Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker I rise today to support H. Res. 1038, ``Recognizing the 5th Anniversary of the Department of Homeland Security and honoring the Department's Employees for their Extraordinary Efforts to Protect and Secure our Nation. On September 11, 2001 this nation suffered a terrorist attack that surpassed anything we had dealt with before. After witnessing those events, I decided that the protection of our homeland would be at the forefront of my legislative agenda. I knew that all of our collective efforts as Americans would all be in vain if we did not achieve our most important priority: the security of our Nation. After the events of September 11th, the Department of Homeland Security was created in an effort to consolidate our Nation's efforts to prevent, respond to, and mitigate threats to the homeland, including acts of terrorism, natural disasters, or other emergencies. Since its first full scale year in 2003, the Department of Homeland Security has integrated 22 disparate agencies and offices. Due to the Homeland Security's employees' diligence, the department has done a magnificent job of deterring, detecting, and preventing acts of terrorism from occurring on U.S. soil. Over 331 pieces of legislation related to Homeland Security have been introduced since the Department's inception. From the health-related issues surrounding clean up of Ground Zero to Customs and Border Protection, the Department covers several facets affecting our national security. Working for the Department of Homeland Security is more than a job. It would be like saying that we as Members of Congress simply have a job. Homeland Security is a belief in the greatness of this nation and the desire to protect it no matter where the enemy comes from, no matter how large or small the attack. I thank the employees for the work they do and their belief in the need for protecting our Nation's borders, airports, seaports, rail lines, transit systems, and most importantly our way of life. That is why I have introduced legislation such as H.R. 750 [110th] the Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2007, which seeks to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to provide increased protections and eligibility for family-sponsored immigrants. It would authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to deny a family-based immigration petition by a U.S. petitioner for an alien spouse or child if: (1) the petitioner is on the national sex offender registry for a conviction that resulted in more than one year's imprisonment; (2) the petitioner has failed to rebut such information within 90 days; and (3) granting the petition would put a spouse or child beneficiary in danger of sexual abuse. Among other things it would direct the Secretary to establish the Task Force to Rescue Immigrant Victims of American Sex Offenders. I also introduced H.R. 1530, the Chemical Facility Security Improvement Act of 2007 to prohibit federal funds from being used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to approve a site security plan for a chemical facility unless the facility meets or exceeds security standards and requirements to protect it against terrorist acts established by the State or local government for the area where it is located. Because while I support and commend the Department of Homeland Security, I still believe that the Department's mission and goals are still malleable. We need to continue to improve the Department's comprehensive national strategies to ensure that the more than 87,000 different governmental jurisdictions at the Federal, State, and local level are protecting our nation's borders, transit systems, people, and ideals. This work could not be done however, without the more than 208,000 employees of the Department working to ensure disaster preparedness at all levels of government while sacrificing their invaluable time with their family and working long hours to stand willing, able, and ready to respond if catastrophe strikes. The Department of Homeland Security is critical in ensuring our great nation's preparation for future terrorist threats and attacks. Its employees step beyond the ordinary call of duty and tirelessly help to prepare our Nation to counter acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies. I urge my colleagues to support the achievements of the Department of Homeland Security, and support this resolution honoring the 5th anniversary of the Department of Homeland Security and its extraordinary employees.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5395, to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 11001 Dunklin Drive in St. Louis, Missouri, as the ``William `Bill' Clay Post Office Building.'' I would like to thank my colleague Congressman Carnahan for introducing this bill, and Chairman Waxman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for bringing this important legislation to the floor today. As my colleagues are aware, William `Bill' Clay served in the House of Representatives for 32 years, until his retirement in 2000. He was a true leader, a champion of civil rights, and a tireless voice for the people of Missouri's 1st Congressional District. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Clay was born in 1931 in St. Louis, Missouri and he graduated from St. Louis University. He began his political career in 1959, serving as a member of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen until 1964. He also worked as a real estate broker, and served his community as a labor coordinator. From 1961-1964, he worked for the union of St. Louis city employees, and later with a steamfitters union until 1967. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Clay was also a true champion of civil rights. He was one of the founders of the Congressional Black Caucus, and, throughout his time in Congress, he championed social justice and labor issues. He worked tirelessly on behalf of the poor and disenfranchised, always seeking to give them a voice in these halls. He was instrumental in fighting racial discrimination whenever and wherever it occurred. Congressman Clay authored the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Capital Financing Act, which provides $375 million in federal loan guarantees for construction and renovation projects at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Because of his commitment to labor he selected committees whose primary business deals with labor issues, and he served as a senior Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee. Congressman Clay was a champion of education and played a key role in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, including efforts to reduce early grade class sizes by hiring 100,000 teachers nationwide. He has also leading the way for our Nation's schools to be first in getting the resources necessary for school construction, renovation and modernization. His work in education has also included winning concessions from the Republicans to increase the amount of Pell Grant funding and the reduction of student loan interest rates. From 1991 until 1995, Congressman Clay chaired the House Committee on the Post Office and Civil Service. Upon his retirement in 2000, he was succeeded by his son, my colleague, Congressman William Lacy Clay. Mr. Speaker, this legislation will honor a true champion of civil rights in a very fitting way. It is fitting that a former Chairman of the House Committee on the Post Office and Civil Service be honored with a post office in the very town where his political career begun. I am very proud to support this legislation, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting honoring William ``Bill'' Clay and voting for H.R. 5395.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 1077, Calling on the Government of the People's Republic of China to end its crackdown in Tibet and enter into a substantive dialogue with His Holiness the Dalai Lama to find a negotiated solution that represents the distinctive language, culture, religious identity, and fundamental freedoms of all Tibetans, and for other purposes, introduced by my distinguished colleague from California, Representative Nancy Pelosi. This important and timely legislation calls for an imperative dialogue which will set forth the road to peace and stability. In recent days, the news has been littered with reports of human rights abuses by the Chinese government regarding Tibetan dissent. As we approach the 2008 Olympics that will be held in China, it is imperative that we look into the reports of violations of basic human rights by the Chinese government. On March 4th, Tibetan monks began peaceful protests in the Tibetan capitol, Lhasa, which escalated into violence resulting in a staunch crackdown by the Chinese government, the effects of which have yet to be seen as international media has been strictly restricted in the area. What began as a peaceful protest for religious freedom and autonomy has resulted in Beijing admittedly sending thousands of paramilitary troops and police to the region in order to maintain ``peace and stability.'' March 14, 2008 marked the 49th anniversary of the Tibetan people's historic uprising against the Chinese government that forced His Holiness the Dalai Lama into exile in India, where he still resides. When Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns attempted to assemble in peaceful demonstration on this anniversary, they were met with excessive force by Chinese authorities. Last month's riots in the Tibetan capitol of Lhasa have once again drawn international interest to the plight of the Tibetan people in their struggle for autonomy and religious freedom. The Chinese government has reported that more than 1,000 people have been captured or turned themselves in, in relation to their participation in said riots. Last week, Amnesty International released a report stating that despite claims that hosting the Olympics will lead to Chinese observance of international human rights law, the approach of this historic event has actually lead to a crackdown of dissent on the part of the Chinese government. Just one day after the release of Amnesty International's report, Hu Jia, a Chinese activist who has publicized human rights abuses across China, was sentenced to three and a half years in prison for ``inciting subversion of state power and the socialist system.'' I wish to discuss briefly the importance of the relationship between the United States, China and Tibet and highlight some important legislation that I have supported to provide assistance to the human rights situation in Tibet. As we are well aware, controversy exists over Tibet's current political status as a part of China. This precarious relationship between China and Tibet has prompted U.S. congressional actions in support of Tibet's status and traditions. Tibet has been under active Beijing rule since between 1949-1951, when the newly established communist government of the People's Republic of China, PRC, sent military troops to occupy Tibet. It was some years later, in 1959, that the Dalai Lama, who is still respected and regarded as the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people, along with his followers, fled from Tibet and went into exile in India. As reports of human rights abuses and political activities surfaced regarding China's continuing repressive social and political controls in Tibet, it garnered more interest and congressional consideration in the late 1980s. Tenzin Gyatso, the fourteenth Dalai Lama, is the unrivaled spiritual and cultural leader of the Tibetan people. The Dalai Lama has used his leadership to promote democracy, freedom, and peace for the Tibetan people through a negotiated settlement of the Tibet issue, based on autonomy within the People's Republic of China. For his efforts on behalf of humanity, the Dalai Lama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989. Most recently in 2006, I lent my support to S. Res. 2784, awarding the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest expression of national appreciation for exceptional service, to the Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso. I appreciate his efforts to promote peace and non-violence throughout the globe, and his efforts to find democratic reconciliation for the Tibetan people through his ``Middle Way'' approach. I am grateful for the extensive work that the Dalai Lama has done for his country and on behalf of humanity. Congress has taken a particular interest in the affairs of Tibet. Beginning in 1987, Congress passed non-binding measures declaring that the United States should make Tibet's situation a higher policy priority and urged China to establish a constructive dialogue with the Dalai Lama. As a Member of Congress, I am interested in the welfare and human rights affairs of the Tibetan people and have previously proposed an amendment to provide $2 million in the Economic Support Fund for monitoring the human rights situation in Tibet and for training and education of Tibetans in democracy activities and an additional $2 million in the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the Tibetan refugee program. Madam Speaker, I am a staunch advocate for human rights and desire to see the plight of the Tibetan people rectified. As such, I strongly support H. Res. 1077 and call upon my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished chairman and as well the ranking member of the full committee, to the Speaker of the House for her continued leadership. And I am always reminded of the late Chairman Tom Lantos and his commitment to the people of Tibet. Madam Speaker, I've had the honor and privilege of being with the people of Tibet in their temples, listening to their plea, walking alongside of them, admiring and respecting their tenacity, determination, and their love of freedom and peace. As well, the Dalai Lama has visited not only this community but also the State of Texas, and we have had the pleasure of seeing him be a guiding force for peace. It is time now for this resolution and the call that it makes for the People's Republic to shine the light on Tibet and give them the rights of engagement and discussion because what we are facing are accumulated grievances of almost six decades of cultural, religious, economic, and linguistic repression of the Tibetan people by the Government of the People's Republic of China. It has resulted in these resentments, and it has resulted in this oppression in the expression of the Tibetan people. As this Olympic torch travels around the world, you will see the people who are peace loving and loving human rights standing up. As it comes to my city, as it goes to other cities, there will be those of us who stand against it. In fact, we have called upon the Chinese Ambassador to wake up and to recognize that the world is crying out for justice for the Tibetan people. The resolution calls on this particular government, the Chinese Government, to begin a dialogue with the Dalai Lama, to bring about respect, to allow international monitors and journalists. I truly believe it is time now for the world to stand up. And so to my colleagues, it is important that this resolution be passed. I believe we should be in front of the Chinese Embassy here in Washington, D.C., petitioning that government to hear the cry of the Tibetan people, to respect the Dalai Lama, and to bring finally peace and freedom and, yes, democracy to a peace-loving people. The oppressors cannot oppress the oppressed forever, and we stand against it. This resolution speaks to a resolution. We ask for the agreement.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago, many of us gathered to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I'm always reminded that even in his death, we celebrate his life. And as I think of him, I think of the 60th anniversary of Israel, for Dr. King was inspired by a land that sought its freedom. And so it is important that we honor this Nation State; celebrate it for peacefully living in the mid east. And as I travel to Israel, there are more people that I meet that are peace loving, and look forward to a time when they can live alongside of their brothers and sisters in peace. Let us thank them for the history that they have, and as well, what they give around the world. It is important to take note that Israel has trained those of us who are seeking a greater understanding of how to fight the war on terror, how to have first responders. They have certainly worked to be able to be a friend to the world. So, again, let me congratulate Israel on its 60th anniversary, and most importantly, the people of Israel for its peace. I might also acknowledge that we extend our hand of friendship.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before I discuss the topic upon which I arise to speak, I do want to join my colleagues in celebrating the reauthorization of the United States Fire Administration Act. As a member of the Homeland Security Committee since its origin after 2001, I am a direct witness of the work of our first responders around the Nation. It is important that we recognize the elements of this bill and the funding that is necessary to ensure a system of first responders that works. Yesterday, I met with the chiefs of the fire departments of departments in my State of Texas. I salute them. Through their efforts, we were able to pass this bill. I congratulate the sponsor, and I believe that the National Fire Incident Reporting System improvements that will come about are important; the fire technology assistance and dissemination will be important that is reauthorized; the encouraging of the adoption of standards for firefighter health and safety, one of the ills that we are still dealing with after 9/11, people who have gotten sick after 9/11 and still not addressed; and the coordination on fire service-based emergency medical services is important; and as well, the funding that will come about, upwards of $100 million. Certainly, I encourage them to work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the work that we can do together. Congratulations on the reauthorization of this bill. I stand as a strong supporter. I rise today, as my colleagues have done, to acknowledge the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. King. That will be tomorrow. I head to Memphis to commemorate that. I just got through speaking to a number of constituents from Texas Southern University and from Prairie View A&M. I asked them about presidential politics. They were thoughtful and discussed with me the balance that they saw in the candidates that happened to be running in the Democratic primary. What I have seen as we watched this debate is really a call on the sensitivities of America, race and gender, and we have seen the tensions and the divisiveness; rather than focus on the message and mission of an American hero like Dr. King, who talked about unity and talked about, as was said by his son today, the horrible evil of racism and poverty and militarism. But even in that voice, he spoke of unity. Today, I rise to call upon the candidates themselves, that whoever will run to the mike first and call upon unity in America may find a surprising response from all the voters, wherever they might be. For Americans are good people. They extend themselves to the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq so that others might have freedom and democracy. I might imagine that our soldiers would look back on this divisiveness and the name calling and someone castigating one person because they are for one candidate over another, and ask whether or not we truly understand freedom and democracy. It is choice, it is the ability to make your choice. Yet, it is the ability to come together and unify around the goodness of America. I was glad to hear Majority Whip Clyburn say today that, ``time is neutral.'' As Martin Luther King said, ``It is neutral because it says nothing. It is what you do with it.'' What he reminded us is that people of ill will seem to use time more effectively than people of good will. I truly believe that we have outstanding Americans running for this office. I will be pushing for the one that happens to be in my party, strongly and enthusiastically. But what I will come to this floor and this Congress for is to join me in putting together a reconciliation commission in America. Not just because of the candidacy and the campaigns that we have seen, but because Americans are still sensitive about race and about gender, two groups of people that have been disenfranchised in our history. Yet, we are blessed to be in America, recognizing that many of us have made strides. I am proud to stand here as an African American woman. Some might say I have double issues. But I have double benefits, double celebration. Yet, there are those who I believe would benefit from having this broad discussion, this reconciliation in America about women who were disenfranchised until 1920, woman who suffer from the lack of pay equity, and those who live under a minority umbrella, who themselves still remain discriminated against in schools and jobs and in corporate America. Mr. Speaker, we can benefit from this wonderful debate and discourse between someone who's an African American male with the potential of being the President of the United States and a woman who has the potential of being President of the United States. Why don't we celebrate in that difference and diversity? Why don't we call for unity, because America is greater than our individual differences. As Martin Luther King said, ``It can be the promised land. Why don't we attempt to go there together.''

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, there's a terminology that we use to describe joyous occasions. Sometimes it describes freedom. The Fisk Singers in Tennessee were called the Jubilee Singers, and it was because they organized around slavery and after slavery and the ability to be free with jubilation, and, therefore, they were called the Jubilee Singers. I think today is a day of jubilation, and it certainly is a time to express the jubilation that we feel with the passage, or the intended passage, of this legislation. Let me thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Payne, for persistence and determination and wisdom. Let me also acknowledge his ranking member, Mr. Smith; and, of course, our chairman, Mr. Berman; and the ranking member of the full committee, Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for working with us. But I do want to spend some time acknowledging that we have named this bill after the late former Chairman Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde. That is a jubilation. It is something to express great excitement about because these two distinct figures, in many instances with common views but many instances different views, came together around this lifesaving legislation, Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. And it is particularly important because we have added malaria and tuberculosis as an element that is not a partner but results thereof and/or stands alone, but all of them kill. I am reminded of the first mission to Zimbabwe, to Zambia, and to South Africa, where we went on a Presidential mission, three Members of Congress, to look closely at the devastation of HIV/AIDS. It was in 1996/1997. And it was there that I saw a 4 year old taking care of a dying grandparent, the last person surviving who had tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS. So this legislation is crucial, and it is particularly crucial because it recognizes the devastation of all of them. It is likewise crucial because we have not won the war. The jubilation is that the bill is on the floor, but we have not won this war. And I might also say that we have not won the war in education, the ability to prevent all of these diseases. So let me ask my colleagues to support this legislation. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5501, The Global HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008. I believe that the legislation we are considering today makes vital improvements to what is already a groundbreaking program. I would like to thank Chairman Berman for his ongoing leadership on this issue, and for bringing this legislation to the floor today. I would also like to thank the Committee's Ranking Member, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, and my colleagues across the aisle, for working toward a compromise, to develop legislation of which we can all be proud. Today's legislation is a crucial step toward transforming PEPFAR from an emergency response to a sustainable program. I would also like to thank both Chairman Berman and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on African and Global Health, Congressman Payne, for working with me to include important language in this legislation. My language, in Section 301 of this bill, addresses the necessity of making children a priority among individuals with HIV for proper food and nutritional support. Section 301, with my language included, states that it is the sense of Congress that ``for the purposes of determining which individuals infected with HIV should be provided with nutrition and food support-- (i) children with moderate or severe malnutrition, according to WHO standards, shall be given priority for such nutrition and food support; and (ii) adults with a body mass index, BMI of 18.5 or less, or at the prevailing WHO-approved measurement for BMI, should be considered `malnourished' and should be given priority for such nutrition and food support;'' Madam Chairman, as Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I believe that this language is crucial, and I thank the Chairman for including it in the text of the bill. HIV-infected children have been underrepresented among beneficiaries of PEPFAR-supported programs. As this legislation cites in the findings section, ``of those infected with HIV, 2.5 million are children under 15 who also account for 460,000 of the newly-infected individuals.'' And even these large numbers are deceiving, as children die much quicker from AIDS than do adults. UNICEF reports that every minute, a child dies from an AIDS- related illness, and only 1 child in 20 who needs HIV treatment receives it. I am pleased to see this language, which focuses attention on the plight of these children, and makes serving their needs a priority. I am particularly pleased to support an amendment offered by my colleague Congressman Carson. Representative Carson's amendment would direct the Coordinator of United States Government Activities to Combat HIV/AIDS Globally and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to expand their plan for strengthening health systems of host countries by allowing for postsecondary educational institutions, particularly in Africa, to collaborate with United States postsecondary educational institutions and specifically historically black colleges and universities. I believe that such educational exchanges would be extremely beneficial for students both in our own Nation and in developing nations. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. In addition, I am also pleased to support the amendment offered by my colleague Congressman Blumenauer. This amendment adds safe drinking water to nutrition and income security on the list of programs for which direct linkages are encouraged. People with HIV/AIDS are at increased risk for diarrheal diseases, and these illnesses leave HIV- infected patients with a reduced ability to absorb antiretroviral and other medications. The availability of safe drinking water must be part of any sustainable strategy of HIV prevention and treatment. As this House is aware, it is estimated that HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, TB, and malaria together kill more than 6 million people each year. In January 2003, President Bush announced the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR. As its name implies, PEPFAR was envisioned as an emergency response; the bill before us today represents a crucial first step in the process of transitioning to a sustainable program to address these global epidemics. Seventeen years after the first cases were diagnosed, AIDS remains the most relentless and indiscriminate killer of our time, with 39.5 million people worldwide now living with HIV or AIDS. Despite pouring billions and billions of private and Federal dollars into drug research and development to treat and ``manage'' infections, HIV strains persist as a global health threat by virtue of their complex life cycle and mutation rates. Of those infected, 24.7 million, or about 63 percent, live in Sub-Saharan Africa, a region with just 11 percent of the world's population. 61 percent of those infected in this region are women. Though Africa, and even more specifically African women, bears the brunt of the AIDS pandemic, Americans should be reminded that HIV/ AIDS does not discriminate, with well over a million people in our own country currently living with HIV or AIDS. Tragically, 6 percent of the 39.5 million people currently infected with HIV/AIDS are children under 15 years of age. In 2006, the virus killed 380,000 children (13 percent of all HIV/AIDS deaths), and 90 percent of all children living with HIV reside in sub-Saharan Africa. According to UNAIDS statistics from 2005, 1,500 children worldwide became newly infected with HIV every single day, due largely to inadequate access to drugs that prevent the transmission of HIV from mother to child. Only 8 percent of pregnant women in low- and middle- income countries were offered services to prevent HIV transmission to their newborns. Madam Chairman, HIV/AIDS continues to represent a serious and large- scale challenge throughout much of the world. It goes far beyond a simple health problem, and it hinders attempts to foster economic development and political stability. As we reauthorize PEPFAR, I believe it is crucial that we emphasize the long-term sustainability of our HIV efforts, and that we integrate AIDS prevention and treatment within our larger-scale development initiatives. I believe that the legislation before us today makes groundbreaking strides toward moving the Global HIV/AIDS program beyond emergency implementation and toward sustainability. It dramatically boosts HIV/AIDS programming related to women and girls, strengthens health systems in countries hardest-hit by the HIV virus, increases U.S. contributions to the Global Fund, and authorizes HIV/AIDS programs to include linkages to food, nutrition, education, and health care programs. Though we have drugs that are effective in managing infections and reducing mortality by slowing the progression to AIDS in an individual, they do little to reduce disease prevalence and prevent new infections. For this reason, there is growing consensus among health experts that we must put greater emphasis on comprehensive prevention programs, which are perhaps the most critical aspect of any initiative to combat global HIV/AIDS. Even as increasing numbers of people have access to anti-retroviral drugs, ARVs, an estimated 5.1 million people who needed treatment did not receive it in 2006. In sub-Saharan Africa, the percentage of individuals needing treatment who actually received it rose substantially, from 2 percent in 2003 to 28 percent in 2006. This growth is impressive, and represents a significant step forward, but it also means that 72 percent of sub-Saharan Africans requiring treatment did not receive it. Madam Chairman, despite our concerted efforts, we continue to face a serious and persistent health threat. I believe that it is imperative that we ensure that American taxpayer dollars are used to greatest effect, not to bolster ideology. This legislation makes important strides forward by removing elements of the original authorization that speak more to ideology than actual conditions in the field. Under the current law, one-third of all prevention funds under PEPFAR must be used on abstinence-only education, which neglects the real needs of populations both in America and abroad. These stipulations hurt the ability of PEPFAR to adapt its activities in accordance with local HIV transmission patterns, and they impair efforts to coordinate with national health plans. Though AIDS is clearly a global problem, it does not affect every nation equally or in the same manner. Madam Chairman, I am extremely pleased that the legislation we are considering today removes these restrictive provisions, allowing PEPFAR to better address the requirements of each country, making more efficient and effective use of taxpayer dollars in serving the millions affected by this disease. According to studies by both the Government Accountability Office and the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine, the abstinence-only earmark has forced a reduction in mother-to-child transmission programs, reduced prevention efforts with high-risk groups, and undermined efforts to implement Abstinence, Faithfulness, and Condoms, ABC, prevention programs. Under the provisions of today's compromise legislation, the administration will be directed to promote a ``balanced'' prevention program in target countries. This will include all elements of the ABC approach to HIV prevention. The legislation will require that the administration report to Congress if behavioral change programs do not receive 50 percent of funds devoted to the prevention of sexual transmission of HIV in countries in which there is a generalized epidemic. I believe this language is extremely important, as it not only recognizes that HIV is transmitted in other ways, besides sexual activity, but it also acknowledges that the epidemic is not the same in every country. By requiring a report, rather than earmarking the expenditure of funds, this legislation provides guidance while still affording organizations working in the field the flexibility to respond to nuanced circumstances. I am proud to be part of this Democratic Congress, which will produce legislation reauthorizing a Global HIV/AIDS program driven by facts, rather than ideology. The removal of the abstinence-only earmark will make this reauthorization legislation stronger than the original 2003 legislation that it will replace, and I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose any efforts that might attempt to reinstate it. In addition, I believe it is crucial that we dedicate greater attention to strengthening local health infrastructure. Health experts have expressed concern that the high amount of spending directed toward HIV/AIDS initiatives has drawn health workers away from public health facilities and other important programs. This merely compounds a chronic shortage of qualified health workers, which, according to WHO's 2006 World Health Report, is the single most important health issue facing countries today. This need is felt particularly sharply in Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Many health experts also continue to advocate greater integration between PEPFAR and other health programs, including those focused on nutrition, maternal and child heath, and other infectious diseases. These experts note that HIV is intricately linked to these other areas of concern; for example, malnutrition and lack of food may heighten exposure to HIV, raise the likelihood of engaging in risky behavior, increase susceptibility to infection, and complicate efforts to provide anti-retroviral, ARV, medication. Further, an HIV epidemic will likely worsen food insecurity, by depleting the agricultural workforce. I believe it is necessary, to ensure maximum effectiveness, that we integrate PEPFAR with other aspects of our international health outreach and development programs. The legislation before us today does that. Madam Chairman, while I recognize the importance of compromise, and I am glad we were able to reach an accord with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I am disappointed that the compromise text does not include a repeal of the language, known as the pledge requirement, requiring that all funding recipients to ``have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.'' Madam Chairman, the removal of the prostitution pledge was a critical facet of the bill we are considering today. The pledge currently restricts recipients' privately funded HIV prevention programs. No funds may be used to provide assistance to any group or organization that does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. Funding recipients must refrain from speech or conduct that is inconsistent with the Government's views on prostitution, even when they use private funds. Organizations must refrain from some effective HIV prevention strategies, for fear that the Government will view it as ``pro-prostitution.'' A repeal of the prostitution pledge language would leave in place language ensuring that U.S. Government funds may not be used to ``promote or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution and sex trafficking.'' Madam Chairman, the prostitution pledge undermines prevention efforts targeting one of the populations most vulnerable to HIV transmission. Because high-risk populations such as sex workers are extremely marginalized, it is crucial that any intervention promotes a level of trust between sex workers and service providers. Failure to provide sex workers with information and services that will help them protect themselves and their partners from HIV transmission and other sexually- transmitted diseases also puts the broader community at risk. I am disappointed that this legislation does not remove this vague and counterproductive requirement. This legislation also contains crucial provisions with regards to malaria and tuberculosis prevention and treatment. It incorporates H.R. 1567, the Stop Tuberculosis, TB, Now Act of 2007 sponsored by Congressman Engel, important legislation which I am proud to cosponsor. Today's legislation emphasizes the linkages between HIV/AIDS and TB, and it also creates new strategies for attacking MDR and XDR forms of drug-resistant TB. The bill also requires the President to develop a comprehensive 5-year strategy to combat malaria globally and strengthen United States leadership against this disease, and creates a new Coordinator of United States Government Activities to Combat Malaria Globally. If we are to turn the tide of turmoil and tragedy that HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis cause to millions around the world, and hundreds of thousands right here in our backyard, it is imperative that we continue to fund and expand medical research and education and outreach programs. However, the only cure we currently have for HIV/ AIDS is prevention. While we must continue efforts to develop advanced treatment options, it is crucial that those efforts are accompanied by dramatic increases in public health education and prevention measures. Investments in education, research and outreach programs continue to be a crucial part of tackling and eliminating this devastating disease. As Americans, we have a strong history, through science and innovation, of detecting, conquering and defeating many illnesses. We must and we will continue to fight HIV/AIDS until the battle is won.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1312, the ``Arts Require Timely Service, ARTS, Act,'' introduced by my distinguished colleague from California, Representative Berman. This important legislation amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow for the expedited adjudication of an employer petition for an alien of extraordinary artistic ability, an alien accompanying such alien, or an alien who is an athlete or entertainer. Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase President John F Kennedy, the true greatness of a nation can be measured by its accomplishments in the domain of the arts and culture. America has always benefited from the free flow of foreign artistic talent, some of which has served this country with great distinction, to mention but the late great cellist and Soviet dissident Mstislav ``Slava'' Rostropovich. Our immigration system is an important gateway for artists and musicians from abroad and as such it should serve the broader cultural goals of our Nation. Mr. Speaker, by inviting foreign artists to perform, arts organizations in the United States provide American audiences the opportunity to experience a variety of artistic talent and encourage a supportive climate for American artists to perform abroad. In the last several years, nonprofit arts organizations have confronted dramatic delays and uncertainties in the processing of visa petitions for foreign guest artists. These delays not only impact the immediate availability of foreign artists to perform alongside American artists, but also threaten to impede the ability of U.S. artists to perform abroad. When a nonprofit arts organization invites a foreign performer, or an entire symphony for that matter, the organization must calendar, advertise, and ticket performances far in advance, all on reliance that they will successfully petition for a visa for their guest performer. In the last several years, delays in processing have led many smaller arts organizations to stop engaging foreign artists altogether because they cannot risk the potential expense of canceling a performance as a result of slow visa processing. Those organizations that have persevered have seen increasingly frequent situations in which performances involving foreign guest artists must be cancelled because the U.S. Immigration and Citizenship Services, USCIS, cannot process visa petitions within a 6-month period before the performance. This is an issue not only for the arts organizations bringing in a foreign artists, but also American artists who are slated to be part of these performances, as well as all of the support staff employed by the organizations as a result of a performance. Most nonprofit arts organizations cannot afford the current $1,000 fee for premium processing, a program that was adopted primarily at the request of for-profit corporations. Yet, regular visa processing can now take up to 180 days--too long for arts organizations to accommodate. These delays in the visa process can harm nonprofit institutions and the local economies in which they exist. Since 2003, a bipartisan group of Members has urged USCIS to remedy this problem administratively. In October of that year, 16 members sent a letter to the USCIS Director encouraging him to implement a number of reforms including reducing processing for O and P petitions filed by or on behalf of nonprofit organizations to 30 days or automatically remove those petitions to premium processing at no additional fee. To date, these reforms have not been made administratively, and in discussions, USCIS has represented that they are not certain they could make such changes without legislative action. The ARTS Act would address visa processing delays facing nonprofit arts organizations by amending section 214(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to require USCIS to shift to premium processing without additional fees any O or P visa that is not processed within 30 days of filing a complete petition if the petitioner is or is filing on behalf of a qualified nonprofit organization. Mr. Speaker, it is not by accident that I wrote a letter on this subject to then USCIS Director Eduardo Aguirre. This act exemplifies the bipartisan spirit in which we should approach this important matter so that our Nation could continue to shine in the cultural field as it shines in other domains. Mr Speaker, this legislation speaks directly to principles of cultural and intellectual exchange that our great Nation was founded upon. I am proud to support this legislation and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1312.

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 302, supporting the observance of Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month, and for other purposes, introduced by my distinguished colleague from Texas, Representative Kay Granger. This important legislation recognizes the devastating effects of Colorectal Cancer, which kills 49,960 Americans each year, and raises awareness regarding the realities and severities of this disease. Colorectal cancer includes both colon and rectal cancer and is the second most common cause of cancer deaths for both men and women within the United States. This form of cancer does not discriminate between men and women, race and ethnicity; however, the rates of diagnoses are slightly higher among the African America Community. Despite the fact that every 3.5 minutes someone is diagnosed with colorectal cancer, every 5 seconds, someone who should be screened for this cancer is not. That is why this legislation is so important; we know the devastating effects of this type of cancer, yet we have failed to apply the necessary steps to address the epidemic. The survival rate of those who have colorectal cancer is 90 percent when detected in its early stages, but that rate dramatically drops to only 10 percent when colorectal cancer is detected after it has spread to distant organs. The death rate of colorectal cancer could be reduced by up to 80 percent if the majority of Americans age 50 or older were screened regularly for colorectal cancer. It is not surprising to note that uninsured Americans are more likely to be diagnosed with late stage colon cancer than patients with private insurance, and that as such only 39 percent of colorectal cancer patients have their cancer detected at an early stage. Only 18.8 percent of Americans without health coverage in the United States have currently been properly screened for colorectal cancer. Regular colorectal cancer screening makes economic sense because it has been ranked as one of the most cost effective screening interventions available, with the potential to save more than 30,000 lives a year. Treatment costs for colorectal cancer are extremely high and are estimated at $8,400,000,000 for 2004; however, the risks associated with non-treatment are even higher. The necessity of raising awareness about colorectal cancer cannot be overemphasized, and I applaud this legislation for supporting the observance of Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. The potential deadly effects of colorectal cancer should encourage Americans from all walks of life to be tested and treated by their doctors. Colorectal cancer is the third most common form of cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the Western world. As such, colorectal cancer causes 655,000 deaths worldwide per year. Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month must also raise public awareness for the need of colorectal cancer testing for those Americans who are traditionally unable to afford such screening and seek ways to alleviate this disparity. It is imperative that Congress find a way to ensure every American at risk is tested and treated in the early stages to prevent an even higher death rate. Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month should be recognized by all Americans to focus on the special opportunity to offer education on the importance of early detection and screening. I am proud to cosponsor this important legislation to support the observance of March as Colorectal Cancer Awareness Month. I strongly support H. Con. Res. 302 and urge all Members to do the same.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 945, raising awareness and promoting education on the criminal justice system by establishing March 2008 as ``National Criminal Justice Month,'' introduced by my distinguished colleague from Texas, Representative Ted Poe. This important legislation calls on policymakers, educators, criminal justice officials, community leaders, victim service providers, nonprofits, and others to promote awareness of how to prevent and respond to crime through the creation of a National Criminal Justice Month. A country's criminal justice system is often a reflection of what values the society deems to be important. Our criminal justice system serves as a means for society to enforce the standards of conduct necessary to protect individuals and the community. During this month we need to be mindful of the need for criminal justice reform. Currently, there are approximately seven million adults on probation, parole, or are incarcerated causing the cost of crime to individuals, communities, businesses, and the various levels of government to be well into the billions. I have sought to alleviate a number of the sentencing disparities responsible for such frivolous government spending through various pieces of legislation, including my ``The Second Chance Act'' and ``The Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007'' that will help to lessen some of the economic and social burden. Our focus should be to educate Americans and to promote awareness within American society as to the causes and consequences of crime, as well as the strategies and developments for preventing and responding to crime. The American people deserve to have a knowledge of the criminal justice system; thus, allowing society to feel safe in their homes as well as on the streets. In 2006, fifty percent of Americans admitted they feared that their home would be burglarized when they are not home, thirty-four percent of American women feared that they would be sexually assaulted, and forty-four percent of Americans feared they would be a victim of a terrorist attack. That is unacceptable. Americans need to be educated about the criminal justice system and how it works to protect all Americans. During this month there has to be a joint effort between policymakers, criminal justice officials, educators, victim service providers, nonprofit organizations, community leaders, and others to promote awareness of how to prevent and respond to crime. It is imperative that we reach out through all the above names avenues to ensure that each and every American knows just how their criminal justice system operations protect them. This important legislation creates an avenue through which to educate the American people about the criminal justice system as well as the causes and consequences of crime, how to prevent crime, and how to respond to crime. I strongly support this important legislation and urge all my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 310, expressing support for a national day of remembrance for Harriet Ross Tubman, introduced by my distinguished colleague from Maryland, Representative Cummings. Harriet Ross Tubman was an African-American abolitionist, humanitarian, and Union Spy during the United States Civil War and as such deserves to be honored for her brave service by members of the United States Congress. Harriet Tubman was born into slavery in Dorchester County, Maryland, of purely African ancestry. Harriet Tubman was born Araminta ``Minty'' Ross to slave parents, Harriet ``Rit'' Green and Ben Ross. Rit was owned by Mary Pattison Brodess and later her son Edward, while Ben was legally owned by Mary's second husband, Anthony Thompson, who ran a large plantation near the Blackwater River in Dorchester County, Maryland. Tubman was beaten and whipped often by her various owners as a child. Early in life she suffered a traumatic head wound when an irate slave owner threw a heavy metal weight at her, intending to hit another slave. The injury caused disabling seizures, headaches, and powerful visionary and dream activity, and spells of hypersomnia which occurred throughout her entire life. In 1849, Tubman became ill, and her value as a slave was diminished as a result. Edward Brodess tried to sell her but could not find a buyer. Angry at this effort and the unjust hold he kept on her relatives, Tubman began to pray for her owner, asking God to make him change his ways. After her sell was considered finalized she `switched' tactics on how she was praying and one week later Brodess died. Tubman expressed regret for her earlier sentiments. Ironically, Brodess's death increased the likelihood that Tubman would be sold and the family would be broken apart. Tubman refused to wait for the Brodess' family to decide her fate, despite her husband's efforts to dissuade her. ``There was one of two things I had a right to,'' she says, ``liberty or death; if I could not have one, I would have the other.'' Harriet Tubman was given a piece of paper by a white neighbor with two names, and told how to find her path to freedom. In 1849, Tubman escaped to Philadelphia. At the first house she was put into a wagon, covered with a sack, and driven to her next destination. Following the paper in route to Pennsylvania, she initially settled in Philadelphia, where she met William Still, the Philadelphia Stationmaster on the Underground Railroad. With the assistance of Still, and other members of the Philadelphia Anti-Slavery Society, she learned about the workings of the UGRR. She immediately returned to rescue her family. Slowly, one group at a time she brought relatives with her out of state, and eventually guided dozens of other slaves to freedom. Traveling by night with extreme caution, Tubman never lost a passenger. Heavy rewards were offered for many of the people she helped free, but no one knew it was Harriet Tubman who was helping them. When a far-reaching United States Fugitive Slave Law was passed in 1850, she helped guide fugitives further north into Canada, and helped newly- freed slaves find work. In 1851 she began relocating members of her family to St. Catharines, Ontario Canada West. North Street in St. Catharines remained her base of operations until 1857. While there she worked various odd jobs to finance her activities as a Conductor on the UGRR, and attended the Salem Chapel BME Church on Geneva Street. Word of her exploits had encouraged her family, and biographers agree that she became more confident with each trip to Maryland. As she led more and more individuals out of slavery, she became popularly known as ``Moses''--an allusion to the prophet in the book of Exodus who led the Hebrews to freedom. When the American Civil War broke out in 1861, Tubman saw a Union victory as a key step toward the abolition of slavery. Tubman hoped to offer her own expertise and skills to the Union cause, too, and soon she joined a group of Boston and Philadelphia abolitionists heading to the Hilton Head District in South Carolina. She became a fixture in the camps, particularly in Port Royal, South Carolina, assisting fugitives. Tubman worked for the Union Army, first as a cook and nurse, and then as an armed scout and spy. The first woman to lead an armed expedition in the war, she guided the raid on the Combahee River, which liberated more than seven hundred slaves. Harriet Tubman, widely known and well-respected while she was alive, became an American icon in the years after her death. In all she is believed to have conducted approximately 300 persons to freedom in the North. The tales of her exploits reveal her highly spiritual nature, as well as a grim determination to protect her charges and those who aided them. She always expressed confidence that God would aid her efforts, and threatened to shoot any of her charges who thought to turn back. When she died, Tubman was buried with military honors at Fort Hill Cemetery in Auburn. Today, I seek to offer my condolences for her death, and also recognize her lifetime of accomplishments. For these reasons, I strongly support H. Con. Res. 310 and urge all my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 1061,``Observing the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and encouraging the people of the United States to pause and remember the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and for other purposes,'' introduced by my distinguished colleague from Georgia, Representative John Lewis. This praiseworthy legislation will commemorate the 40th anniversary of Dr. King's assassination by expanding his legacy and honoring his paradigm of nonviolence, courage, compassion, dignity, and public service. On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated while on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee. In remembering the 40th anniversary of Dr. King's assassination, we should take a moment to reflect upon the purpose for which Dr. King and other civil rights pioneers so resiliently fought. Through his philosophical words and fortified stance against racial injustice, Dr. King provided a road map for all to unite and share in the prosperity of this great democracy. While we acknowledge that our Nation has come a long way, Dr. King's dream has yet to be realized in its entirety. Martin Luther King's contributions to our history place him in this unparalleled position. It is Dr. King who represents the best in all of us and it is in his memory that we continue to devote ourselves to his vision. In his short life, Martin Luther King was instrumental in helping us realize and rectify those unspeakable wrongs which tarnished the name of America. African Americans needed a Martin Luther King, but above all, America needed him. The significant qualities of this special man cannot be underestimated nor taken for granted. Within a span of 13 years, from 1955 to his death in 1968, he was able to expound, expose, and extricate America from many wrongs. Dr. King's inspiring words filled a great void in our nation, and answered our collective longing to become a country that truly lived by its dignified principles. And so we memorialize this man of action, who put his life on the line for freedom and justice every day. Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King's ``I Have a Dream'' Speech, delivered on August 28, 1963, was a clarion call to each citizen of this great Nation that we still hear today. His request was simply and eloquently conveyed--he challenged America to live up to the true meaning of its creed, to make real the words written in its Declaration of Independence and to have a place in this Nation's Bill of Rights. It is with this goal in mind that we strive to provide equal opportunity to all. Dr. King spoke about his contentment with the end of his mortal life in his last speech, ``I've Been to the Mountaintop,'' on April 3, 1968 at Mason Temple. Even then he lifted up the value of service as the hallmark of a full life and reiterated the importance of continuing the struggle for human rights. ``We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now because I've been to the mountaintop.'' We must continue to pay homage to the valor of a man who endured harassment, embarrassment, beatings, and bombings. We commemorate the man who went to jail 29 times to achieve freedom for others, and who knew he would pay the ultimate price for his leadership, but kept on marching and protesting and organizing anyway. Dr. King's vision of equality under the law should never lose its vigor despite times of unevenness in our equality. For without that vision--without that dream--we can never continue to improve on the human condition. During these difficult days when the United States is bogged down in a misguided and mismanaged war in Iraq, which has claimed the lives of over 4,000 men and women, we should also remember that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was, above all, a person who was always willing to speak truth to power. There is perhaps no better example of Dr. King's moral integrity and consistency than his criticism of the Vietnam War being waged by the Johnson Administration, an administration that was otherwise a friend and champion of civil and human rights. He stated, ``We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved.'' Dr. King was taken from us too soon at the tender age of 39 years old. Many people remember that Dr. King died in Memphis, but few remember why he was there. On that fateful day, the 4th day of April in 1968, Dr. King came to Memphis to lead a strike by the city's sanitation workers. The death of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., will never overshadow his life. He was both a dreamer and a man of action. Forty years after his death, Dr. King continues to teach us all. He leaves a legacy of hope, tempered with peace; although, it is a vision not yet fulfilled. Mr. Speaker, words cannot convey or adequately repay the debt that is owed. We cannot sufficiently articulate the feelings of sorrow that are still universally felt; however, we can pay Dr. King and other civil rights pioneers no greater tribute than to carry on the work they believed in and paid the ultimate sacrifice for. The contributions that Dr. King provided are priceless and will never be forgotten. As we recognize the 40th Anniversary of the slaying of a martyr, let us remember to commemorate his vision, remember his message, and rededicate ourselves to his goal of a free and just United States. I hope every person here rededicates his or her life to fulfilling his legacy--that all of us here highly resolve that Dr. King's dream never dies but becomes a living reality for all the children of this great nation and the world. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation, and, in-so-doing, giving Dr. King the respect that he so greatly deserves.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 1021, expressing support for the goals, ideals, and history of National Women's History Month. I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Congresswoman Woolsey, for introducing this legislation, which I am proud to cosponsor. Let me also thank the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Chairman Waxman, for bringing this resolution before us today. The purpose of National Women's History Month is to increase awareness and knowledge of women's involvement in history. I strongly believe that it is vital to honor the originality, beauty, imagination, and multiple dimensions of women's lives. As recently as the 1970s, women's history was rarely taught in schools, and was not part of public awareness. To address this situation, the Education Task Force of the Sonoma County, California, Commission on the Status of Women initiated a ``Women's History Week'' celebration for 1978. In 1981, in response to the growing popularity of women's history celebrations, Congress passed a resolution making Women's History Week a national observance. Within a few years, thousands of schools and communities across the country were celebrating National Women's History Week. The popularity of women's history celebrations has sparked a new interest in uncovering women's forgotten heritage. Under the guidance of the National Women's History Project, educators, workplace program planners, parents and community organizations in thousands of American communities have turned National Women's History Month into a major celebration and a springboard for celebrating women's history all year round. Mr. Speaker, in the early days of our great Nation, women were relegated to second class status. Women were considered sub-sets of their husbands, and after marriage they did not have the right to own property, maintain their wages, or sign a contract, much less vote. It was expected that women be obedient wives, never to hold a thought or opinion independent of their husbands. It was considered improper for women to travel alone or to speak in public. The fight for women's suffrage was formally begun in 1848, and, in 1919, after years of petitioning, picketing, and protest parades, the 19th amendment was passed by both Houses of Congress; it was ratified the following year. However, the right to vote did not give women equal rights, and subsequent decades saw an ongoing struggle for equality. A major success came with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. This law, enacted in June 1972, states ``No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.'' Title XI, introduced by Congresswoman Patsy Mink, also notable as the first Asian American woman elected to Congress, has opened countless doors to educational activities, perhaps most prominently including high school and collegiate athletics, to women. Congresswoman Mink's legacy lives on as, each year, hundreds of women across the Nation participate in NCAA athletics, learn teamwork and perseverance, earn scholarships enabling them to study at college, and enjoy equal footing with men in the academic arena. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to pay tribute to the women, local heroes, of my district. Women like Ramona Tolliver, long time Fifth Ward resident, former precinct chair, founding board member of Fifth Ward Community Redevelopment Corporation, member of Our Mother of Mercy Catholic Church, and member of the Metropolitan Organization, who is still actively advocating for her community. Women like Nellie Joyce Punch, long time Fifth Ward resident, retired educator at Phyllis Wheatley High School, former precinct chair, founding board member of Fifth Ward Community Redevelopment Corporation, member of the Methodist Church, also actively working on behalf of her community. Both Ms. Tolliver and Ms. Punch are active in Houston's Fifth Ward, where they act as the conscience for the community, calling for change and actively working to better our city. Women like Dr. Charlesetta Deason, principal of Houston's DeBakey High School for Health Professions. Dr. Deason helms a school that offers students interested in science and health careers an alternative to the traditional high school experience, located in the renowned Texas Medical Center and boasting an ethnically diverse faculty and an excellent introductory study of medicine. Or women like Harris County Commissioner Sylvia Garcia, the first Hispanic and first woman to be elected in her own right to the office. Commissioner Garcia is active in the Houston community, and she has served on more than 25 community boards and commissions, including the San Jacinto Girl Scouts, the Houston Hispanic Forum, the American Leadership Forum, the Texas Southern University Foundation, and the Institute of Hispanic Culture. As a Nation, we have come a long way toward recognizing the important role women play, not only in our local communities, but in our Nation as a whole. Since 1917, when Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana became the first woman to serve in Congress, 243 more women have served as U.S. Representatives or Senators. In 1968, Shirley Chisholm became the first African American woman elected to Congress; I am now proud to be one of 13 African American women serving in this body. In addition, we are now, for the first time, under the leadership of a woman Speaker of the House. Speaker Pelosi has led this Democratic Congress in a new direction, listening to the will of the American people, as it was clearly expressed last November. Mr. Speaker, the great tragedy of women's history is that, many times, the history of women is not written down. Too often, throughout the course of history, the contributions of women have gone unrecorded, unheralded, and are now forgotten. And so, Mr. Speaker, during Women's History Month, we do not stand here only to remember the Eleanor Roosevelts, Harriet Tubmans, and Rosa Parks, women who are now celebrated in our schools and history books, but also the millions of female unsung heroes who built this Nation, and who made it truly great. I would like to pay special tribute to women, mothers, and grandmothers across the country. In particular, I would like to draw attention to the growing phenomenon of grandparents raising children. As of 1996, 4 million children were being raised by their grandparents, and statistics published the following year indicated that more than one-tenth of all grandparents provided the primary care for their grandchildren for at least 6 months and typically much longer. These numbers continue to grow, and these grandparents, generally ineligible for financial or social support, often suffer greatly to provide a safe and loving home for these children. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we pay tribute to the brave women who serve proudly in our Nation's military. We have come a long way since the first American woman soldier, Deborah Sampson of Massachusetts, who enlisted as a Continental Army soldier under the name of ``Robert Shurtlief.'' Women served with distinction in World War II: 350,000 American women served during World War II, and 16 were killed in action. In total, they gained over 1,500 medals, citations, and commendations. In December 1989, CPT Linda L. Bray, 29, became the first woman to command American soldiers in battle, during the invasion of Panama. The war in Iraq marks the first time in American history that a substantial number of the combat wounded are women. 350,000 women are serving in the U.S. military--almost 15 percent of active duty personnel, and one in every seven troops in Iraq is a woman. Women play a role in nearly all types of military operation, and they have time and time again demonstrated extreme bravery, courage, and patriotism. I would particularly like to honor one of our heroic daughters: Army SPC Monica L. Brown. Brown is the first woman in Afghanistan and only the second female soldier since World War II to receive the Silver Star, the Nation's third-highest medal for valor. Army SPC Monica Brown was part of a four-vehicle convoy patrolling near Jani Kheil in the eastern province of Paktia on April 25, 2007, when a bomb struck one of the Humvees. After the explosion, in which five soldiers in her unit were wounded, Brown ran through insurgent gunfire and used her body to shield wounded comrades as mortars fell less than 100 yards away. Army Specialist Brown, a native Texan, represents the best of our Nation's fighting men and women, and she clearly demonstrates that the admirable qualities of patriotism, valor, and courage know no gender. Mr. Speaker, Women's History Month is an opportunity for all Americans to reflect on the women who have built, strengthened, and maintained this great Nation. Women who have often gone unrecognized and unheralded for their great achievements, sacrifices, and contributions. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the women in their communities, in their families, and in their lives. I, along with the residents of the 18th Congressional District of Texas, recognize the unique contributions of women throughout the course of American history. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, as we debate various issues here in the United States Congress and in this House, it is sometimes important to remind Members of the history of this Nation and the importance of matters that Members discuss. They are called suspensions, but they're no less important and speak eloquently to the history and the diversity of this Nation. I would quickly like to acknowledge my support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 commemorative coin and support my colleague John Lewis for offering this very important initiative, for a country that does not remember its history is doomed to repeat the past. We've gained much from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and I support the legislation. As we speak today about honoring our history, I am also reminded that this is the week of the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. This past Friday, I was able to stand in front of the hotel in which he was assassinated, walk out on to the balcony and be reminded of this peaceful giant. And so it is important for us to take a moment, of which we will do on this coming Thursday, to remember not so much his death and the violence of his death, but his love for humanity and the ability to bring people together. He truly was a leader of a movement. Today, I stood with my colleagues, Congressman Baca and others, to support the national holiday for Cesar Chavez because they were brothers, Martin King and Cesar Chavez. I think it is important as we look at Women's History Month that we recount not only our national figures as I support the debate that reminded us this past month, March 2008 was Women's History Month, how exciting it is to see the historic opportunities that women have had and are increasingly having, knowing that they just gained a vote in 1920. I was very honored to be able to bring to the attention of my colleagues Ramona Tolliver, a champion and a fighter for empowerment of those in the Fifth Ward area; Nellie Joyce Punch, again from Houston, a fighter for those in the Fifth Ward area and educator and a lover of providing equal opportunity to young people; Dr. Deason, a long- standing principal in Houston of the High School for Health Professions. There is certainly no greater lover of education and helping our children than Dr. Deason. And certainly I think it is important to acknowledge Commissioner Sylvia Garcia in Houston who has turned the corner as the first woman commissioner in Harris County. Then, of course, I salute Shirley Chisholm and Carole Mosley Braun, women who ran for President, and my former predecessor Barbara Jordan. Women are on the move, and it is certainly important to acknowledge their history in this country, and it should not be ignored that women have struggled to overcome, and that is, of course, the women who get up every morning and ride the buses and teach the schools and work for us in restaurants and in hospitals and are doctors and lawyers and others. Women deserve the honoring of this month. And one who certainly deserves it is a Civil Cross winner, a young 19-year-old from Texas, Monica L. Brown. Which brings me to the upcoming testimony of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. Having just come back from Iraq, let me simply say that the legislation that I have offered, which I will discuss over the next couple of days into the testimony of the two individuals that will be coming, first of all, let me thank them for all of their service and offer my concern for the public servants and U.S. personnel in the Green Zone, of which we have stayed, who have been bombed in the last couple of days. It is the very clarity of what I saw that says to me it is time to bring our troops home. We serve no large purpose to engage in, if you will, the civil war that may be going on in Iraq. We can serve as technical advisers and counselors, and we can bring other nations together to assist in a peaceful transition. We can, as my bill says, bring our soldiers home in honor and begin a diplomatic surge; make the Maliki government engage in nonsectarianism, as the Sunnis told me face to face; eliminate the sectarianism, Shiite and Shiite, Kurds and Sunnis; and begin to talk about a stable Iraq. That is not America's task; it is a task of the Iraqi government, the Iraqi people. And it certainly is a task that we must charge Iran for them to stop sending mortars and ammunition to create the havoc that is going on. But that is not the war. That is not the resolution. That is not the war of America. It is clearly a time to transition. Those are the hard questions that we will pose to our heroes, Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus. We appreciate that they have been trying to serve America in the best way possible, but it is now time to serve not only America and our sons and daughters but the American people who deserve an investment in their country, a rebuilding of the military, and an acknowledgment and celebration of the heroes of the Iraq War and certainly a recognition of those who still fight in Afghanistan for it is time now to focus our attention there. With that, Madam Speaker, we look forward to saving America.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in honor of women's history month, and to pay tribute to the countless mothers and grandmothers, sisters and daughters, friends and neighbors that are active across our communities, cities, and our Nation. Women who inspire us, who are the conscience of our communities, and, most of all, women who are the unsung heroes of our shared historical past. In the early days of our great Nation, women were relegated to second-class status. Women were considered sub-sets of their husbands, and after marriage they did not have the right to own property, maintain their wages, or sign a contract, much less vote. It was expected that women be obedient wives, never to hold a thought or opinion independent of their husbands. It was considered improper for women to travel alone or to speak in public. The fight for women's suffrage was formally begun in 1848, and, in 1919, after years of petitioning, picketing, and protest parades, the Nineteenth Amendment was passed by both houses of Congress and in 1920 it became ratified under the presidency of Woodrow Wilson. However, the right to vote did not give women equal rights, and subsequent decades saw an ongoing struggle for equality. A major success came in with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, also known as the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act, in honor of its principal author. This law, enacted on June 23, 1972, states ``No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.'' Title XI, introduced by Congresswoman Patsy Mink (also notable as the first Asian American woman elected to Congress), has opened the doors to countless educational activities, perhaps most prominently high school and collegiate athletics, to women. Congresswoman Mink's legacy lives on as, each year, hundreds of women across the Nation participate in NCAA athletics, learn teamwork and perseverance, earn scholarships enabling them to study at college, and enjoy equal footing with men in the academic arena. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to pay tribute to the women, local heroes, of my district. Women like Ramona Tolliver, long time Fifth Ward resident, former Precinct Chair, founding board member of Fifth Ward Community Redevelopment Corporation, member of Our Mother of Mercy Catholic Church, and member of the Metropolitan Organization member, who is still actively advocating for her community. Women like Nellie Joyce Punch, long time Fifth Ward resident, retired educator at Phyllis Wheatley High School, former Precinct Chair, founding board member of Fifth Ward Community Redevelopment Corporation, member of Methodist Church, also still actively working on behalf of her community. Both Ms. Tolliver and Ms. Punch are active in Houston's Fifth Ward, where they act as the conscience for the community, calling for change and actively working to better our city. Women like Dr. Charlesetta Deason, principal of Houston's DeBakey High School for Health Professions. Dr. Deason helms a school that offers students interested in science and health careers an alternative to the traditional high school experience, located in the renowned Texas Medical Center and boasting an ethnically diverse faculty and an excellent introductory study of medicine. Or women like Harris County Commissioner Sylvia Garcia, the first Hispanic and first woman to be elected in her own right to the office. Commissioner Garcia is active in the Houston community, and she has served on more than 25 community boards and commissions, including the San Jacinto Girl Scouts, the Houston Hispanic Forum, the American Leadership Forum, the Texas Southern University Foundation and the Institute of Hispanic Culture. As a Nation, we have come a long way toward recognizing the important role women play, not only in our local communities, but in our Nation as a whole. Since 1917, when Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana became the first woman to serve in Congress, 243 more women have served as U.S. Representatives or Senators. In 1968, Shirley Chisholm became the first African American woman elected to Congress; I am now proud to be one of 13 African American women serving in this body. In addition, we are now, for the first time, under the leadership of a woman Speaker of the House. Speaker Pelosi has led this Democratic Congress in a New Direction, listening to the will of the American people, as it was clearly expressed last November. We are also currently in the midst of a groundbreaking Presidential campaign, which, for the first time, sees a woman seriously vying for the nomination of one of the two major political parties. Mr. Speaker, the great tragedy of women's history is that, many times, the history of women is not written down. Too often, throughout the course of history, the contributions of women have gone unrecorded, unheralded, and are now forgotten. And so, Madam Speaker, during Women's History Month, we do not stand here only to remember the Eleanor Roosevelts, Harriet Tubmans, Barbara Jordans, and Rosa Parks, women who are celebrated in our schools and history books, but also the millions of female unsung heroes who built this Nation, and who made it truly great. I would like to pay special tribute to women, mothers, and grandmothers across the country. In particular, I would like to draw attention to the growing phenomenon of grandparents raising children. As of 1996, 4 million children were being raised by their grandparents, and statistics published the following year indicated that over one- tenth of all grandparents provided the primary care for their grandchildren for at least six months and typically much longer. These numbers continue to grow, and these grandparents, generally ineligible for financial or social support, often suffer greatly to provide a safe and loving home for these children. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we pay tribute to the brave women who serve proudly in our Nation's military. We have come a long way since the first American woman soldier, Deborah Sampson of Massachusetts, who enlisted as a Continental Army soldier under the name of ``Robert Shurtlief.'' Women served with distinction in World War II: 350,000 American women served during World War II, and 16 were killed in action. In total, they gained over 1,500 medals, citations and commendations. In December 1989, CPT Linda L. Bray, 29, became the first woman to command American soldiers in battle, during the invasion of Panama. The war in Iraq marks the first time in American history that a substantial number of the combat wounded are women. 350,000 women are serving in the U.S. military--almost 15 percent of active duty personnel, and one in every seven troops in Iraq is a woman. Women play a role in nearly all types of military operation, and they have time and time again demonstrated extreme bravery, courage, and patriotism. I would particularly like to honor one our heroic daughters: Army SPC Monica L. Brown. Brown is the first woman in Afghanistan and only the second female soldier since World War II to receive the Silver Star, the Nation's third-highest medal for valor. Army SPC Monica Brown was part of a four-vehicle convoy patrolling near Jani Kheil in the eastern province of Paktia on April 25, 2007, when a bomb struck one of the Humvees. After the explosion, in which five soldiers in her unit were wounded, Brown ran through insurgent gunfire and used her body to shield wounded comrades as mortars fell less than 100 yards away. Army Specialist Brown, a native Texan, represents the best of our Nation's fighting men and women, and she clearly demonstrates that the admirable qualities of patriotism, valor, and courage know no gender. Mr. Speaker, Women's History Month is an opportunity for all Americans to reflect on the women who have built, strengthened, and maintained this great Nation. Women who have often gone unrecognized, unheralded, and unlauded for their great achievements, sacrifices, and contributions. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the women in their communities, in their families, and in their lives.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce legislation with my colleague, Ron Paul of Texas, that honors the sacrifice and courage of a young Army soldier. This happens to be Women's History Month, and this happens to be in honor of the heroic deeds of U.S. Army Specialist, Monica L. Brown. I believe this legislation is especially pertinent, given that March is Women's History Month. Specialist Brown is the first woman in Afghanistan, and only the second female soldier since World War II, to receive the Silver Star, the Nation's third highest medal for valor. This soldier from Lake Jackson, Texas is only 19 years old. On April 25, 2007, Specialist Brown was part of a four-vehicle convoy patrolling near Jani Kheil in the eastern province of Paktia on April 25, 2007, when a bomb struck one of the HUMVEES. When Specialist Brown saw fellow soldiers were injured, she grabbed her aid bag and started running toward the burning vehicle as insurgents opened fire, without regard to herself. All five wounded soldiers from her platoon scrambled out. Under this commotion, she assessed her patients and moved them to a safer location because they were still receiving fire. The Pentagon says that they don't send women to the front lines, but in Afghanistan and in Iraq there are no front lines. She happens to be only the second woman to receive the Silver Star since World War II. We honor her with this resolution, H. Con. Res. 320. I ask my colleagues to join me in this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that honors the sacrifice and courage of a young Army soldier. My colleague and fellow Texan, Representative Ron Paul seeks to recognize the heroic deeds of U.S. Army Specialist Monica L. Brown. I believe this legislation is especially pertinent given that March is Women's History Month. Spec. Brown is the first woman in Afghanistan and only the second female soldier since World War II to receive the Silver Star, the nation's third-highest medal for valor. This solider from Lake Jackson, Texas is only 19 years old. On April 25, 2007, Specialist Brown was part of a four-vehicle convoy patrolling near Jani Kheil in the eastern province of Paktia on April 25, 2007, when a bomb struck one of the Humvees. When Spec. Brown saw her fellow soldiers were injured, she grabbed her aid bag and started running toward the burning vehicle as insurgents opened fire. All five wounded soldiers from her platoon scrambled out. Under this commotion, she assessed her patients and moved them to a safer location because they were still receiving incoming fire. The Pentagon's official policy is to prohibit women from serving in front-line combat roles in the infantry, armor or artillery, but the nature of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with no real front lines, has seen women soldiers take part in close-quarters combat more than previous conflicts. According to the Army four Army nurses in World War II were the first women to receive the Silver Star, though three nurses serving in World War I were awarded the medal posthumously in 2007. Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester, of Nashville, Tenn., was the first to receive the Silver Star in 2005 along with two fellow male soldiers for her gallantry during an insurgent ambush on a convoy in Iraq. The Army has stated that Spec. Brown's ``bravery, unselfish actions and medical aid rendered under fire saved the lives of her comrades and represents the finest traditions of heroism in combat.'' This legislation is not about condoning the wars in Afghanistan or in Iraq. This legislation is about us supporting and honoring our troops. It is about this Nation's children fighting for the rights of all of us in places we do not dare to go, under environments we cannot fully appreciate from this comfortable position. Spec. Brown reminds us that our youth are fighting in this war, our mothers and daughters are fighting in this war, and they deserve to be recognized for their achievements. However, we not only recognize the sacrifice and courage of Spec. Brown, of even just the brave acts of her fellow soldiers, marines, and airmen. We must also recognize the families of our military. Spec. Brown's grandmother said she was the proudest Grandmother in all of Lake Jackson, Texas, when she learned of her granddaughter's heroism. We should all be as proud of our young men and women as Spec. Brown's grandmother. In being proud of them, we are not condoning the Administration, we are recognizing their efforts and their belief in what they have been tasked to do. We sit in these chambers and discuss the idea of war, and the economic costs to the Nation. However, our men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq are dealing with the realities of war everyday. I am proud of Specialist Monica L. Brown, Texas is proud of Monica L. Brown, and this country should be proud of Monica L. Brown. She thought first of her fellow soldiers and not of the harm that may come her way. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join Representative Ron Paul and myself in recognizing a true hero, a solider, a daughter of Texas, with this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Having heard all of the answers to all of the questions that have been raised by the opposition, knowing that full justice, civil liberties and the protection is in this bill, I rise in support of the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3773, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This body has worked diligently with our colleagues in the Senate to ensure that the civil liberties of American citizens are appropriately addressed. We have worked to not simply reconcile the Senate language with the RESTORE Act (H.R. 3773) which we passed in the House on November 15, 2007, but to go beyond the RESTORE Act as part of FISA Reform legislation by: Adopting provisions from the Senate bill that will for the first time provide statutory protections for U.S. persons overseas, that ensures surveillance of their communications are conducted through the courts; and Providing a mechanism for telecommunications carriers to prove their case that they did not engage in any wrongdoing and to guarantee due process with a fair hearing in court. Like the RESTORE Act, the FISA reform legislation provides for collection against terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, while providing prior court approval of acquisition and an on-going process of review and oversight in order to protect Americans' privacy. The revised House bill creates a bipartisan commission on Warrantless Electronic Surveillance Activities with strong investigatory powers in order to preserve the rule of law in pending and future lawsuits. This revised version of the bill continues to reiterate FISA's exclusive control for conducting foreign intelligence surveillance, and requires explicit statutory authorization for any means outside of FISA. This is an area where the House version has differed from the Senate. Homeland security is not a Democratic or a Republican issue, it is not a House or Senate issue; it is an issue for all Americans--all of us need to be secure in our homes, secure in our thoughts, and secure in our communications. I find it disturbing that our Republican colleagues will not join us to ensure that Americans are safe here and abroad. Disturbing that they do not recognize that we must protect the civil liberties of this nation just as we protect American lives. Mr. Speaker, in August of this year, I strongly opposed S. 1927, the so-called ``Protect America Act'' (PAA) when it came to a vote on the House floor. Had the Bush Administration and the Republican-dominated 109th Congress acted more responsibly in the two preceding years, we would not have been in the position of debating legislation that had such a profoundly negative impact on the national security and on American values and civil liberties in the crush of exigent circumstances. As that regrettable episode clearly showed, it is true as the saying goes that haste makes waste. The PAA was stampeded through the Congress in the midnight hour of the last day before the long August recess on the dubious claim that it was necessary to fill a gap in the nation's intelligence gathering capabilities identified by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell. In reality it would have eviscerated the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and represented an unwarranted transfer of power from the courts to the Executive Branch and a Justice Department led at that time by an Attorney General whose reputation for candor and integrity was, to put it charitably, subject to considerable doubt. Under the House bill, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC is indispensable and is accorded a meaningful role in ensuring compliance with the law. The bill ensures that the FISC is empowered to act as an Article III court should act, which means the court shall operate neither as a rubber-stamp nor a bottleneck. Rather, the function of the court is to validate the lawful exercise of executive power on the one hand, and to act as the guardian of individual rights and liberties on the other. Moreover, Mr. 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. I call my colleagues' attention to an article published in the Washington Post in which it is reported that Joseph Nacchio, the former CEO of Qwest, alleges that his company was denied NSA contracts after he declined in a February 27, 2001 meeting at Fort Meade with National Security Agency, NSA, representatives to give the NSA customer calling records. To give a detailed illustration of just how superior the RESTORE Act is to the ill-considered and hastily enacted Protect America Act, I wish to take a few moments to discuss an important improvement in the bill that was adopted in the full Judiciary Committee markup. My amendment, which was added during the markup, made a constructive 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,'' a concept well known to members of this Committee but not so well understood by those less steeped in the arcana of electronic surveillance, is the practice where the Government targets foreigners without a warrant while its actual purpose is to collect information on certain U.S. persons. One of the major concerns that libertarians and classical conservatives, as well as progressives and civil liberties organizations, have with the PAA is that the understandable temptation of national security agencies to engage in reverse targeting may be difficult to resist in the absence of strong safeguards in the PAA to prevent it. My amendment reduces 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 achieves 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.'' The current language in the bill provides that a warrant be obtained only when the Government ``seeks to conduct electronic surveillance'' of a person reasonably believed to be located in the United States. It was far from clear how the operative language ``seeks to'' is to be interpreted. In contrast, the language used in my amendment, ``significant purpose,'' is a term of art that has long been a staple of FISA jurisprudence and thus is well known and readily applied by the agencies, legal practitioners, and the FISA Court. Thus, the Jackson Lee Amendment provides 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. Mr. Speaker, 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. This will usually happen over time and the Government will have the time to get an order while continuing its surveillance. It is the national security interest to require it to obtain an order at that point, so that it can lawfully acquire all of the target person's communications rather than continuing to listen to only some of them. It is very important to me, and it should be very important to Members of this body that we require what should be required in all cases--a warrant anytime there is surveillance of a United States citizen. In short, the Senate amendment to the House version makes a good bill even better. For this reason alone, civil libertarians should enthusiastically embrace H.R. 3773. 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. Mr. 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 it is run currently attempts to circumvent the Bill of Rights and the civil liberties of the American people. I continue to insist upon individual warrants, based on 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, Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join me in a vote of support for the FISA Amendments Act, H.R. 3773, as it seeks to balance our Nation's securities and our civil liberties.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I imagine that Admiral McConnell is watching and listening, and so allow me this morning to thank all of the patriots that are stationed around the world that are the front lines of the national security and defense and intelligence community of this Nation. To the American people, let me say on your behalf, we thank them, for they are working every day, and they are working diligently, and they are being successful. This rule today supporting the underlying bill should be passed, because Admiral McConnell is aware that every single tool that he has asked for, foreign-to-foreign and otherwise in terms of surveillance, is in this bill. Interestingly enough, if you will talk to members of the law enforcement community and those who are dealing with terrorists, they will tell you that they are intercepting terrorists. They are finding terrorists every single day. I personally spoke to law enforcement who noted in one region of the country that they have intercepted three terrorists. So what we are doing today is providing the codified document to secure your civil liberties, to suggest that if the focus of your surveillance is actually an American, they have to have a court intervention, a quick court intervention. As it relates to our telecom companies, is anyone suggesting that they are not patriots? Is anyone suggesting that they will not comply with a request by the national security community? They will, because in this bill it indicates to them that if they get a letter that suggests that we need their help, that they are not breaking the law, that all of the laws have been in compliance certified by the AG, they get absolute immunity. So going forward, there will be no question. If that happened in the past, they have absolute immunity. There will be no gaping hole, and the idea of avoiding retroactive immunity is a question to America. It is protecting your civil liberties. Yes, we have been secure, or we have avoided a tragedy since 9/11. It is because we have given them the tools, and now we give them better tools. It is important to pass this legislation, because it advances the security of America. But what it says to the world is that we are not terrorized by the terrorists. We believe in security, but we believe in the civil liberties of all Americans. The Constitution still stands. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the H. Res. 1041, Providing for Consideration of the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3773, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act. This Rule will allow us to examine the Senate Amendment and to consider the many concerns associated with this act. We have worked as a body to resolve our issues with FISA and with those of our Senate colleagues without eviscerating the fundamental rights embodied in the Bill of Rights. Leadership has worked tirelessly to not simply reconcile the Senate language with the RESTORE Act (H.R. 3773), which we passed in the House on November 15, 2007, but leadership has also worked tirelessly to go beyond the RESTORE Act. This current FISA Reform legislation has been borne out of this tireless struggle. Let me detail some of the ways that the FISA Reform Act balances security and liberty: adopting provisions from the Senate bill that will for the first time provide statutory protections for U.S. persons overseas, that ensures surveillance of their communications are conducted through the courts; and providing a mechanism for telecommunications carriers to prove their case that they did not engage in any wrongdoing and to guarantee due process with a fair hearing in court. Like the RESTORE Act, the FISA reform legislation provides for collection against terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, while providing prior court approval of acquisition and an on-going process of review and oversight in order to protect Americans' privacy. The FISA Reform Act creates a bipartisan commission on Warrantless Electronic Surveillance Activities with strong investigatory powers in order to preserve the rule of law in pending and future lawsuits. This revised version of the bill reiterates FISA's exclusive control for conducting foreign intelligence surveillance, unless a specific statutory authorization for surveillance is enacted. This is an area where the House version has differed from the Senate. Perhaps the most important distinction between the House version of the bill and the Senate's version is that the Court must approve surveillance procedures prior to the start of surveillance. Under the Senate bill, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General authorize surveillance and submit procedures to the FISA Court 5 days after surveillance begins. Under the Senate bill, the FISA Court has no firm deadline for approving the procedures. The Senate bill does not go far enough in protecting the individual rights of Americans. The FISA Reform Act requires submission to Congress and the FISA Court of ``reverse targeting'' guidelines that are to be promulgated by the NSA. Specifically, these guidelines will determine whether the ``significant purpose'' of the surveillance is to acquire communications of a specific U.S. person. In this regard, the House bill gives more teeth to the provisions in the Senate bill, which only has general prohibitions against reverse targeting and does not require the promulgation of agency guidelines addressing reverse targeting. Both the FISA Reform Act and the Senate bill, provide for prospective liability protection for telecommunications companies that assist with lawful surveillance activities. However, the FISA Reform Act goes further by ensuring that telecommunication companies complying with the Protect America Act (PAA) have liability protection for lawful surveillance that occurred after the expiration of the PAA. Another major difference between the bills is that the FISA Reform Act does not provide for any retroactive immunity. Instead, the FISA Reform Act provides for a process to allow district courts to review classified evidence in camera and ex parte (in front of the judge without the presence of the plaintiff). This allows the telecommunications companies to have their day in court and to assert defenses that already exist under FISA and other statutes. This process simply creates a pathway for companies to assert such defenses. This process, which allows the Court to review information and the companies to prove their case, prevents the Executive Branch from blocking the companies from asserting their defenses under the doctrine of ``state secrets'' privilege. The FISA Reform Act permits the telecommunication companies an opportunity to defend themselves but does not create any new defenses or immunity and it does not excuse any conduct that may have been unlawful. Under the House bill, telecommunication companies can prove their innocence in court without the protection of the States immunity privilege. If these companies cannot prove that their actions were proper then they will be held accountable. The Senate bill grants full immunity to any telecommunication company where the Attorney General certified that assistance was requested as part of the President's warrantless surveillance program. This blanket immunity goes to far, and do not support full immunity. I believe the FISA Reform Act is better because it provides the telecommunications companies with due process and an opportunity to prove their guilt or innocence. I cannot support a case for blanket immunity and the FISA Reform Act does not allow it. Lastly, the FISA Reform Act provides a forward looking provision that establishes a bipartisan National Commission, appointed by Congress. The Commission will investigate and report to Congress and the public about the Administration's warrantless surveillance activities. Homeland security is not a Democratic or a Republican issue, it is not a House or Senate issue; it is an issue for all Americans--all of us need to be secure in our homes, secure in our thoughts, and secure in our communications. I find it disturbing that our Republican colleagues will not join us to ensure that Americans are safe here and abroad. Disturbing that they do not recognize that we must protect the civil liberties of this Nation just as we protect American lives. Mr. Speaker, in August of last year, I strongly opposed S. 1927, the so-called ``Protect America Act'' (PAA), when it came to a vote on the House floor. Had the Bush administration and the Republican-dominated 109th Congress acted more responsibly in the two preceding years, we would not have been in the position of debating legislation that had such a profoundly negative impact on the national security and on American values and civil liberties in the crush of exigent circumstances. As that regrettable episode clearly showed, it is true as the saying goes that haste makes waste. The PAA was stampeded through the Congress in the midnight hour of the last day before the long August recess on the dubious claim that it was necessary to fill a gap in the Nation's intelligence gathering capabilities identified by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell. In reality, it would have circumvented the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and represented an unwarranted transfer of power from the courts to the Executive Branch and a Justice Department led at that time by an Attorney General whose reputation for candor and integrity was, to put it charitably, subject to considerable doubt. Under the House bill, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is indispensable and is accorded a meaningful role in ensuring compliance with the law. The bill ensures that the FISC is empowered to act as an Article III court should act, which means the court shall operate neither as a rubber-stamp nor a bottleneck. Rather, the function of the court is to validate the lawful exercise of executive power on the one hand, and to act as the guardian of individual rights and liberties on the other. Moreover, Mr. 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. My amendment, which was added during the markup last year, made a constructive 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 a concept well known to members of the Judiciary Committee but not so well understood by those less steeped in the minutiae of electronic surveillance; it is the practice where the Government targets foreigners without a warrant while its actual purpose is to collect information on certain U.S. persons. One of the major concerns that libertarians, as well as progressives and civil liberties organizations, have with the FISA is that the temptation of national security agencies to engage in reverse targeting is often difficult to resist in the absence of strong safeguards to prevent it. My amendment, accepted in the House Judiciary mark up, reduced any 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.'' The language used in my amendment, ``significant purpose,'' is a term of art that has long been a staple of FISA jurisprudence and thus is well known and readily applied by the 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. Mr. Speaker, 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. The acquisition of communications will happen over time and the Government will have the time to get an order while continuing its surveillance. It is the national security interest to require the Government to obtain an order at that point, so that it can lawfully acquire all of the target person's communications rather than continuing to listen to only some of them. We are living in a time of economic crisis and acts of unfettered terrorism. Former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said that ``our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged.'' Like former President Roosevelt, we must secure our Nation from foreign entanglements but at the same time we must continue to champion the fundamental freedoms of all Americans regardless of whether the surveillance occurs in the United States or abroad. It is very important to me; and it should be very important to Members of this body that we require what should be required in all cases--a warrant any time there is surveillance of a United States citizen. In short, the Senate amendment to the House amendment makes a good bill even better. For this reason alone, civil libertarians should enthusiastically embrace the amended H.R. 3773. The Bush administration would like the American people to believe that Democrats do not want to protect America. My Republican colleagues echo this false claim in both the chambers of Congress by questioning our patriotism. But I remind them that tyrannical behavior often questions the motivations of those seeking to protect civil liberties. Let us not fall prey to false proclamations of an administration that takes our Bill of Rights and lays it to the side when they feel like it. Security must go hand-in-hand with liberty. Oppression of some for the alleged security of others is not the example this great Nation should set. 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 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. Mr. Speaker, FISA has served the Nation well for nearly 30 years, placing electronic surveillance inside the United States for foreign intelligence and counter-intelligence purposes on a sound legal footing, and I am far from persuaded that it needs to be jettisoned. I continue to insist upon individual warrants, based on 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, Mr. 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 upon incomplete information from the Bush administration or upon erroneous revelations leaked through the media. Instead Congress 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 the United States and abroad. 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. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to Join me In a vote of support for H. Res. 1041, the Rule providing for FISA Amendments Act. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I applaud your leadership, and I am delighted to have the opportunity to address the day's and the week's events, because many times, as we discuss these matters on the floor of the House, many of our constituents and Americans sometimes wonder the order of our words. This afternoon we did an important and major leap towards securing this Nation and providing it with the protection of civil liberties. Although in the course of the discussion there may have been accusations, the FISA bill, the amendments to the Senate bill, was the right approach and the right direction to take. You know, we had an opportunity last evening for a secret session, and I was on the floor questioning the validity of such, because I always believe what we do in America should be in the eyes of America, although we recognize in this time of terrorism there is a necessity for classified documents or top secret documents, but there is never a time to close the door on America's knowledge. I would not want this debate that many of you may have heard to be characterized as one of a coverup that we are doing something that does not provide the absolute safety and wise direction that America should take. I wanted to simply add to my statements that will be put into the Record the idea that this bill provides the opportunity to secure foreign-to-foreign surveillance, but it also avoids the targeting of Americans without the intervention of the court so that if you were, by chance, talking to a relative in a foreign land that might, without your knowledge, be targeted or through some way, might be connected, that would draw surveillance, you can be assured that as an American, unlike the occurrence with Martin Luther King and some Americans during the Vietnam War, that you have the intervention of a court established first in 1978 under President Carter. We have streamlined that. The language called ``reverse targeting'' was an amendment that I submitted into the Judiciary Committee that would avoid targeting an American without the intervention of a court, not a court for 6 days or 6 weeks, but an automatic intervention that is given to you within hours. We have a system where the Attorney General now must, along with the Director of Intelligence, put in guidelines to be able to oversee what happens when an American is targeted. I can ask any American whether or not that is a reasonable approach. If they study the question, I think they would understand that no intelligence and no opportunity to secure or to capture a terrorist has been intervened with while we have been having these debates, because we had the security of the bill that has been in place, the Protect America Act, for over a year. Authorities still exist, even through the recess that we will take, to provide the intelligence community with any tools that they will need. But it is a sad state of affairs in America if we allow the terrorists to terrorize us and to, in essence, tear up the Constitution. That is what we did today. We protected the Constitution, and we ensured that those who are concerned, the telecommunications company, many of them, we know their names, are, in fact, protected. One, we protect them going forward. Two, we give them a cure for the litigation that is going on today, because we don't prohibit the review of top secret documents in camera. The cases that are going on now, those telecommunications companies will be protected because they will have the ability to review the evidence so that they can convince the court that they were operating within the law. Going forward, we will get a certified letter from the Attorney General or the Director of Intelligence to say we need information from you. We will tell them that they are not breaking the law. We will also tell them that they will be in compliance with all laws. Out of that they will get absolute immunity to provide our Central Intelligence Agency and others the necessary information that we would have. I think it is important that debate, sometimes looking as if they are accusatory, and one side looking like they have the upper hand, suggesting that we are in crisis, leaving in a recess, that America is unprotected, needs to be clarified. America will be protected. We do have authority in place that could provide the Central Intelligence or other national intelligence agencies any information that they need. God knows after 9/11 all of us are committed to the war on terror, but we are all recognizing that a Constitution survives no matter what condition America is in. The Constitution survived the Civil War. It survived World War I. It survived World War II, the Vietnam War. It survived the Korean War, the Gulf War and now the Iraq war. I would ask America, can we not secure ourselves and keep the civil liberties of Americans and the Constitution intact? Today, in voting for this bill, I proudly supported both concepts. I am grateful to be an American, grateful that we have a Constitution that always lives and never dies. God bless the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan and on the front lines. I look forward to visiting with those soldiers in the next couple of days in Iraq.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, this point was made earlier, but I don't think that it has been clearly enunciated for Members. What you are suggesting is that Members can participate in this discussion. Unfortunately, closed to the American people sounds ominous, and it is unfortunate that we have reached this point, because I do believe that Members have the individual opportunity to visit the Intelligence information, as was made possible by both the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee. But I think it's important to note that a Member could be on the floor this evening and review materials and be in debate, be on the floor tomorrow and say, in my studied opinion on the discussions of last evening, I believe so and so, meaning that I think this FISA bill is solid on its four corners, it is protected, it is constitutional, it protects those individuals covered by it, it gives the American people the sense of national security but also the protection of their civil liberties. They will at least be able to refer in that general term, is that my understanding? They are not completely silenced from even referring to the fact that they were in a secret session last evening or they were looking at materials in a secret condition.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I am happy to yield.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the minority whip.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, I want it to be clear that a Member can rise on the floor and say, having been in a secret session last evening, not recounting what was in the secret session, but I find that my position remains the same in my support of the bill or my opposition to the bill. One could say that. Members are going to be coming to the floor and some Member may want to say tomorrow that they were here. They would not be reciting what they heard. They would simply say what they heard did not move them or it moved them. Can someone not say tomorrow they were in the session without recounting what you heard?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Having not been in a session, Members don't know the parameters. Minimally they can say they were here, and what they heard, which they don't recount; they can proceed in their debate on how they review the bill. But they don't recount what was heard. I yield.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio.