attended Pilgrim Baptist Church, where she was a member of the choir. James had no choice but to attend these rehearsals with his grandmother and found himself sitting through these choir rehearsals--bored stiff! Eventually James decided he would conquer the boredom through attempting to sing along with the choir. It was in one of these rehearsals that James' singing was noticed and he was made choir mascot. The choir director, Thomas A. Dorsey wrote a song for him which launched the career of what was to be a long line of performances. Through Dorsey's teaching and directing young James was influenced in a great way. Reverend Cleveland will never be forgotten as one of the world's foremost leaders and pioneers of gospel music and his gospel music ministry will live on. Literally every black gospel artist today has been influenced by James Cleveland. It's not hard to divide the world of Gospel quartet music into categories. In fact, there are really only two. There's the Mighty Clouds of Joy, and then there's everybody else. After 44 years and 35 albums, three Grammys and trophy-case full of almost every award imaginable; shows that have run a gamut from the church-house to the White House, and top-billings with a dazzling roster of superstar artists from nearly every genre of popular music (the Rolling Stones, Aretha Franklin, James Brown, Earth, Wind & Fire, Luther Vandross, Ray Charles, and Paul Simon are but a few), The Mighty Clouds of Joy are more than a Gospel legend. They are nothing less than a national treasure. Still, one must choose his words carefully when describing the Clouds. ``Icons?'' Absolutely. ``Pioneers?'' Without a doubt. ``Venerable?'' Most certainly. ``Forefathers'' of modern Gospel, R&B, rock and pop? It's just the straight fact of the matter; but don't let founding member and lead vocalist, Joe Ligon, or any of the other five Clouds hear you referring to them with any synonym that even hints at greatness in the past tense. Perhaps the most interesting story in modern Gospel music over the past few years has been the emergence from nowhere of Smokie Norful. Virtually unheard of when he released his debut album, I Need You Now, in early 2002, Norful became Billboard Magazine's #1 Gospel Artist of 2003 and also won the coveted 2003 Stellar Awards for both Best Male Vocalist and Best New Artist. It is encouraging to find new artists like Norful that are blending the rhythms and production quality of modern soul with the lyrical depth of modern Gospel. It also is encouraging that Urban Adult Contemporary radio was willing to embrace an obviously spiritual song such as ``I Need You Now.'' And while great Gospel artists such as Mary Mary and even Yolanda Adams had difficulty finding continuing broad crossover sales following their smash 2000 albums, fans of quality Soul will continue to hope that strong future material by artists such as Smokie Norful will lead to sustained mainstream success for spiritual music. Let me speak now, of some Gospel music that is particularly important to me: The Soul Stirrers, formed by Roy Crain in 1926, which became one of the most popular and influential gospel groups of the 20th Century and was the first Gospel group inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame; Joe Ligon and The Mighty Clouds of Joy, another quartet that got their start here in Houston; Don Robey's Peacock Records, which in its 1960s' gospel heyday, featured such artists as The Dixie Hummingbirds, Rev. Cleophus Robinson, The Loving Sisters and with its subsidiary label, Song Bird Records, released recordings from the legendary Inez Andrews and other Gospel Greats; BC&S (Brenda Waters, Carl Preacher & Shirley Joiner), the nucleus of what would become Southeast Inspirational Choir, the vehicle that launched the prolific solo career of Yolanda Adams; V. Michael McKay, one of the most prolific songwriters of our time, with songs like The Potter's House, The Battle is the Lord's, and Broken, But I'm Healed; Kathy Taylor, whose anointed voice is heard from the sanctuary of Windsor Village to places all around the world; Kirk Franklin, who in a decade brought Gospel Music out of the Church and back into the streets of the young people of America and the world, while revolutionizing the genre in the process; Kurt Carr, whose artistry demands the attention of the world, while at the same time, the heart of God . . . Psalm 150 states: ``Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heaven! Praise him for his mighty works; praise his unequaled greatness! Praise him with a blast of the ram's horn; praise him with the lyre and harp! Praise him with the tambourine and dancing; praise him with strings and flutes! Praise him with a clash of cymbals; praise him with loud clanging cymbals. Let everything that breathes sing praises to the Lord!'' Praising the Lord is at the core of Gospel music and today we honor the many Gospel musicians who have dedicated their lives to praising the Lord. Their messages of faith, hope, and wisdom continue to encourage in times of hardship, and express joy in times of prosperity. Gospel musicians use their talents to motivate listeners to live positive life styles grounded in love, patience, goodness, kindness, self-control, gentleness, peace, and joy; all of which we know as the Fruit of the Spirit. Today, Gospel music has a vast audience around the country and around the world. This is a testament to the universal appeal of a historical American art form that both inspires and entertains across racial, ethnic, religious, and geographic boundaries. Without a doubt, Gospel music deserves national recognition and I urge my colleagues to expediently pass this vital piece of legislation. By supporting H. Con. Res. 370, the Members of Congress will finally honor the great contributions of Gospel music artists of the yesteryears and years to come. Let us recognize the significant cultural contributions of Gospel music to the fabric that weaves together the patchwork of American society, by designating September as ``Gospel Music Heritage Month.'' I am grateful for the help of the Gospel Music Channel, the Grammys and my Gospel artists. I also appreciate the work of Gospel Music advocate Carl Davis. I would like to thank Senator Blanche Lincoln for her great leadership in the Senate in getting this resolution passed. I am proud to support H. Con. Res. 370 and to provide Congressional support for the designation of ``Gospel Music Heritage Month'' which would recognize the contributions to the culture of the United States derived from the rich heritage of Gospel music and Gospel music artists. I strongly urge all my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Filner, for constantly coming down on the side of veterans, and my good friend and colleague, Congressman Rodriguez, who eloquently articulated the importance of the GI Forum on its 60th anniversary. Let me thank the ranking member for participating in this debate, and commend my colleagues to this important resolution. I would just speak briefly of the GI Forum, that I saw just recently in a Judiciary Committee hearing, looking at the treatment of some of our soldiers who are not yet citizens, and how the burden falls on their shoulders, even though they are on the front lines of fighting for our freedom. So we do know there are inequities. But we appreciate the GI Forum for its leadership over the years, and clearly its founding member, who worked so hard and certainly is someone renowned and respected in Texas. So let me briefly congratulate the GI Forum in its 60th year, and commend my colleagues to reading about Army Major Hector P. Garcia, who we honored just a few weeks ago by naming the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and then recently reauthorized after Mr. Garcia. One item that comes to mind is that he moved the GI Forum, after being recognized by Lyndon Baines Johnson, Ronald Reagan as President, and former President Clinton, for his service, he began to move the GI Forum towards civil rights. He questioned some of the inequities, and used this organization with its mighty might of returning veterans to speak on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves. They did fight for education and civil rights and good health care. One of the stories that he is well-known for is the story recounted by my good friend from Texas of the soldier who came home from World War II and was not able to be buried in a South Texas funeral home. He thought that to be an unfortunate set of circumstances, and he called then President of the United States and moved this soldier from South Texas to be ultimately buried in the Arlington Cemetery. So that is the standard of the GI Forum. It is a helping hand for veterans. It is a respected, renowned, national organization, full of patriots who understand as they fought for freedom on the battlefields across the world that they would also fight for freedom here in the United States. Let me applaud the Veterans Committee and my good friend Congressman Rodriguez for this very astute legislation, recognition of a valid civil rights organization, the GI Forum, and ask my colleagues to vote for this.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I rise to support this legislation of Mr. Terry and to offer my deep sympathy. I serve on the board of the Boy Scouts in the Houston-Galveston area and have worked with the Boy Scouts for a very, very long time. And so I want to offer to the families of those who lost their life the deepest sympathy of those from Texas and to be able to express my appreciation for the organization of Boy Scouts that teaches character and leadership and empathy. And listening to the testimonies of those who survived and listening to the testimony of those boys who then helped others survive, I know that even in the loss of these young heroes other young boy Scouts will learn the lessons even better of leadership and challenge. I'd like to add my sympathy to the families and to the community. As we look over the Midwest, this has been an enormously tragic time. Families have lost their homes. They've lost loved ones, but this was particularly heart-wrenching, and many of us know the service that Boy Scouts give across America. And so I ask my colleagues, along with the Members who have come to the floor today to support H. Res. 1283, to recognize the great loss that we've experienced. We have to champion the organization of Boy Scouts that teaches leadership and service, but also begins to build the building blocks that allows those young men to be courageous as they were to help others in their time of need. Mr. Speaker, I ask support of the legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1271, Recognizing National Homeownership Month and the importance of homeownership in the United States, introduced by my distinguished colleague from California, Representative Gary Miller. This timely legislation helps to highlight the importance of ownership by recognizing homeowners in the United States. This legislation recognizes June 2008 as National Homeownership Month. We should be very proud that the people of the United States are one of the best-housed populations in the world. This phenomenon has evolved because we are anchored in the belief that owning a home is a fundamental part of the American dream and is the largest personal investment many families will ever make. Homeownership provides economic security for homeowners by aiding them in building wealth over time and strengthens communities through a greater stake among homeowners in local schools, civic organizations, and churches. Creating affordable homeownership opportunities requires the commitment and cooperation of the private, public, and nonprofit sectors, including the Federal Government and State and local governments. In 2007, Texas ranked fourth behind California, Florida, and Illinois in pre-foreclosures. Last year, Texas held the top seat for active foreclosures. This is why it is important that we reaffirm that homeownership can be sustained through appropriate homeownership education and informed borrowers. Affordable homeownership and maintaining the confidence and morale of current homeowners will play a vital role in resolving the crisis in the United States housing market: Now, therefore, I fully support the goals and ideals of National Homeownership Month, and I recognize the importance of homeownership in building strong communities and families. H. Res. 1271 recognizes homeowners and only homeowners, not speculators or lenders. This legislation reminds us that we cannot continue to stand by as the housing market continues to deteriorate. U.S. home prices tumbled in April at the fastest rate since a widely- followed index was begun in 2000 with all 20 metropolitan areas posting annual declines for the first time. Texas reported 13,829 properties entering some stage of foreclosure in April, a 16 percent increase from the previous month and the most foreclosure filings reported by any state. The state documented the nation's third highest state combined foreclosure rate--one foreclosure filing for every 582 households. Many homeowners in my district are worried about missing their next house payment or their next home equity mortgage, or their interest rate going up. These families are under stress and in constant fear of loosing their homes. This bill should not be the last word in housing legislation nor should it be restricted to the status of symbolic rhetoric. The American people need us to intervene in this housing crisis that is leaving many undeserving families homeless. This bill coupled with Congresswoman Maxine Waters' bill, H.R. 5818, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act, provides a good starting point in providing Americans with relief. We must never forget that many of the New Deal programs under President Roosevelt were considered bailouts at that time. And yet, these programs brought our country out of the Depression, rejuvenated our economy, and gave hope as we sought to deal with the War overseas. We are spending billions of dollars on the war in Iraq. I support our troops but I am dismayed at how our support for a war that needs to become less military and more diplomatic in nature, has disrupted our ability to take care of things at home. Thank you Madam Speaker for your leadership in this area, I urge my colleagues to support recognizing American homeowners by supporting H.R. 1271.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6331, the ``Protecting the Medicaid Safety Net Act of 2008.'' I would like to thank my colleague from New York, Chairman Charles Rangel for his leadership in this important issue. This legislation could not come at a more crucial time. Americans are in need of support. Rising gas prices, food costs at an all-time high, and a rocky housing market have pushed this great Nation towards an economic downturn. Families are clinging to basic necessities and quality healthcare is one of those essential needs. I am pleased to see that there is no language that inhibits physician ownership of general acute care hospitals. I have worked tirelessly with Members of leadership and with the Texas delegation to support general acute-care hospitals and their future development. Physicians who have decided to build in areas where often no other hospital will--should not be penalized for their commitment to work on the clinical and business side of health care. General acute-care hospitals still need to be able to: maintain a minimum number of physicians available at all times to provide service; provide a significant amount of charity care; treat at least 1/6 of their outpatient visits for emergency medical conditions on an urgent basis without requiring a previously scheduled appointment; maintain at least 10 full-time interns or residents-in-training in a teaching program; advertise or present themselves to the public as a place which provides emergency care; serve as a disproportionate share provider, serving a low income community with a disproportionate share of low income patients; and have at least 90 hospital beds available to patients. This issue is of the utmost importance to me because I, like others in the Democratic Caucus, have hospitals and hospital systems such as University Hospital Systems of Houston in my district that would have been greatly affected by this provision. For example, 2 years ago, St. Joseph Medical Center, downtown Houston's first and only teaching hospital, was on the verge of closing its doors. However, a hospital corporation in partnership with physicians purchased it, and as a result of proper and responsible management, has made it the premier hospital in the region, with a qualified emergency room responsive to a heavily populated downtown Houston. St. Joseph Medical Center is also in the process of reopening Houston Heights Hospital, the fourth oldest acute care hospital in Houston. This hospital will be serving a large Medicare/Medicaid population. I am committed to this issue and to the issue of health care for all Americans. Provisions that could end the expansion of truly compassionate hospital care in places like Texas, Maryland, New York and California have no place in healthcare legislation. What I do support is legislation that seeks to aid our elderly, our disabled, our veterans, our children and our indigent populations. I stand here today to show my support not only for the physicians and medical care providers of Houston, Texas, but for all of our healthcare providers across this country. We need them to continue to be able to care for our underserved and elderly--this bill allows them to do just that. This bill provides a delay of 18 months for the competitive bidding program for Durable Medical Equipment, DMEPOS. It also prevents the 10.6 percent pay cut to physicians that is scheduled to take place on July 1, and provides a 1.1 percent update starting January 1, 2009. This bill also includes important beneficiary improvements such as Medicare mental health parity, improved preventive coverage, and enhanced assistance for low-income beneficiaries. It contains provisions that will protect the fragile rural health care safety net. In my home State of Texas, we have not only great urban areas such as Houston, Dallas and Austin, we have over 300 rural areas in Texas with cities such as Rollingwood and Hamilton. Our rural health care providers are scheduled to receive steep cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates on July 1 unless we take action now. Such cuts are catastrophic in rural America, where a disproportionate number of elderly Americans live. These seniors are, per capita, older, poorer and sicker (with greater chronic illnesses) than their urban counterparts. Additionally, recruitment and retention of providers to much of rural America is often daunting. Provider shortages are rampant throughout many rural and most frontier regions. Additionally, H.R. 633 also includes several other critical provisions for rural providers which, cumulatively, create a rural package that will help protect both the rural health safety net and the health of tens of millions of seniors who call rural America home. H.R. 6331 focuses on strengthening primary care and takes significant strides in protecting rural seniors' access to care by correcting certain long-standing inequities between rural and urban providers. Thank you both for your continued concern for the health of rural Americans. So many enduring inequities in health care must be faced by rural patients and providers daily. H.R. 6331 offers critical assistance and will go far to improving the health of millions of rural Medicare beneficiaries. Quality measures must continue to be adequately funded in order to promote quality, cost-effective health care for consumers and employers. The uncertainty of Medicare payments makes it increasingly difficult for surgeons and their practices to plan for the expenses that they will incur as they serve their patients. The provisions included in H.R. 6331 would enable surgeons and surgical practices to plan for the rising costs that they will continue to face over the next year and a half. By addressing payment levels through 2009, Chairman Rangel has given us more time to study the payment issues surrounding Medicare and allow us to look at the systemic reforms needed to preserve access to quality surgical care and other physician services. As a long-time advocate for universal health care, I believe we must continue to support our essential medical providers so that they can focus on patient care. We need more physicians as we seek to expand health care for all Americans. Yet, how can we expect to grow that workforce when we continue to cut their reimbursement levels? We must support our physicians so that they may support and care for their patients. We have to continue to look at how we can save Medicare and expand it to care for those who need it most. I am proud to cosponsor legislation that will add support for our healthcare workforce. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4044, 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. H.R. 4044 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. I am a co-sponsor of this bill 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 a 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 lay 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. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3546 to reauthorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne-JAG) Program at fiscal year 2006 levels through 2012. The Byrne-JAG monies are supposed to be used to make America a safer place. I support the reauthorization and I would urge my colleagues to do likewise. Why Byrne-JAG is Necessary 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. Recent Cuts in Byrne JAG Funding 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. Past Problems with Byrne JAG 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 corroborate 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. The scandals are more widespread than just a few instances. A 2002 report by the ACLU of Texas identified seventeen scandals involving Byrne-funded anti-drug task forces in Texas, including cases of falsifying government records, witness tampering, fabricating evidence, stealing drugs from evidence lockers, selling drugs to children, large- scale racial profiling, sexual harassment, and other abuses of official capacity. Texas is not the only State that has suffered from Byrne-funded law enforcement scandals. Scandals in other States have included the misuse of millions of dollars in federal grant money in Kentucky and Massachusetts, false convictions based upon police perjury in Missouri, and making deals with drug offenders to drop or lower their charges in exchange for money or vehicles in Alabama, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin. A 2001 study by the Government Accountability Office found that the federal government fails to adequately monitor the grant program and hold grantees accountable. Amendment Considered But Not Offered Because of these abuses, I would have offered an amendment when this bill was considered at the Full Judiciary Committee markup. My amendment would have addressed the responsible use of Byrne-JAG monies. Specifically, my amendment would have required that a State that receives Byrne-JAG money should collect data for the most recent year for which such funds were allocated to such State, with respect to: (1) The racial distribution of criminal charges made during that year; (2) The nature of the criminal law specified in the charges made; and (3) The city of law enforcement jurisdiction in which the charges were made. My amendment would have required a condition of receiving funds that the State should submit to the Attorney General the data collected by not later than one year after the date the State received funds. Lastly, the report should be posted on the Bureau of Justice Statistics website and submitted to the Attorney General. My amendment is good because arrests will be transparent and the light of day and public airing of any problems will be the greatest disinfectant. My amendment is an attempt to make law enforcement more responsible, more accountable, and more just in their dealings with persons of all races and backgrounds. My amendment is but a small price to pay to rid the nation of scandals and disasters that occurred in Tulia, Texas and elsewhere. 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. The scandals are more widespread than just a few instances. A 2002 report by the ACLU of Texas identified seventeen scandals involving Byrne-funded anti-drug task forces in Texas, including cases of falsifying government records, witness tampering, fabricating evidence, stealing drugs from evidence lockers, selling drugs to children, large- scale racial profiling, sexual harassment, and other abuses of official capacity. Texas is not the only state that has suffered from Byrne-funded law enforcement scandals. Scandals in other states have included the misuse of millions of dollars in federal grant money in Kentucky and Massachusetts, false convictions based upon police perjury in Missouri, and making deals with drug offenders to drop or lower their charges in exchange for money or vehicles in Alabama, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin. A 2001 study by the Government Accountability Office found that the federal government fails to adequately monitor the grant program and hold grantees accountable. My amendment, which I would have offered, would provide oversight and accountability. It is not burdensome. It will not prevent the States from collecting and funding programs under the Byrne Grant program. My amendment does however shed light on any maladies that might exist in the system. Once we see the problems, we can fix them. My amendment is responsible and aims to make the Byrne-Grant program a better program by ensuring that the funding is used appropriately and is used with oversight. No More Tulias While I support the Byrne JAG reauthorization, I would also my urge my colleagues to also support my bill, H.R. 253, No More Tulias: Drug Law Enforcement Evidentiary Standards Improvement Act of 2007. This bill also enhances accountability with respect to the use of Byrne JAG monies. First, it prohibits a state from receiving for a fiscal year any drug control and system improvement (Byrne) grant funds, or any other amount from any other law enforcement assistance program of the Department of Justice, unless the state does not fund any antidrug task forces for that fiscal year or the state has in effect laws that ensure that: (1) A person is not convicted of a drug offense unless the facts that a drug offense was committed and that the person committed that offense are supported by evidence other than the eyewitness testimony of a law enforcement officer or individuals acting on an officer's behalf; and (2) an officer does not participate, in an antidrug task force unless that officer's honesty and integrity is evaluated and found to be at an appropriately high level. Second, H.R. 253, No More Tulias, requires that states receiving federal funds under the No More Tulias Act to collect data on the racial distribution of drug charges, the nature of the criminal law specified in the charges, and the jurisdictions in which such charges are made. I urge my colleagues to support my No More Tulias Act so that we can quickly bring the bill to markup. I also urge my colleagues to support Byrne JAG.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the commemoration of the 44th Anniversary of the death of civil rights workers Andrew Goodman, James Chaney and Michael Schwerner in Philadelphia, Mississippi while working in the name of American democracy to register voters and secure civil rights during the summer of 1964, which would become known as Freedom Summer. I would like to thank my fellow Judiciary member and the gentleman from Georgia, Congressman John Lewis for introducing this legislation. The right to vote has held a central place in the black freedom struggle. After emancipation, African Americans sought the ballot as a means to in American society. During the summer of 1964, thousands of civil rights activists, many of them white college students from the North, descended on Mississippi and other Southern states to try to end the long-time political disenfranchisement of African Americans in the region. Although blacks had won the right to vote in 1870, thanks to the Fifteenth Amendment, for the next 100 years many were unable to exercise that right. White local and state officials systematically kept blacks from voting through formal methods, such as poll taxes and literacy tests, and through cruder methods of fear and intimidation, which included beatings and lynchings. Freedom Summer marked the climax of intensive voter-registration activities in the South that had started in 1961. Organizers chose to focus their efforts on Mississippi because of the State's particularly dismal voting-rights record: in 1962 only 6.7 percent of African Americans in the State were registered to vote, the lowest percentage in the country. The Freedom Summer campaign was organized by a coalition called the Mississippi Council of Federated Organizations, which was led by the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), and included the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Freedom Summer activists faced threats and harassment throughout the campaign, not only from white supremacist groups, but from local residents and police. Freedom School buildings and the volunteers' homes were frequent targets; 37 black churches and 30 black homes and businesses were firebombed or burned during that summer, and the cases often went unsolved. More than 1000 black and white volunteers were arrested, and at least 80 were beaten by white mobs or racist police officers. But the summer's most infamous act of violence was the murder of three young civil rights workers--a black volunteer, James Chaney, and his white coworkers, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner. On June 21, Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner set out to investigate a church bombing near Philadelphia, Mississippi, but were arrested that afternoon and held for several hours on alleged traffic violations. Their release from jail was the last time they were seen alive before their badly decomposed bodies were discovered under a nearby dam six weeks later. Goodman and Schwerner had died from single gunshot wounds to the chest, and Chaney from a savage beating. These savage attacks were perpetrated by the Ku Klux Klan. The FBI investigation that uncovered the deaths of these three brave young men, white and black, also led to the discovery of the bodies of several other African-Americans from Mississippi, whose disappearances over the years had not attracted much attention. On December 4, 1964, 21 White Mississippians from Philadelphia, Mississippi, including the sheriff and his deputy, were arrested and charged with conspiring to deprive Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, and Michael Schwerner of their civil rights, because murder was not a Federal crime. Ironically, on the very same day, December 4, 1964, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. received the Nobel Peace Prize. Later, a District Court judge dismissed the charges against the 21 Whites. After three years, and an appeal to the Supreme Court, seven individuals were found guilty, but 2 of the defendants, including Edgar Ray Killen, who had been implicated by witnesses, were acquitted because the jury was deadlocked on charges. Over twenty years later, on June 21, 2005 after new evidence, a jury convicted Edgar Ray Killen on 3 counts of manslaughter. These freedom riders made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom of all people, black and white. It is fitting that we recognize them and pay tribute, respect, and homage to them, and to the legacy that they have left behind. We commemorate and acknowledge the legacy of these brave Americans who participated in the civil rights movement and the role they played in changing the hearts and minds of Americans. We also celebrate these Americans for their decision to create a political environment necessary to pass legislation to expand civil rights and voting rights for all Americans.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6344 the ``Responsive Government Act of 2008. This bill is important because it liberalizes the technical filing requirements in judicial proceedings in the event of a disaster or other emergency situation. The bill provides flexibility in both criminal and civil matters, including patents. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Hurricane Katrina was the costliest and one of the deadliest hurricanes in the history of the United States. It was the sixth- strongest Atlantic hurricane ever recorded and the third-strongest hurricane on record that made landfall in the United States. Katrina formed on August 23 during the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and caused devastation along much of the north-central gulf coast of the United States. Most notable in media coverage were the catastrophic effects on the city of New Orleans, Louisiana, and in coastal Mississippi. Due to its sheer size, Katrina devastated the gulf coast as far as 100 miles from the storm's epicenter. The images of the detriment and devastation remain deeply etched in my mind and much of the remnants of the tragedy still remain in those communities today. The storm surge caused severe and catastrophic damage along the gulf coast, devastating the cities of Bay St. Louis, Waveland, Biloxi/Gulfport in Mississippi, Mobile, Alabama, and Slidell, Louisiana and other towns in Louisiana. Levees separating Lake Pontchartrain and several canals from New Orleans were breached a few days after Hurricane Katrina had subsided, subsequently flooding 80 percent of the city and many areas of neighboring parishes for weeks. In addition, severe wind damage was reported well inland. This commonsense bill recognizes that deadlines in judicial proceeding need to be relaxed when there are natural disasters and emergencies. I support the bill. Specifically, the bill provides federal courts with needed emergency authority to toll or delay judicial proceedings in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency situation in which courts are closed, making it impracticable for parties, including the United States, to comply with certain filing deadlines. Section 3 of the bill provides authority to the Director of the Patent and Trademark office to waive statutory provisions governing patents, trademark registrations and applications to the extent the Director deems necessary to protect the rights and privileges of people affected by certain emergencies or a major disaster. The Responsive Government Act provides essential flexibility to the courts and the PTO to help ameliorate the practical difficulties caused by these emergency situations. Finally, Section 4 provides the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office with the discretion to accept an application for a patent term extension filed not later than three days after the expiration of the 60-day period in Title 35 U.S.C. 156, provided the Director determines that the delay in filing the application was unintentional. This provision, which corrects an anomaly in the patent law, will provide needed flexibility to the PTO to excuse minor filing errors and will promote important clinical research that can benefit the lives of seriously ill patients. This provision has the support of leading medical practitioners across the Nation. This bill is common sense. It relaxes the technical filing requirements during times of disaster or emergency. Given the disaster and tough times that we have faced within the last 8 years, with disasters such as Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, and the tragic events of 9/11, Congress needs to have a sensible response to these events. Litigants and patentees should not be penalized because of force majeur and other events beyond their control. Because this bill is sensible, responsible legislation, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1229, recognizing the achievements of America's high school valedictorians of the graduating class of 2008, promoting the importance of encouraging intellectual growth, and rewarding academic excellence of all American high school students, introduced by my distinguished colleague from New York, Representative Gregory Meeks, of which I am a proud cosponsor. This bill is an important step in continuing and promoting the excellent secondary education that our nation provides. This legislation recognizes the fine accomplishments of the graduating class of 2008 and commends them for their intellectual pursuits as well as their academic achievements. This bill, furthermore, recognizes the family members, teachers, school administrators, and community members that have nurtured the intellectual growth and rewarded the academic achievements of this year's valedictorians and graduating seniors. This year, valedictorians across America have succeeded in tremendous academic endeavors. Whether by inspiring their fellow classmates to study a little longer for a test, or by tutoring them to write an essay, valedictorians have acted as noteworthy role models to their peers. Furthermore, through their hard work and dedications, they have enriched their academic communities. It is further important that we recognize that valedictorians often engage in extracurricular activities, enriching their local communities and the nation by furthering economic, cultural, and social accomplishments. By volunteering their time in soup kitchens, acting as captain of the soccer team or chess club, or simply taking an after- school job, valedictorians learn more than math and English, they learn to contribute significantly to our society. As Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I recognize the importance of today's youth. Valedictorians as well as graduating seniors of 2008 will become the future businessmen, leaders, teachers, and scientists that lead this nation. They will use their extraordinary talents to make the world a better place. As thus, it is important for them to continue to cultivate their strengths by attending one of the many universities that this great nation has to offer. I support this legislation that encourages valedictorians and the graduating class of 2008 as a whole, to further their intellectual inquiry and academic studies beyond their secondary education. With over 15,000 of our nation's schools recognizing this year's valedictorians as the highest academically-ranked students in their graduating class, the members of Congress, as representatives of our nation, must recognize these talented individuals for their hard work. By doing so, we demonstrate the importance of education and show our support for the continued hard work of students across the country. Without this official recognition, talented youth may not feel support which can push them to achieve high goals, such as past valedictorians and the valedictorians of the 2008 graduating class have achieved. I feel strongly that this bill is a step toward providing support for students. This legislation is imperative to recognizing the achievement of the graduating class of 2008, supporting social engagements by graduating seniors to better our communities, and promoting continued intellectual pursuits by these men and women at colleges and universities. As the Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, a Representative of the people of the United States, and a mother of two, I am proud to cosponsor this legislation and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I want to thank my distinguished friend, Congressman Ed Towns. I think it's important to note of his leadership on the Energy and Commerce Committee for any number of years. We have joined together on understanding this issue as it impacts our very broad communities. The distinguished Congressman, as I note, my good friend from Georgia, is on the floor as well. We all come from different districts. He comes from an urban-centered northeastern district that has mass transit very deeply, but as well it's interesting to note that the cost of gasoline impacts all of our constituents. I come from a broad, if you will, expensive district in the State of Texas that has not only a fledgling metro system, a metro system that we are just beginning to build, mass transit, but as well it is a community that uses its cars. We carpool. We carpool to work. We live very far apart. It is a very large district. Therefore, the cost of gasoline is very, very costly. So we have to come together to address this question from the perspective of how will the consumer feel? We know there has been a question, a bracelet everybody used to wear asking the question how would a certain heavenly person feel about a question. We now ask, how does the consumer feel? So I rise today to say that I think it is important for this Congress to come together and to be able to push forward an energy agenda that really gets down to the real individuals that are burdened by this cause. So let me explain, Mr. Towns, what I believe is important. First, let me applaud the leadership for their new direction in energy. It is an important direction. It is a greening direction. It focuses on alternatives. It focuses on creating green jobs and getting a sense of understanding about the smallness of the resources that are available now, the fossil fuel and other energy resources that need to be utilized, and therefore it is important to, if you will, impress upon Americans the value of conservation. But, at the same time, I think there are a lot of other issues that we can discuss. I believe we should accept the premise that there are a number of energy resources that this Congress needs to address. For example, I come from Texas, and obviously we utilize fossil fuel. I think it is important to recognize that fossil fuel is present, but I think we need to emphasize looking at independent producers. They were very prominent in years past. These are smaller companies. I do believe we need to look at where we are exploring off the Gulf, where those States of Louisiana and Texas have willingly accepted the exploration of the Gulf in a safe and environmental way. Two or three years ago, Congressman Nick Lampson and myself passed legislation to encourage the Federal Government to do an inventory of what was available in terms of fossil fuel resources in the Gulf. I think it is important. We know that there are challenges to exploring the Outer Continental Shelf. There are challenges to exploring ANWR. There are challenges in exploring the coast off the East Coast and the California coast and the Florida coast. I believe those issues are issues that we have to work with the local jurisdictions and the governors and consumers for that to be a comfortable process. But let us not get stuck on that. There are resources in the Gulf. We have found that there is oil shale, I believe, that has been discovered in West Virginia. There are other domestic resources that have been discovered in Mississippi. We need to be able to utilize and to be able to encourage the safe development of existing resources. We know that our own multinational energy companies are holding leases they have not utilized. I believe it is important to call these individuals into Washington. The President needs to call these individuals into Washington, the heads of these major companies, and let us discuss why these oil leases are not being utilized, because there lies a possibility of additional resources. Mr. Towns, you know that we have been discussing over the years the increasing of minority energy entrepreneurs. They come in all shapes and sizes. But I happen to know an energy company in the State of Texas, Osyka, that is held solely by African Americans with domestic deposits. They have resources. But what do they need? They need investment. They are not overseas. They are right here in the United States, but they need investment. So I think there are a lot of small, independent producers that the legislative scheme here in the United States does not foster their development, does not provide them access to capital, does not allow them to build on the resources that they have. You can be assured that the more resources we put out allows us to have the ability to bring down the cost of gasoline. Let me add an additional point that I think should be considered. When you talk to the multinationals about the cost of gasoline, they will refer you to the antiquated refineries, that they need to build more refineries. That too requires a coming together at the table. I believe we need to have a discussion so they can explain what does it mean by having an antiquated refinery? There is a new refinery being built in East Texas and in Louisiana. That refinery took a long time to build. But maybe we need to update the refineries. I know that is a questionable proposal and policy to make them more environmentally efficient and safe. That is a key element to dealing with this. Before I yield back and wait a moment as you yield to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, I want to cite some numbers that say that the Energy Information Administration estimates that the United States imports nearly 60 percent of the oil it consumes. The world's greatest petroleum reserves reside in regions of high geopolitical risk, including 57 percent which are in the Persian Gulf. Replacing oil imports with domestic alternatives such as traditional and cellulosic ethanol cannot only help reduce the $180 billion that oil contributes to it our annual trade deficit, it can end our addiction to foreign oil. These alternatives should be matched with domestic production. That may help a lot of these small interested producers. Also the individual oil companies, the large ones who have leases here in the United States, we need to have an inventory and get a determination, as I said, as to why these leases are not being developed. According to the Department of Agriculture, biomass can replace 30 percent of our Nation's petroleum consumption. So there are ways we can confront this issue. One other way, of course, is to develop more professionals, which we have discussed, and I want to discuss that later. Let me conclude by saying we have a real crisis in addition to the cost of gasoline. That crisis includes jet fuel. We are seeing the merger of airlines and also a crisis in the airline industry because of the cost of jet fuel. That too impacts on our consumers. So I frankly believe as we discuss this, Mr. Towns, we should talk about what speculators have done to the energy industry. We should talk about minority entrepreneurs who are able to participate in this industry. We should talk about independent producers. We should talk about greening America. We should talk about conservation. And really we should get to the bottom line of how we help our consumers. I think if we bring all these elements together, we will be able to do so. I will yield back to the gentleman and will join you at a later time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank you very much. I'm glad to have an opportunity to engage again and to thank Congressman Towns. As I have listened to both Congressman Johnson and Congresswoman Lee, I hope that what is gleaned to our colleagues as they listen to us is that there is a consensus, a meeting of the minds, that we've got to do something different. I applaud Congresswoman Lee's collaboration with her mayor, Mayor Dellums. As I was standing here, I was reflecting on the work that our city is doing. We have Mayor Bill White, but I'm quite familiar with the Apollo Alliance, and I was just thinking that it's time now for another meeting to be able to join in that kind of expansive effort. So, if the Apollo Alliance is listening, let me congratulate them, and let me tell them to come on down to Texas. We've had some meetings early on, but it's the whole concept of educating individuals to change their lives. You said something else, Congresswoman, about energy. You used the word ``energy'' and the words ``energy industry.'' That's coming from what we perceive to be the oil capital of the world--Houston, Texas. I want you to know a lot of hardworking people are working in the energy industry, and they, too, see a new world of alternative fuels and also an opportunity to match, if you will, efficiently explored fossil fuels, because it does exist. There is something called ``clean coal.'' As I indicated to you, there is something in the gulf, outside of your birthplace in Texas and Louisiana, where they have been quietly exploring oil and gas for a number of years, and it has been efficient. Even during Hurricane Katrina we noted that those rigs still stayed safe in the gulf. So we can find ways to combine these efforts. As I listened to Congressman Johnson and he took us chronologically to 2001, I want to remind him that post 2001, in 2002, there was created the havoc and the travesty and obviously, as he indicated, the crisis of the Iraq war. Whether or not the Iraq war was for oil, as has been debated, it destabilized the region. When you destabilize the region where all of the oil is coming from, you obviously dumb down the resources coming from that area. But I wanted to bring to the attention of my colleagues that we know that Saudi Arabia, in this meeting that they've held in the last 48 hours, has suggested that they will increase oil production by 200,000 barrels a day to 9.7 million barrels a day, starting on July 1, in response to the current energy crisis. The concern there, of course, is that China is increasing its needs, and even though we're sort of plateauing out, I do believe that this is an issue that might not be resolved by the increase in the per barrel per day, meaning the 200,000 barrels per day. We need a summit. We need a summit here in the United States. We need to get all of the parties together, discussing these components--the high gasoline price, the lack of utilization of the independent producers, not giving capital an access to African Americans and to other minorities who, in fact, might be good stewards of the energy resources, such as those who are finding oil in the Deep South, such as those who are engaged in green and in alternative fuels such as wind. I offered a bill on cellulosic ethanol, which, I think, is really one of the next steps. Of course, this was embodied in the Democratic conservation bill that included cellulosic ethanol. I know there has been debate over corn ethanol, but here is an approach: Through cellulosic ethanol, costly though it may be, it has a long-term impact. I also believe it's important to support the legislation that has been offered by two of our colleagues--one to be, I believe, John Larson, who is moving forward on legislation that has to do with the speculator. We have heard, even today, oil analysts who have said that the speculators are adding an artificial price. In fact, the Enron loophole that was offered by Senator Graham has given a whole array, a whole new industry on speculation, and more and more energy companies are pulling back from that. They're dealing with their own product and with their own need, and I want to applaud them for that. I want to cite Representative Van Hollen's Energy Markets Anti- Manipulation and Integrity Restoration Act. I happen to be a cosponsor of that legislation. I think it's important. I voted to stop the filling on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which will help American families by temporarily diverting the 70,000 barrels of oil that goes to the SPR a day and putting them out on the market. What I think is important, again, Congressman Towns, is that we're not having face-to-face discussions. I asked the question of one of the members of OPEC: What would be the possibility of Members of Congress being observers at the OPEC meeting? The OPEC meeting has large numbers of African countries. It has large numbers of countries from South America. Then, of course, it has those from the Middle East. I, frankly, believe it's somewhat similar to treaty discussions, that it's somewhat similar to the discussion on race in South Africa when they were on track, that it's somewhat similar to the United Nations. It would be Members of Congress' representing the most powerful law-making body in the world, as described by others, their being able to go to the OPEC meetings as observers and understanding the process of how this oil and gas moves. This does not diminish the call for conservation. But I do think it will open our eyes.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If I may quickly conclude so my distinguished friend from Georgia, who has made some valid points about the Iraq war that we are still suffering, I was reading something, Congressman Johnson, about the condition of the Iraq oil wells and the difficulty of bringing them online and the need for U.S. investment or other investment. It is interesting, a lot of people think we are making a lot of money in Iraq; we are spending a lot of money in Iraq, I will tell you that. Let me say this. I will thank all three of my colleagues. I will continue to work and pursue an answer. The Representative indicated he was very interested, and would go back and ask. The meeting is in September and I will pursue that. I don't have the exact location, but I believe it is in Europe. If so, it would be easy for us to go. I think the other part would be to give the energy leadership of these multinationals, and obviously they are in my congressional district, but a forum to be able to have a conversation outside of a hearing setting. We need to ask the hard questions. We need to ask how much of the cost of gasoline is the refinery cost? How much of the cost of jet fuel is refinery cost? What is attributable to having old refineries, and what can you do to make the energy name of your industry more diverse, to have more green and more alternatives such as wind and biomass. I am told that wind is very expensive, but you can't get that answer if we are not sitting down at the table. I thank the gentleman for the idea of a summit. We may work on that. Let me conclude by saying we have been working in this Congress. I don't want anyone to think that we have not been sensitive. You listed a whole road map that you, Mr. Towns, as a senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee have been very much involved in. For example, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008, a combination of the Ways and Means Committee and the Energy Committee, which I think is very important because it encourages the development of innovative technologies, creating new jobs, reducing carbon emissions, protecting consumers, shifting production to cleaner renewable energy, and modernizing our energy infrastructure. The note I want to end on is we have to get more young people involved.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. And that is very important. What I want to end on is we must get more of our young people involved in the energy industry. We worked on this, Congressman Towns. We had a bill about geologists. I have listened to Congresswoman Lee as the chairwoman of the Energy Brain Trust, and we are going to try and focus on that and push our communities, Hispanics and African Americans and other minorities and women, to get into this industry and provide their sensitivity and provide their perspective so that they can talk eloquently about what gasoline prices really mean when they are this high. And then to add to the broader community of America who is crying out for relief, I believe we can turn the corner, or we should, and to bring to all of America an opportunity to have reasonable energy resources, heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer, and reasonable gasoline prices; because, frankly, I don't think that we can last much longer if we don't bring relief. I thank you for bringing this very important special order to the floor tonight.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I want to thank Congressman Towns, and let me extend to my colleagues an invitation to come to Houston and let us have a summit, a discussion, beginning discussion for energy and getting a roadmap for energy. I would like to thank my fellow CBC Member, Representative Tubbs- Jones for her consistent leadership on the issue of energy. ``I am proud to have worked with my dear colleague in the CBC on a number of occasions to promote a most energy responsible America. We are all painfully aware of the devastation high energy prices have had on American families. This New Direction Congress, of which I am proud to be a part, is fighting to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring down record gas prices, and launch a cleaner, smarter energy future for America that lowers costs and creates hundreds of thousands of green jobs. It is undeniable that America, today, is in the midst of an energy crisis. Just this weekend, Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, announced that it will increase oil production by 200,000 barrels a day to 9.7 million barrels a day staring July 1st in response the current energy crisis. While this is an important step in the right direction, it is not enough. At a recent world economic forum in Doha, I called for Members of Congress and the United States Government to participate in OPEC's deliberations, in regards to energy production. I am extremely supportive of the legislation introduced by my distinguished colleague from Maryland, Representative Van Hollen, The Energy Markets Anti-Manipulation and Integrity Restoration Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor. This important legislation would close the so-called Enron loophole by adding energy to the list of items that cannot be traded on deregulated ``exempt commercial markets'', as well as closing the Foreign Board of Trade (FBOT) loophole by forbidding an exchange from being deemed an unregulated foreign entity if its trading affiliate or trading infrastructure is in the U.S., and it trades a U.S.-delivered contract that significantly affects price discovery. Just last month, I voted to stop the filling on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve which will help American families by temporarily diverting the 70,000 barrels of oil that go into the SPR a day, and consequently has the potential to reduce gas prices from 5 to 24 cents a gallon, helping American families, businesses, and the economy as a whole. There is an undeniable consensus on the importance of America achieving energy independence in the 21st century. It is critical that we terminate our dependence on foreign sources of oil, the majority of which are located in regions of the world which are unstable and in most circumstances, opposed to our interests. Accordingly, there is no issue more essential to our economic and national security than energy independence. I was happy to vote for the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008, which is significant and comprehensive legislation that will make substantial strides towards energy independence for our Nation, while also encouraging the development of innovative technologies, creating new jobs, reducing carbon emissions, protecting consumers, shifting production to clean and renewable energy, and modernizing our energy infrastructure. In addition to being a representative from Houston, Texas, the energy capital of the world, for the past 12 years I have been the Chair of the Energy Braintrust of the Congressional Black Caucus. During this time, I have hosted a variety of energy braintrusts designed to bring in all of the relevant players ranging from environmentalists to producers of energy from a variety of sectors including coal, electric, natural gas, nuclear, oil, and alternative energy sources as well as energy producers from West Africa. My Energy Braintrusts were designed to be a call of action--to all of the sectors who comprise the American and international energy industry, to the African American community, and to the nation as a whole. Energy is the lifeblood of every economy, especially ours. Producing more of it leads to more good jobs, cheaper goods, lower fuel prices, and greater economic and national security. Bringing together thoughtful yet distinct voices to engage each other on the issue of energy independence has resulted in the beginning of a transformative dialectic which can ultimately result in reforming our energy industry to the extent that we as a nation achieve energy security and energy independence. Because I represent the city of Houston, the energy capital of the world, I realize that many oil and gas companies provide many jobs for many of my constituents and serve a valuable need. The energy industry in Houston exemplifies the stakeholders who must be instrumental in devising a pragmatic strategy for resolving our national energy crisis. That is why it is crucial that while seeking solutions to secure more energy independence within this country, we must strike a balance that will still support an environment for continued growth in the oil and gas industry, which I might add, creates millions of jobs across the entire country. We have many more miles to go before we achieve energy independence. Consequently, I am willing, able, and eager to continue working with Houston's and our Nation's energy industry to ensure that we are moving expeditiously on the path to crafting an environmentally sound and economically viable energy policy. Furthermore, I think it is imperative that we involve small, minority- and women-owned, and independent energy companies in this process because they represent some of the hard working Americans and Houstonians who are on the forefront of energy efficient strategies to achieving energy independence. According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS), America's deep seas on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) contain 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (the U.S. consumes 23 TCF per year) and 86 billion barrels of oil (the U.S. imports 4.5 billion per year). Even with all these energy resources, the U.S. sends more than $300 billion (and countless American jobs) overseas every year for energy we can create at home. I believe that we should mandate environmentally safe and efficient exploration techniques in the Gulf Coast which energy companies have demonstrated a willingness and capacity to utilize. By ensuring access to increasing sources of energy in an environmentally conscious way, I believe we can decrease our dependence on foreign oil. I support innovative solutions to our national energy crisis, such as my legislation which alleviates our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels by utilizing loan guarantees to promote the development of traditional and cellulosic ethanol technology. The Energy Information Administration estimates that the United States imports nearly 60 percent of the oil it consumes. The world's greatest petroleum reserves reside in regions of high geopolitical risk, including 57 percent of which are in the Persian Gulf. Replacing oil imports with domestic alternatives such as traditional and cellulosic ethanol can not only help reduce the $180 billion that oil contributes to our annual trade deficit, it can end our addiction to foreign oil. According to the Department of Agriculture, biomass can displace 30 percent of our nation's petroleum consumption. Along with traditional production of ethanol from corn, cellulosic ethanol can be produced domestically from a variety of feedstocks, including switchgrass, corn stalks and municipal solid wastes, which are available throughout our nation. Cellulosic ethanol also relies on its own byproducts to fuel the refining process, yielding a positive energy balance. Whereas the potential production of traditional corn- based ethanol is about 10 billion gallons per year, the potential production of cellulosic ethanol is estimated to be 60 billion gallons per year. In addition to ensuring access to more abundant sources of energy, replacing petroleum use with ethanol will help reduce U.S. carbon emissions, which are otherwise expected to increase by 80 percent by 2025. Cellulosic ethanol can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 87 percent. Thus, transitioning from foreign oil to ethanol will protect our environment from dangerous carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. With its commitment to American biofuels, this legislation calls for a significant increase in the Renewable Fuels Standard. It encourages the diversification of American energy crops thus ensuring that biodiesel and cellulosic sources are key components in the America's drive to become energy independent. By investing in renewable energy and increasing access to potential sources of energy, I believe we can be partners with responsible members of America's energy producing community in our collective goal of reaching energy independence.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. You have given an eloquent summary of the crisis that I think most Americans are facing.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would like us to move past these hot months that we have right now and begin to look forward into particularly the colder areas of America and begin to think about what is going to happen with heating fuel and this new coming winter season. We sort of got the tail end of the high price of gasoline sort of as we were leaving the winter months or as we were getting into the summer months, and we saw a crisis of people going on a vacation and taking their kids places during the summer facing this very high cost for gasoline per gallon. But I met with some of my power companies who provide energy, and, of course, I am in a warmer climate than many of my colleagues. But I am concerned about what we will confront with natural gas and other fossil fuels that may be utilized for heating people's homes. What a crisis for elderly and others and families who can't afford their heating fuels. So I believe that today on the floor of the House we have offered a suggestion. A summit doesn't mean 3,000 people. It means getting all of the parties together that can sit at the table. Get this energy industry at the table. Let them lay out what is a concept of your company, because energy for me means that you are diversified under the concept of energy, green energy, alternative biomass, begin to look at how we can lay down this roadmap. And then I think, of course, we need to emphasize the environmentally safe exploration of drilling, as my colleague indicated, and the reason why I say that is because it's still going on in the gulf, not as they say--I know it's difficult in other areas. But in the gulf, it's still going on, and it should be environmentally safe. Then I think as members of the Congressional Black Caucus we need some meetings with the heads of the nations in the Continent in Africa, Angola, Guinea Bassu, Nigeria. Ghana is finding oil. And it would be very helpful to sit down and have a discussion as to how their product can be marketed where there is--I know the bottom line has to do with dollars--but where there is a sense of morality, a sense of rightness on how that works. And again, it ties into my inquiry and outreach that I am going to make to OPEC because I think a lot of heads are better than none. And you listed all of the good works of the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008, and I think it's important to note this is what the Democrats did. But I want to invite people to come together during the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Towns, and we can join together under the energy brain trust. I must pay tribute to my predecessor, and you certainly knew him, Congressman Mickey Leland, who organized the brain trust, on the basis of getting a sense of morality in this industry. In fact, he was coming into it with another energy crisis that was certainly in that time. So I believe that with all of the hidden resources that we still have, we will open resources that we can address. And the only reason why we're not coming together is I don't think that we're putting our heads together to be able to develop the kind of balanced policy that brings these people together. I do want to make mention of the fact that I am looking forward to a roundtable discussion with leadership in my district. However, that is the beginning stages of what I think can be a larger question for this Congress to address, for leadership, for members of the Congressional Black Caucus, for our caucus members to address, because our constituents and poor constituents and elderly constituents and ailing constituents are impacted by the high cost of gasoline and heating oil. And I thank the distinguished gentleman for giving us an opportunity to raise these crucial issues that I believe have to be raised.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 372, Supporting the goals and ideals of Black Music Month and to honor the outstanding contributions that African American singers and musicians have made to the United States, introduced by my distinguished colleague from Michigan, Representative Kilpatrick. This important resolution honors, recognizes, preserves, and promotes the legacy and contributions that Black Music and African American singers and musicians have made to our great Nation. Black Music has been woven into the fabric of American Society for centuries, deeply impacting hundreds of generations. The music of African-Americans is the music of America, and has historically transcended social, economic, and racial barriers to unite people of all backgrounds. African American artists, songwriters, producers, engineers, educators, executives, and other professionals in the music industry provide inspiration and leadership through their creation of music, and their value to the African American community cannot be overstated. African-American music is indigenous to the United States and originates from African genres of music. From gospel, blues, jazz, rhythm and blues, rap, and hip-hop, African Americans musical roots can be heard throughout many musical genres that we love today. African- American music has had a pervasive influence on dance, fashion, language, art, literature, cinema, media, advertisements, and other aspects of culture and this legislation commends its pervasive influence. Furthermore, Black music has helped African-Americans endure great suffering and overcome injustice with courage and faith. Civil rights demonstrators often marched to the cadence of many songs written and composed as gospels or spirituals that were created on the fields of slaves. As we know, African-American music is an American art form that has spanned throughout hundreds of years. Its musical elements can be heard melodiously infused in many genres that we love today. It has grown beyond its roots to achieve pop-culture and historical relevance, touching audiences around the world. According to the Gospel Music Channel, ``Gospel music sales now account for nearly 8 percent of all music purchased in the United States, selling seven CDs for every ten purchased in country music.'' Regardless of their musical styles, artists have turned to Black music as the source and inspiration for their own music, which has blurred the boundaries between secular and Gospel music. African- American musicians have played a significant role in inspiring people across the generations in America and around the world with their vision and creativity by writing lyrics which speak to the human experience and express heartfelt emotion. This important legislation requests and authorizes the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such with appropriate ceremonies and activities. In 1979, President Carter first declared June as Black Music Month, an honor that has yearly repeated by the designation of National Black Music Month by all concurrent Presidents. African-American musicians have helped shape our national character and have become an important part of our musical heritage and African-American music has millions of fans of different races and ages in cities and towns all across the United States. I am proud to support this legislation that honors the outstanding contributions that African-American singers, musicians, composers, and producers have made to this country and call on the people of the United States to take the opportunity to study, reflect on, and celebrate the majesty, vitality, and importance of African- American music. Madam Speaker, I am proud to support this legislation that supports the goals and ideals of Black Music Month and I urge all my colleagues to join me in so doing.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman. Madam Speaker, I rise to say that we did have legislation that would protect the Constitution and provide the security for our troops and those in the intelligence community, and that was the RESTORE Act. Today I rise in enormous opposition to H.R. 6304 because, frankly, Madam Speaker, it's very difficult to put lipstick on a pig. What we have here is the opportunity for the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States without any individual review and without any finding of wrongdoing. What Americans don't know is that this government can now surveil you for 7 days without any approval. Then if the court denies the application, while the application is being appealed from the denial, you can be surveilled for 60 days. This is not constitutional protection. As it relates to the idea of those who are now in court on warrantless searches, now the courts have no authority over that, and your cases will be dismissed. I ask my colleagues to oppose this because ``significant purpose'' has been taken out of this legislation. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6304, the ``FISA Amendments Act of 2008''. This body has worked diligently with our colleagues in the Senate to ensure that the civil liberties of American citizens are appropriately addressed. Sadly, this compromise bill falls short of that aim. I will support no bill that fails to protect American civil liberties, both at home and abroad. I am unable to support this bill that will overhaul how the Government monitors foreign terrorist suspects. I will not support any legislation that grants legal immunity to telecommunications companies that provide information to Federal investigators without a warrant. Madam Speaker, this administration has the law to protect the American people. When Americans are involved, the Bill of Rights, the fourth amendment, and our civil liberties must be adhered to. This legislation does not go far enough to ensure that American rights are protected. The original legislation offered by the House Majority gave the Administration everything that it needed, but today, after months of negotiation, if we endorse H.R. 6304, which grants sweeping wiretapping authority to the Government with little court oversight and ensures the dismissal of all pending cases against the telecommunications companies, we are eviscerating the Constitution. Let me explain my objections to H.R. 6304. It permits the Government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing. H.R. 6304 permits minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. Under these circumstances, the court may not know what will be tapped and where it will occur. Furthermore, the bill contains a general ban on reverse targeting, but not the strong language I worked so diligently to include in the FISA legislation that had passed previously in the House. In my view, the RESTORE Act is far superior to this piece of legislation. I wish to take a few moments to discuss the improvement that I offered to the RESTORE Act in the full Judiciary Committee markup, and which was sent over to the Senate for consideration last year. My amendment made an essential contribution to the RESTORE Act by laying down a clear, objective criterion for the administration to follow and the FISA court to enforce in preventing reverse targeting. Reverse targeting is the practice where the Government targets foreigners without a warrant while its actual purpose is to collect information on certain U.S. persons. My language included clear statutory directives regarding whom the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it would like to continue listening to an Americans' communications. One of the major concerns that libertarians and classical conservatives, as well as progressives and civil liberties organizations, have with this legislation, as they did with its successor, the Protect America Act, is that the temptation of national security agencies to engage in reverse targeting may be difficult to resist in the absence of certain safeguards in the law to prevent it. My amendment attempted to produce such safeguards. My amendment reduced even further any such temptation to resort to reverse targeting by requiring the administration to obtain a regular, individualized FISA warrant whenever the ``real'' target of the surveillance is a person in the United States. The amendment achieved this objective by requiring the administration to obtain a regular FISA warrant whenever a ``significant purpose of an acquisition is to acquire the communications of a specific person reasonably believed to be located in the United States.'' It is far from clear how the operative language ``reasonably designed to ensure that any acquisition authorized . . . is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and prevent the intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States.'' Yes. It is true that H.R. 6304, the compromise legislation, attempts to ensure that American civil liberties are protected, but the operative language in the legislation does not provide a paradigm for consistency. This is so because it does not provide an objective criterion. H.R. 6304 does not go as far as the legislation that the House sent over to the Senate a few months ago. H.R. 6304 does not retain the objective standards contained in my amendment. The language used in my amendment, ``significant purpose,'' is a term of art that long has been a staple of FISA jurisprudence and thus is well known and readily applied by agencies, legal practitioners, and the FISA Court. Thus, the Jackson-Lee amendment provided a clearer, more objective criterion for the administration to follow and the FISA court to enforce to prevent the practice of reverse targeting without a warrant, which all of us can agree should not be permitted. A FISA order should be required in those instances where there is a particular, known person in the United States at the other end of the foreign target's call in whom the Government has a significant interest such that a significant purpose of the surveillance has become to acquire that person's communications. This protection has been stripped from H.R. 6304. I fought hard to keep this language in the bill because it is important to me; and it should be very important to members of this body and to all Americans. It is important that we require what should be required in all cases--warrant any time there is specific, targeted surveillance of a United States citizen. Madam Speaker, I have more objections to H.R. 6304 which I will quickly note. H.R. 6304 contains an ``exigent'' circumstances loophole that thwarts the judicial review requirement. The bill permits the Government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to seven (7) days every time ``intelligence important to the national security of the U.S. may be lost or not timely acquired.'' The problem with H.R. 6034 is that court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. Therefore, it is possible that there will not be resort to prior judicial review. Under H.R. 6304, the Government is permitted to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The Government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathers in the meantime. I am also troubled by H.R. 6304's dismissal of all cases pending against telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping program over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the Government certifications were actually legal--only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the Government did without communications will be dismissed. Under this bill, we will start as a tabula rasa. Telecommunications companies will be prevented from having their day in court and we, the American people, will never have a chance to know what the companies did and what information is collected. I am deeply troubled by this, and frankly, you should be, too. Madam Speaker, it is important to point out that the loudest demands for blanket immunity did not come from the telecommunications companies but from the administration, which raises the interesting question of whether the administration's real motivation is to shield from public disclosure the ways and means by which Government officials may have ``persuaded'' telecommunications companies to assist in its warrantless surveillance programs. Madam Speaker, let me be clear in my opposition. Nothing in the Act or the amendments to the Act should require the Government to obtain a FISA order for every overseas target on the off chance that they might pick up a call into or from the United States. Rather, what should be required, is a FISA order only where there is a particular, known person in the United States at the other end of the foreign target's calls in whom the Government has a significant interest such that a significant purpose of the surveillance has become to acquire that person's communications. Nearly two centuries ago, Alexis de Tocqueville, who remains the most astute student of American democracy, observed that the reason democracies invariably prevail in any martial conflict is because democracy is the governmental form that best rewards and encourages those traits that are indispensable to martial success: initiative, innovation, resourcefulness, and courage. As I wrote in the Politico, ``the best way to win the war on terror is to remain true to our democratic traditions. If it retains its democratic character, no nation and no loose confederation of international villains will defeat the United States in the pursuit of its vital interests.'' Thus, the way forward to victory in the war on terror is for the United States country to redouble its commitment to the Bill of Rights and the democratic values which every American will risk his or her life to defend. It is only by preserving our attachment to these cherished values that America will remain forever the home of the free, the land of the brave, and the country we love. Madam Speaker, FISA has served the Nation well for nearly 30 years, placing electronic surveillance inside the United States for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes on a sound legal footing, and I am far from persuaded that it needs to be jettisoned. However, I know that FISA as outlined in this bill, H.R. 6304, attempts to curtail the Bill of Rights and the civil liberties of the American people. I continue to insist upon individual warrants, based upon probable cause, when surveillance is directed at people in the United States. The Attorney General must still be required to submit procedures for international surveillance to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for approval, but the FISA Court should not be allowed to issue a ``basket warrant'' without making individual determinations about foreign surveillance. In all candor, Madam Speaker, I must restate my firm conviction that when it comes to the track record of this President's warrantless surveillance programs, there is still not enough on the public record about the nature and effectiveness of those programs, or the trustworthiness of this administration, to indicate that they require a blank check from Congress. The Bush administration did not comply with its legal obligation under the National Security Act of 1947 to keep the Intelligence Committees ``fully and currently informed'' of U.S. intelligence activities. Congress cannot continue to rely on incomplete information from the Bush administration or revelations in the media. It must conduct a full and complete inquiry into electronic surveillance in the United States and related domestic activities of the NSA, both those that occur within FISA and those that occur outside FISA. The inquiry must not be limited to the legal questions. It must include the operational details of each program of intelligence surveillance within the United States, including: (1) who the NSA is targeting; (2) how it identifies its targets; (3) the information the program collects and disseminates; and most important (4) whether the program advances national security interests without unduly compromising the privacy rights of the American people. Given the unprecedented amount of information Americans now transmit electronically and the post-9/11 loosening of regulations governing information sharing, the risk of intercepting and disseminating the communications of ordinary Americans is vastly increased, requiring more precise--not looser--standards, closer oversight, new mechanisms for minimization, and limits on retention of inadvertently intercepted communications. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in opposition to H.R. 6304, as it grants sweeping wiretapping authority to the Government with little court oversight and ensures the dismissal of all pending cases against the telecommunications companies. In my view, this is wrong and unacceptable.