Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and the convener of this Special Order. Let me thank the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, recognize that 43 members of the Congressional Black Caucus, 42 Members in the House, represent a basic conscience that has to craft for America the next steps. I want to thank my good friend, Congressman Danny Davis. He has been persistent in recognizing that there has to be a second chance. And I'm glad to join my colleague and my champion, my fellow champion of human rights, Barbara Lee. Let me also thank Congressman John Conyers, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee; the subcommittee Chair, Bobby Scott. We worked very hard on this legislation as it was crafted by the authors and the staff to make sure this legislation started to move. Congresswoman Tubbs Jones, I'm very glad that you raised the question of National Bible Week. As I listened to my colleagues give extremely personal stories of their life, let me say, as someone who represents an inner-city district and has spent much of her political life as much as her personal life in churches, as a Seventh-day Adventist, we are committed to the teachings of the Old and New Testament. But in many different faith communities, I recognize that the Bible is one vessel, one language that speaks to the language of the Good Samaritan. Many other religious documents speak to it, but it speaks about taking care of our fellow brothers and sisters. And it's a story that I love, on the road to Jericho, on the road that addresses the question of helping others. That is what the Second Chance bill is all about. And I just want to cite that it is designed to reduce recidivism, increase public safety, and help State and local governments better address the growing population of ex-offenders returning to their communities. I see them every day in my community. The bill focuses on four areas: development and support of programs that provide alternatives to incarceration, expansion of the availability of substance abuse treatment, strengthening families, and the expansion of comprehensive re-entry services. And we held a series of hearings. But as we talked about National Bible Week upcoming, this is a wonderful partnership between faith organizations for people to show their faith and helping people restore their lives. I come from the State of Texas. In Texas, there are now 101,916 adults on parole, and there are 430,312 adults on probation; almost a congressional district. At the same time you, we have a number of individuals by race. We see that out of that in Texas there are 40,000, almost, African Americans who are on parole and some 25,000 Hispanics. This speaks to the crisis nature of what we are facing. And so I rise today to plead with my colleagues that one, the Second Chance bill must move through this House. In the Senate we understand that we are now prepared possibly for a final conclusion for this to get to the President's desk. But I speak from the heart when I talk about the importance of the second chance. Unfortunately, Jena Six and that situation, it has become a symbol for not giving young people a second chance. For the altercation that occurred, a school yard fight, it resulted in an indictment that resulted in adult time. In the State of Texas, we are notorious for what we do for our young people; therefore, creating adults who will ultimately be incarcerated, and those will be on parole. And so, it is important that we understand the crucialness, if you will, of this particular bill. Let me just cite headlines that I'd like to submit for the Record, because it relates to the criminal justice system in the State of Texas that really is upside down and, frankly, needs a complete overhaul, because what it says is more youth are tried as adults in Harris County than any other county, and really probably any other State. So we're beginning to move youth into the process of needing a second chance. And what I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that more and more the young people are going into the criminal justice system, and there is a definite need for a second chance, because when these individuals come out, they are still young. They're still able to be saved. But we have nothing but an empty hole, a pit that they fall back into and they wind up being on the sea of recidivism. And it says here that 67.5 percent of the prisoners were arrested for a new offense, almost exclusively a felony or a serious misdemeanor. This is what happens. And so, more youth are tried as adults in Harris County. It means that, rather than having justice, we're concerned about ``just us,'' and so the criminal justice system has no sympathy. In addition, we find that the youngest inmates, this is in Texas again, my county, tend to serve longer terms in juvenile prison, making them the kind of targets, or not targets, but kind of recipients, or those who would need the second chance, because they are laying the groundwork for going into the adult system. I will include these articles for the Record that I'm now speaking to. [From the Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 2002] Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994 (By Patrick A. Langan, Ph.D., David J. Levin, Ph.D.) This study of the rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration of prisoners tracked 272,111 former inmates for 3 years after their release in 1994. The 272,111-- representing two-thirds of all prisoners released in the United States that year--were discharged from prisons in 15 States: Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Virginia. Four measures of recidivism The study uses four measures of recidivism: rearrest, reconviction, resentence to prison, and return to prison with or without a new sentence. Except where expressly stated otherwise, all four study measures of recidivism--refer to the 3-year period following the prisoner's release in 1994; include both ``in-State'' and ``out-of-State'' recidivism. ``In-State'' recidivism refers to new offenses committed within the State that released the prisoner. ``Out-of-State'' recidivism refers to new offenses in States other than the one where the prisoner served time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 550, congratulating the people of Ethiopia on the second millennium of Ethiopia, and for other purposes, introduced by my distinguished colleague from California, Representative Michael Honda. This important legislation recognizes the significant efforts made by the government of Ethiopia to move forward in peace and stability, and it encourages our continued relationship. Ethiopia is currently on the road to democracy. This is a path that should be paved with civil and political discourse, peaceful transitions of power, and respect for human rights. By necessity, the achievement of a modern democracy requires the implementation of electoral reforms, the separation of powers in the government, and the establishment of a truly independent judiciary. These are the founding principles of our American Republic, and I have seen firsthand the progress on the path to democracy Ethiopia has made since the brutal dictatorship of Mengistu Haile Mariam was brought down in 1991. I strongly believe that the United States should do all it can to support this transition, including bolstering civil society and speaking out when fundamental human rights are violated. Ethiopia has a long and proud history. It is the cradle of mankind, as illustrated by Lucy, also known as Dinkinesh (Amharic for ``you are wonderful''), which is the nearly complete hominid skeleton discovered by archaeologists in the Awash Valley of Ethiopia on November 30, 1974. Lucy is estimated to have lived 3.2 million years ago and has redefined science's understanding of human evolution. I was happy to work with Texas State Senator Rodney Ellis, Ethiopian Ambassador Samuel Assefa, and the Houston Museum of Natural Science to bring Lucy to Houston, which is one of only nine American cities and the only city in Texas to host the exhibit. The bones are currently on display in Houston, and will be until April 2008. Ethiopia is also the oldest independent nation in Africa, has never been colonized, and is home to the African Union. Despite Ethiopia's rich history, however, recent decades have brought hardship and suffering to Ethiopia's people, through military conflict, natural disasters, and a military dictatorship. For over a decade in the House of Representatives, and prior to that in the Houston city council, I have been an outspoken and unwavering advocate for the country of Ethiopia and its people, both in Ethiopia and in the diaspora. Following in the legendary footsteps of my predecessor, Mickey Leland, who died attempting to alleviate the starvation faced by Ethiopia's innocent populace, I have been a champion of increasing foreign aid to, political, economic, and social cooperation with, and improving human rights in Ethiopia. Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislation is extremely important in encouraging the progressive strides of the government of Ethiopia. This legislation not only congratulates the people of Ethiopia on Ethiopia's second millennium and their long and rich history, but also commends Ethiopia's contribution to peace and stability on the African continent through its role in the creation of the Organization of African Unity. It further recognizes the longstanding Ethiopia-U.S. relationship and commends the organizers of the second millennium celebrations both in Ethiopia and the United States. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3867, the ``Small Business Contracting Program Improvements Act.'' I support this legislation because it provides for much needed contracting opportunities for small businesses that would otherwise escape them. H.R. 3867 encourages participation by qualified small businesses, particularly veteran owned businesses, in the appropriate contracting programs offered under the supervision of the Small Business Administration. The Act aims to assist small business participation, prevent fraud and bring consistency to the operation of the main contract assistance programs. While I applaud the efforts to increase opportunities to veteran-owned small businesses, I believe that it is particularly important that doing so does not adversely affect contracting opportunities for women and HUBZones. H.R. 3867 ensures government contract opportunities for small businesses owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans. The least that we can do is provide our veterans with opportunities to fulfill their dreams of owning successful businesses so that they can support themselves in an ever-growing, competitive business arena. By expanding procurement opportunities for service-disabled veteran-owned businesses, a group that currently receives only a small fraction of their contracting goal, we say thank you to those brave heroes who sacrificed much so that all Americans can enjoy the fruits of their labor, freedom and security. The bill also protects those veterans for whom the opportunities are created by establishing penalties for misrepresentation of a service-disabled veteran owned business classification and adopts a roadmap for providing information, advice and training to service-disabled veterans as prescribed by the President. Finally, it provides discretion to contracting officers in cases that must now be set aside for HUBZones but that could, with these amendments be used for service-disable veteran-owned businesses. But as I stated at the outset, the exercise of such discretion must be judicious so as not to frustrate the purpose set out in the Small Business Act to provide for opportunities for HUBZones. Mr. Chairman, this bill has safeguards to ensure that the benefits provided reach the intended recipients. Under H.R. 3867 provides that the Administrator perform the necessary checks on applicants for participation in the various contracting assistance programs to ensure their business integrity and qualifications. Most programs already require this but this makes it uniform. The Small Business Contracting Program Improvements Act also expands opportunities for women entrepreneurs. The bill establishes requirements for the SBA to implement the Women's Procurement Program immediately. Because it has taken too much time for the SBA to implement the Women's Procurement Program, this bill is intended to provide agencies with sufficient information to immediately begin competing contracts among women business owners. Seven years is far too long for the women who have been waiting for these business opportunities. As a result of this unwarranted delay, women have lost tens of billions of dollars in contracting opportunities but thanks to H.R. 3867 they will not have to wait any longer. I am particularly pleased to know that women small business owners will finally receive the long anticipated contracting opportunities that were intended for them under the Small Business Act. Mr. Chairman, this bill will also strengthen Community Development. Title IV strengthens the HUBZone program by verifying that small businesses receiving contracts under its authority are qualified. It further requires construction contracts to be performed within a reasonable distance of the particular HUBZone the contractor is to benefit. This legislation has bipartisan support within the Small Business Contracting Program Improvements Act Committee and includes the input from a number of Members. There is remarkably broad support on this legislation, ranging from the National Black Chamber of Commerce to the National Federation of Independent Business and the Associated General Contractors of America. Also supporting the legislation are the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and AMVETS. The United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce and the National Defense Industrial Association also. While this bill goes a long way to provide much needed contracting opportunities for small businesses, my amendment would have greatly enhanced such opportunities. My amendment to H.R. 3867, which updates and expands the procurement programs of the Small Business Administration. My amendment provides that it is the sense of Congress that the Administrator should encourage the components of the administration, as well as appropriate State and local government agencies, to competitively bid and negotiate contracts and prices for services, including debris clearance, distribution of supplies, reconstruction and other assistance, in advance of an act of terrorism, natural disaster, or other emergency; and work toward a goal of awarding to qualified firms located in a county, parish, or other unit of local government within the affected area, but only to the extent that the goal does not interfere with the ability of the Administrator to provide timely and effective assistance. Mr. Chairman, we have learned from the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma that severe consequences can result from not having the proper disaster recovery plans in place prior to such a disaster. We also know that having in place a comprehensive written response plan to give support to small businesses so that they may rebuild their businesses and in turn help to rebuild the affected areas is an essential component of a good recovery plan. In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma small businesses and in particular minority and disadvantaged businesses, in the affected areas were severely and negatively impacted because they did not receive financial support necessary to rebuild their businesses and participate in the rebuilding of the affected community. I understand that a major purpose of H.R. 3867 is to encourage participation by qualified small businesses, particularly veteran owned businesses, in the appropriate contracting programs offered under the supervision of the Small Business Administration. The Act also aims intend to assist small business participation, prevent fraud and bring consistency to the operation of the main contract assistance programs. My amendment would further support the goal to support small businesses by encouraging SBA to establish a program that provides for pre- negotiated contracts with small businesses, in advance of an act of terrorism, natural disaster, or other emergency. Thus, the small business owners from the affected areas will not only be included in the recovery and rebuilding process but also maintain viability in a competitive economic environment. I hope that in the future we will consider the devastating impact that disasters can have on small businesses as well as the affected communities. I urge my colleagues to support small businesses by supporting H.R. 3867.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3920, The Trade and Globalization Assistance Act of 2007, introduced by my distinguished colleague from New York, Chairman Rangel. This important legislation updates and overhauls the antiquated Trade Assistance Act for workers program of 1962. In today's globalized economy, no worker is untouched by the phenomenon of the global trade market. In 1962, when the Trade Assistance Act was conceived and implemented, the status of American workers was much different than it is today. The existing and outdated legislation is marred with arbitrary eligibility criteria and inconsistencies as well as a lack of coverage for workers in industries that were not yet prominent. Mr. Speaker, the Trade and Globalization Assistance Act of 2007, integrates all workers whose efforts in building our global economy make our economy flourish within the international system. Coverage will now be granted to workers in the service industry, which had yet to significantly develop in the 1960's, as well as secondary and offshore workers. The bill eliminates restrictions, ensuring that all workers impacted by trade are covered, regardless of where the factory relocated to or where the import competition came from. This legislation will also ensure automatic certification for workers covered by ITC injury determinations, which is a major issue in the current economy in which products and technologies quickly are eclipsed and job security is never ensured. Furthermore, this legislation will work to synchronize the Trade Assistance Act certification process which is currently on a firm-by-firm basis. Consistency in our treatment of workers is absolutely imperative, to ensure we have an equitable system which protects the backbone of our Nation. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation representing more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, has urged Congress to pass this legislation. As representatives of America's workers, it is our duty to ensure that they receive all the possible security and benefits of their labor, especially in today's unpredictable global economy. This bill extends TAA job training and health benefits to service workers who lose their jobs due to global trade and covers more manufacturing workers. It also dramatically improves TAA health care benefits and strengthens job training benefits in order to ensure that our workers develop the skills they need to be successful in well paying jobs. This bill further protects American workers by creating new benefits and tax incentives for industries and communities that have experienced manufacturing job losses, promotes long-needed reforms in unemployment benefits, and strengthens notification of workers laid off in plant closing or in mass layoffs. This Congress has charted a New Direction Congress when it comes to protecting American workers and by passing an increase in the minimum wage. We must also ensure that America remains a competitive economic power. We must ensure that our workforce is adequately skilled and provided for, not just the privileged few who benefit from the prosperity of our nation but also the labor of everyday Americans who ensure the continued growth of our economy. Mr. Speaker, I feel that as this country moves forward, this bill is an important first step in ensuring that it does not do so at the expense of American workers.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced legislation, with the support of a number of my colleagues, entitled the ``Military Success in Iraq Commemoration Act of 2007.'' This legislation is borne from my deeply held belief that we must commend our military for their exemplary performance and success in Iraq. This legislation recognizes the extraordinary performance of the Armed Forces in achieving the military objectives of the United States in Iraq, encourages the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe a national day of celebration commemorating the military success of American troops in Iraq, and provides other affirmative and tangible expressions of appreciation from a grateful Nation to all veterans of the war in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, as lawmakers continue to debate U.S. policy in Iraq, our heroic young men and women continue to willingly sacrifice life and limb on the battlefield. Our troops in Iraq did everything we asked them to do. We sent them overseas to fight an army; they are now caught in the midst of an insurgent civil war and continuing political upheaval. The United States will not and should not permanently prop up the Iraqi government and military. U.S. military involvement in Iraq will come to an end, and, when U.S. forces leave, the responsibility for securing their nation will fall to Iraqis themselves. However, whether or not my colleagues agree that the time has come to withdraw our American forces from Iraq, I believe that all of us in Congress should be of one accord that our troops deserve our sincere thanks and congratulations. I very strongly believe that our Nation has a moral obligation to ensure that our veterans are treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve. One reason we are the greatest Nation in the world is because of the brave young men and women fighting for us in Iraq and Afghanistan. They deserve honor, they deserve dignity, and they deserve to know that a grateful Nation cares about them. The legislation that I introduced today, the Military Success in Iraq Commemoration Act of 2007, pays fitting tribute to the valor, devotion, and heroism of those who fought in Iraq. First, this legislation provides an express acknowledgment by the Congress that the objectives for which the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution of 2002 authorized the use of force in Iraq were achieved by the Armed Forces of the United States, which performed magnificently in battle. It specifically recounts several notable achievements of the Armed Forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom. In addition, this legislation authorizes the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the American people to observe a national day of celebration commemorating the Armed Forces' military success in Iraq. This will help ensure that the Iraq War does not suffer the fate of other open-ended engagements like the Korean War, which is often called the ``Forgotten War.'' The soldiers who have served valiantly in Iraq deserve to be recognized and lauded when they return home. Mr. Speaker, this legislation also authorizes funds to be appropriated and awarded by the Secretary of Defense to State and local governments to assist in defraying the costs of conducting suitable ``Success in Iraq'' homecoming and commemoration activities and in creating appropriate memorials honoring those who lost their lives in the war. Many of the casualties in the Iraq War come from small towns and villages in rural or economically depressed areas. The local governments are already facing substantial fiscal pressures and need help coming up with the necessary funds. Finally, my legislation creates a program and authorizes funds to be appropriated pursuant to which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall award to each veteran of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom a grant of $5,000 to facilitate the transition to civilian life. We don't want veterans to end up homeless or unemployed or unable to take their kids on a vacation or start a business. This $5,000 bonus is but a small token of the affection the people of the United States have for those who risked their lives so that we may continue to live in freedom. Mr. Speaker, outside my office there is a poster-board with the names and faces of those heroes from Houston, Texas who have lost their lives wearing the uniform of our country. To date, the U.S. Department of Defense has confirmed 3838 casualties in Iraq. It is humbling to recognize how lucky we are to live in a Nation where so many brave young men and women volunteer knowing they may be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice so that their countrymen can enjoy the blessings of liberty. The intent of my legislation is to pay fitting tribute to these great men and women and to let them know they will not be forgotten. Mr. Speaker, I would like to urge all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing the efforts of our brave men and women in uniform and to ensure that they can successfully transition to civilian with dignity. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Well, my first act is to give my greatest appreciation for this caring and vested freshman class, front liners, front thinkers, front runners running toward the next generation. I cannot thank you enough for joining this Congress with one mission, and that is that we are, servants of America. And I've asked today, officially, on the record, to get that article I pin, and to reemphasize the language that my good friend has before him by just holding up the Constitution and reinforcing the language that all powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States, which shall consist of the Senate and the House. And I just want to speak, somewhat weaving in to this idea of veterans and the war in Iraq and why we have the ability even to address that question of the Iraq war, because as my colleagues know, there was never a constitutional declaration of war. It was statutory. That was in the fall of 2002 when, by public law, we gave the President simply an opportunity to negotiate and then ultimately, if necessary, to use force. So I raise the question, because Congress has, in some sense, been stifled by others not thinking the way the American people have asked us to think and act, and that is to focus resources on veterans, on the domestic agenda, and to be able to say that we have, in essence, finished our job in Iraq. And so I wanted to offer to my good friends H.R. 4020 that the chairman of the Veterans Committee has joined me in offering, or introducing, which calls itself the Military Success Act. And of course all eyebrows will be raised. Sounds conflicted. But I thought and thought about this, and I continue to hear the terminology, cut-and- run, not willing to support the troops. So we went to the Pentagon, and in this legislation we chronicle all of the successes of the United States Military, in particular in Iraq. We do it in Iraq and not Afghanistan because that's an ongoing mission. We know that there's more work to be done there. And we come to a conclusion, and I'll just briefly read this: That the public law that we voted on in 2002 authorized by the President to use military force against Iraq, it goes on to list the indicia or the points of that bill. And it concludes by saying, according to that public law, we believe that, in fact, all of this has been achieved. A simple statement. It doesn't follow up by saying, come home. Of course, that's what I would suggest once you read a statement that says all that you were asked to do, the United States Military, you've achieved it. And we finish this up by calling on America to have days of proclamation and ribbons, and as these soldiers come home, unlike Vietnam, that we actually have days of recognition for those soldiers. And ultimately it finishes, because I heard my distinguished colleague speak of veterans, by giving these returning soldiers a $5,000 stipend. Now, this does not leave out Afghanistan soldiers. This really appeals or deals with the whole idea of the fact that their mission is completed. We do it in a way to call it a military success. And we know that there are many other things that need to be done. But what that does is it gives Congress the power to make its own statement that the initiative that we voted for, statutory, the public law in 2002 that gave powers is now being brought to an end, that we, as a Congress, are saying that we applaud our military, and those resources that are now being used for the war, $120 billion, can be used for SCHIP, can be used to fix Medicare. I sat down with some seniors who wanted us to fix the prescription part D. They said, Can you help us? Can you get back in there and help us to understand it? And then of course, what it does, it honors our soldiers. It dashes this whole cut-and-run, this whole accusation of being nonpatriotic. And so I thank my colleagues for letting me present H.R. 4020 in conjunction with the recognition of article I. This bill was introduced today. I encourage my colleagues to sign on. We think that it has a very important statement as to the authority of the Congress and the responsibilities of the Congress to control a statute that it gave powers, and seemingly the President is not willing to acknowledge that the task and the job is well done on behalf of the United States Military in Iraq. We can do better, and I think the American people are waiting for the article I-ers to take charge so that we can get back on our agenda of serving the American public. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to join an important debate. I look forward to the article I pin. And finally, I hope that the American public will get it, knowing that the Congress has to have the authority to go forward on their behalf. This legislation, the ``Military Success in Iraq Commemoration Act of 2007,'' recognizes the extraordinary performance of the Armed Forces in achieving the military objectives of the United States in Iraq, encourages the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe a national day of celebration commemorating the military success of American troops in Iraq, and provides other affirmative and tangible expressions of appreciation from a grateful nation to all veterans of the war in Iraq. As I have stated many times, ``when our heroic young men and women willingly sacrifice life or limb on the battlefield, the nation has a moral obligation to ensure that they are treated with respect and dignity. One reason we are the greatest nation in the world is because of the brave young men and women fighting for us in Iraq and Afghanistan. They deserve honor, they deserve dignity, and they deserve to know that a grateful nation cares about them.'' My legislation, the Military Success in Iraq Commemoration Act of 2007, H.R. 4020 pays fitting tribute to the valor, devotion, and heroism of those who fought in Iraq in the following ways: A. Provides an express acknowledgment by the Congress that the objectives for which the AUMF resolution of 2002 authorized the use of force in Iraq were achieved by the Armed Forces of the United States, which performed magnificently in battle; B. Recounts several notable achievements of the Armed Forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom; C. Authorizes the President to issue a proclamation calling upon the American people to observe a national day of celebration commemorating the Armed Forces' military success in Iraq. This will help ensure that the Iraq War does not suffer the fate of other open-ended engagements like the Korean War, which is often called the ``Forgotten War''; D. Authorizes funds to be appropriated and awarded by the Secretary of Defense to state and local governments to assist in defraying the costs of conducting suitable ``Success in Iraq'' homecoming and commemoration activities and in creating appropriate memorials honoring those who lost their lives in the war. Many of the casualties in the Iraq War come from small towns and villages in rural or economically depressed areas. The local governments are already facing substantial fiscal pressures and need help coming up with the necessary; and E. Creates a program and authorizes funds to be appropriated pursuant to which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall award to each veteran of the Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom a grant of $5,000 to facilitate the transition to civilian life. We don't want veterans to end up homeless or unemployed or unable to take their kids on a vacation or start a business. This $5,000 bonus is but a small token of the affection the people of the United States have for those who risked their lives so that we may continue to live in freedom. Outside my office there is a poster board with the names and faces of those heroes from Houston, Texas who have lost their lives wearing the uniform of our country. It is humbling to recognize how lucky we are to live in a nation where so many brave young men and women volunteer knowing they may be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice so that their countrymen can enjoy the blessings of liberty. The intent of my legislation is to pay fitting tribute to these great men and women and to let them know they will not be forgotten. I request and welcome your support in making this message heard.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today the House passed the Trade and Globalization Assistance Act of 2007, and I was very proud to support this legislation. And I thank Chairman Rangel and, of course, Chairman Miller for their insight. A couple of years ago, when we moved on the permanent normal trade relations with China, I worked with the then-Clinton administration to craft an executive order that addressed the question of the loss of jobs when there was a trade bill. We thought that this particular executive order could lay the groundwork for providing for small businesses and those various sectors of the country that would lose their employment or their economic opportunity. Well, look at the trade imbalance now. This is a forthright bill that expands the opportunities for service workers, manufacturers, insists on enrollment opportunities, and it is a good start. I don't know what the journey will be on future trade bills, but America has to start standing up for its own workers, its own regions, and making sure that small businesses do not lose their economic opportunity simply because we want to engage in globalization. Globalization may be good, but Americans have to be protected, and I was very glad to vote for this legislation today.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3547.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today on the floor of the House we addressed the question of Internet taxation moratorium, a bill that came out of my House Judiciary Committee, the Judiciary Committee which I sit on under the leadership of John Conyers. Because I was unavoidably detained, I wanted to congratulate the passage of this bill and to support the moratorium as relates to grandfathering in those States that already had the utilization of Internet taxation, such as my State of Texas. We know that this will take a long debate on this question. We understand that there are issues on both sides. Those who are in the Internet superhighway, who want a free flowing of information and ability to buy and sell, that is a reasonable request. But we also know that more and more Americans will be moving toward Internet shopping and utilization, and for many local jurisdictions and States, this is a source of income that is well needed for health care and education. I support the Internet resolution that passed today, and I am grateful for the grandfathering of the State of Texas.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2106, the Senate companion to H.R. 3921, the ``Procedural Fairness for September 11th Victims Act of 2007.'' This legislation amends the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act to allow those September 11th victims and their families who opted out of receiving compensation through the September 11th Victims Compensation Fund to have nation-wide subpoena power when litigating September 11th claims. It is necessary to make this change because presently all parties involved in litigating September 11th claims--victims, victims' families and defendants--must do so in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The problem occurs because under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, no party may compel testimony or documents from non-party witnesses who do not live within 100 miles of the Southern District of New York. This bill would provide for nation- wide subpoena power for all parties. The court however, would retain its authority to modify or quash any subpoena that it determined to be too burdensome. Mr. Speaker, within 11 days of the September 11th attacks, Congress drafted, debated, adopted and signed into law the Air Transportation Safety and Systems Stabilization Act (ATSSSA), 49 U.S.C. Section 40101. Among other things, this legislation included assistance to the airline industry and created an optional alternative compensation program for individual victims killed or injured by the events of September 11th (the September 11th Compensation Fund). The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was designated as the only court with ``original and exclusive jurisdiction over all actions brought'' arising out of the attacks of September 11th. The objective was to consolidate all litigation arising out of September 11th events in one location before a single court that could adjudicate all the claims in a thorough, efficient, equitable and fair proceeding. Given the justifiable interest of Congress in expediting assistance to the airline industry and creating a mechanism to provide compensation to the persons who bore the brunt of the national trauma occurring on September 11th, it is understandable that the Congress did not give due regard to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, which provides for service of trial subpoena to non-party witnesses in the district or State where the case was filed or anyplace within 100 miles of the district that the court proceedings will take place (the ``100 mile bulge''). The upshot, Mr. Speaker, is that in the absence of this minor change, subpoenas would be limited to within 100 miles of the Southern District of New York (within 100 miles of Manhattan) and could not reach the geographically significant and relevant locales of Boston, Massachusetts (from where flights American Airlines 11 and United Airlines 175 originated) and Washington Dulles Airport (from where American Airlines flight 77 originated). Pending before the District Court for the Southern District of New York is the consolidated action, In re September 11 Litigation, in which representatives of a number of passengers and ground victims (including claims brought by those who came to the World Trade Center disaster site to assist with the debris removal effort following the attacks), as well as an array of parties suing for property damage and consequential economic loss are seeking recovery from a group of defendants including airline companies, airport security firms, airport authorities, the Boeing Corporation and others. This litigation focuses not only on the events that occurred at the Twin Towers in Manhattan but also hundreds of miles away at Washington's Dulles Airport, Boston's Logan Airport and various other locations around the Nation, including the headquarters for each of the various airlines and security companies. It has become clear that in order for the September 11th victims, their families, and the defendants to have access to all the evidence relevant to the case, it is necessary to make available at trial non-party witnesses from Massachusetts, Virginia, and elsewhere. The legislation before us accomplishes this limited objective. H.R. 3921 is non-controversial, bipartisan and bicameral. There has been no opposition to the bill from any interested sectors. the legislation is identical to S. 2106, which was introduced by Senator Biden of Delaware on September 27, 2007 and passed by unanimous consent in the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate the following day. That bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee as the sole referral. Mr. Speaker, for the reasons stated, I strongly support H.R. 3921 and urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this wise and beneficial legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, let me thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), and thank the chairwoman and the ranking member of the full committee on the Small Business Administration, and acknowledge the important step that is being made here today dealing with insuring government contract opportunities for small businesses owned and controlled by service- disabled veterans. We are certainly going to have more of those. And every time you meet with a veterans group they wonder what are the opportunities for them. Small businesses are the backbone of America and I do support this with legislation. I also hope, however, that this bill does not do harm to the HUBZones that have been used by many small businesses across America. And as we review it, I will look closely at this legislation to ensure that HUBZones are protected. And I ask the question as to the formula that requires a site visit to the small business and background checks. I know for sure that many in the minority community use a small business as a step of opportunity out of a past that might not have been as they would have liked it to be. People who are rehabilitated who move forward in life should have an opportunity to provide for their families, and I would hope that that would be the framework of this particular legislation, that we're not doing harm to those opportunities because this is America. And then I certainly would have wanted to have the amendment that I offered that indicated in times of natural disaster and/or an act of terrorism that small minority and women-owned and disabled veterans businesses be utilized in the area of the disaster. Certainly, if there is a disaster, those small businesses may be impacted. But what we saw in Hurricane Katrina, we saw the misuse of the small businesses who were there, meaning that they did not have the opportunity to, one, save the government money, but, at the same time, do the job on behalf of their community of which they loved. And so I hope that we will be able to work this language in, maybe through conference, because I think it is an important sense of Congress' statement, and I also hope that we will protect those HUBZones and make sure that we reaffirm the opportunities for all small businesses across America.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me supporting H. Res. 740, which I introduced, together with my good friend and distinguished colleague, Mr. Chabot. This bipartisan legislation condemns, in the strongest terms, the attacks on African Union peacekeepers that occurred in Haskanita, Darfur, Sudan, on September 29, 2007 I would like to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. Lantos and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and of the subcommittee on Africa and Global Health, Mr. Payne and Mr. Smith, for their support and co-sponsorship of this important bill. Let me also thank my 55 colleagues who co-sponsored this legislation. Since 2003, we have witnessed a systematic campaign of displacement, starvation, rape, mass murder, and terror in the western Sudanese region of Darfur. In the worst humanitarian crisis of our time, an estimated 400,000 people have been killed in Darfur by the Government of Sudan and its Janjaweed allies. An additional 2,000,000 people have been displaced from their homes and livelihoods. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate declared that the atrocities in Darfur constitute genocide in July 2004, and the Bush administration reached the same conclusion in September 2004. However, three years later, the situation in Darfur continues to deteriorate. The United Nations reported a substantial decline in the humanitarian situation during the first three months of 2007, during which time 21 humanitarian vehicles were hijacked, 15 additional vehicles were looted, and gunmen raided 6 humanitarian compounds. The security situation makes it extremely difficult for aid organizations to reach vulnerable populations, and, in the 12 months preceding April 2007, the number of humanitarian relief workers in Darfur decreased by 16 percent, largely due to security concerns, restrictions on access, and funding limitations. The flow of humanitarian aid has been severely threatened by the escalating violence in the region. Since 2004, a small contingent of African Union peacekeepers have been deployed to Darfur, responsible for maintaining security in a region roughly the size of France. The 7,000 peacekeepers under the banner of the African Union Mission in Sudan, or AMIS, have displayed exemplary courage and resilience, but they are woefully outmanned and outgunned, as well as chronically short of funding. Recognizing the near-collapse of the AU Mission, the United Nations, in July 2007, approved a UN-AU hybrid peacekeeping mission, to be known as UNAMID, which is meant to take over from AMIS shortly. The AMIS peacekeeping mission recently encountered yet another significant setback. On September 29, 2007, an estimated 1,000 members of a heavily armed Darfur rebel group, in 30 vehicles armed with heavy artillery and mortars, overran a small base in Haskanita, Darfur, Sudan, which was occupied by AMIS peacekeepers. The ambush resulted in several hours of intense fighting that killed ten peacekeepers--seven Nigerian peacekeepers and three other soldiers from Mali, Senegal, and Botswana--and wounded many others. According to U.N. estimates, in the aftermath of this brutal attack, which was described by the African Union commander as ``deliberate and sustained,'' 15,000 civilians fled the area to neighboring towns or the wilderness, fearing for their safety. This attack is considered to be the worst on AMIS peacekeepers since their deployment in July 2004. The United Nations Security Council condemned this ``murderous attack'' on AMIS peacekeepers, and demanded that ``no effort be spared'' to identify and bring to justice the perpetrators of this assault. Only recently, during the August recess, I had the opportunity to lead a Congressional Delegation (CODEL) to Darfur. This was the first CODEL to the region since the announcement of the joint UN/AU peacekeeping force. Along with my colleagues Mr. Chabot, who joins me as the lead Republican cosponsor of this legislation, and Mr. Smith, I had the opportunity to meet with government officials, civil society leaders, international aid workers, and affected civilians, as well as with the African Union peacekeepers responsible for protecting Darfur. I saw first hand the immense suffering of the people of Darfur, as well as the enormous strain on the courageous but outnumbered AU peacekeepers. Mr. Speaker, I strongly condemn recent attacks on African Union peacekeepers. This legislation also expresses the condolences of this House to the people and Governments of Nigeria, Mali, Senegal, and Botswana, the families and friends of those individuals who were killed or missing in the attacks, and expresses its sympathies to those individuals who have been injured. It expresses the solidarity of the people and Government of the United States with the African Union and the African Union peacekeepers as they recover from these attacks, and the readiness of Congress to support efforts to bring to justice those individuals responsible for the attacks and efforts to detect, pursue, disrupt, and dismantle the networks that plan and carry out such attacks. This legislation also looks forward, to the process of bringing about a peace settlement for Darfur. Crucial though effective peacekeeping forces are, they are no substitute for a serious and sustained peace process. Consequently, this bill also expresses its support for the people of Darfur, Sudan, in their continued struggle against extremism and violence and support for their efforts to secure a permanent peace, justice, and return to their restored villages and homes, and it encourages all parties involved in the conflict to commit to negotiate a fmal and binding peace agreement at the peace talks, which began on October 27, 2007, in Tripoli, Libya. Early reports from these negotiations have not been promising. With key rebel groups boycotting the peace talks, media reports indicate that mediators will now have to travel to Darfur to meet with rebel leaders before actual peace agreements can be reached. Despite these setbacks, U.N. Special Envoy Jan Eliasson has maintained optimism, saying yesterday ``I refuse to state that the peace process is interrupted.'' Mr. Speaker, as United States foreign policy remains centered on the highly partisan debate over Iraq, we cannot allow Darfur to slip through the cracks. I thank the over 40 of my colleagues who have joined me in cosponsoring this important resolution, which reiterates that attacks on African Union peacekeepers in Darfur are unacceptable. Despite the setbacks experienced at this weekend's peace talks in Libya, I believe it is important that we condemn the attacks of recent weeks, and look forward to the construction of a lasting peace for Darfur. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If the gentlelady would yield, first of all, to thank him for sharing his insight and his leadership and thank you for allowing us to have that opportunity, and just to be able to emphasize, he was firm that he wanted and needed and thought that they needed more help. And that help was, of course, the United States, the U.N., and a number of other countries. And I'd just like to finish by saying, as there may be those listening, I would encourage as you mentioned that resolution about thanking the various advocacy groups to continue their work and to reach out to the college campuses, because I remember speaking at the University of Nevada. They are there; they want to work. College campuses can be the agitation to get this government to move, to continue the light on the genocide in Darfur. And I thank you for yielding to me just to be able to say, college students, get about the business because you can make a difference. Organize Save Darfur Coalitions on your campus, and call and write and e-mail about the crisis in Darfur.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Madam Manager. I think it is appropriate to congratulate and to thank you again for giving us the opportunity to provide a face on the work of the Congressional Black Caucus and to thank our chairwoman, the Honorable Carolyn Kilpatrick, for working with us to continue to show the efforts being made that have such a vast array of impact. Let me thank the distinguished Speaker this evening for her leadership as well as we work together. I am grateful that my first efforts with the Honorable Congressman Barbara Lee was an historic trip that we took some years ago as the first Presidential trip or major statement before the Marshall Plan on HIV/AIDS. I cite that to say that it can be done. You can get your hands around a major devastating killer. HIV/AIDS is a killer. It continues to kill in Africa. But yet there is the Millennium Account, there are a number of issues that address the question of HIV/AIDS. Part of it was out of the trip that Congresswoman Barbara Lee and myself and Congresswoman Kilpatrick went on some years ago. And so as I stand here today to acknowledge the Congressional Black Caucus, I want to reinforce the fact of the number of Members who were arrested of the organized campaign to respond to the pain of what is going on, and the legislative initiatives and the work we did with Congresswoman Lee on the divestiture bill. And I, too, believe it is long overdue that this bill should move and be signed by the President of the United States. Just this past summer, I led a delegation with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith) to go into Darfur and get into the soul and the soil of Darfur and begin to realize and to emphasize the importance of moving on the peacekeepers. We were the first American delegation to go in right after the recognition that the peacekeepers should come in and the agreement by the government in Khartoum, as represented to us by the U.N., that they had agreed to peacekeepers. We went in, and not only did we go to Darfur, Sudan, but we went to Tunisia and Algeria and Ethiopia, and we asked each governing body to provide troops to the peacekeeping effort through the African Union because it was a serious effort. But what we found most of all was red tape. I want to put a human face on these refugee camps: 2.4 million displaced. The genocide in Darfur has destroyed well over 60 percent of the villages in Darfur, displaced over 2 million people, killed an estimated 400,000 and driven 200,000 into Chad, and that is a separate story in talking about the physical and emotional and financial burden of the refugees on Chad and the conflict that is rising up in Chad because of the refugees. Today the House considered H. Res. 740, which condemned in the strongest terms the recent attacks on African Union peacekeepers that occurred in Haskanita, Darfur, Sudan, on September 29, 2007. I introduced this bill along with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), and 55 Members joined me in this. They recognized that we are not going to make any steps of success to put a human face on the suffering. We are not going to be able to pull that suffering back, to be able to quash the janjaweed, to be able to separate the rebels, to prevent some of the tragic stories that I heard. We sat in the refugee camps to listen to the women who spoke about their plight. This is a growing Rwanda. And I remember people saying, ``Never again, not on my watch.'' I remember the horror of recognizing the inaction of this government, the American Government as related to the crisis in Rwanda. Then it was we did not know. Now we have the backdrop of Rwanda. Thank God Rwanda is moving to a country of stability and overcoming their horrific crisis. But after a million deaths, is that what we want to see after 400,000 have died, over 2 million displaced, 2.4 million displaced, children whose birth weight is far below the average because of limited amount of access to food and water? In essence, there is a degree of malnutrition, even though I want to give great thanks to the NGOs, but it is just not enough. These people need food and health care and water and the ability to survive. Yet we are seeing the constant dust up of the violence around the camps. We saw it firsthand, and it is important that these troops are able to come in without the violence. Let me just cite the incident that occurred on September 29. An estimated 1,000 members of a heavily armed Darfur rebel group in 30 vehicles, armed with heavy artillery and mortars overran a small base in Darfur, Sudan, which was occupied by the African Union mission peacekeepers. The ambush resulted in several hours of intense fighting that killed 10 peacekeepers and wounded many others. According to U.N. estimates in the aftermath of this brutal attack, which was described by the African Union commander as deliberate and sustained, 15,000 civilians fled the area to neighboring towns or the wilderness fearing for their safety. And in the wilderness, there is nothing but death. There is violence by the janjaweed and rebels not in line with the peacekeeping mission. There is devastation, lack of water. There is lack of food. There is death. And the 15,000 that fled were the elderly, women with children and families. Madam Speaker, this is what is going on in Sudan and so it is important for the Congressional Black Caucus to list a number of efforts, including the divestiture, including a number of initiatives, putting ourselves forward to protest at the Sudanese Embassy. Let me say the recent ambassador that I discussed this matter with seemed to care, seemed to want to do something. But my words are that you can't want to do something; you must do something. So here you can see the landscape. Although it reflects the landscape of Sudan generally, this is a compound where people are confined and these children have nowhere to go. They have no life. They have no games. They have no way of looking to the future. As you see, this group of children, there are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of children. Babies being born as well. And, therefore, these babies are being born with limited health care, malnutrition. And it is important to note that they are struggling under these conditions. This is a mother and child. They are trying to make mud bricks so they don't have to go out beyond the parameters of the refugee camp because that is when these women are attacked. Their livelihood is dependent on getting firewood as they did 50, maybe 100 years ago. Every time they go out to get firewood, the women are subjected to rape. The men cannot go because they may be killed, so the women go. They scavenge the land. It is completely barren because you have 2.4 million people living in one compound trying to survive. So they have come up with a creative way to try to use the mud to keep the fire going so they don't have to go out as much. This is the condition. This is where they cook. This is the communal cooking area. I can assure you, as loving as this mother is, that the food is so limited it may be one meal a day. It may be a porridge because of the limit of wildlife, access to meat and vegetables, and these are the conditions. I will say to you that the people are resilient, but they are looking to us to do something, and the question is: What are we going to do? These are the women who I sat down with trying to make baskets to sell. I listened to their stories about the intrusions at night coming into the camps, going into their living quarters and attacking them. And only through their screams did they have men and others come to scare away the attackers. So they are not safe from rape even in these villages. This is a crime against humanity. Those of us who believe in the sanctity of human life, the abhorrence of rape and violence, this is a disgrace of what these women are facing. I, too, join in reflecting in the words and the headlines in The Washington Post, ``U.S. Promises on Darfur Don't Match Actions.'' But what I want to say to the Commander in Chief who has just asked for some $46 billion or more for the Iraq war when our soldiers have already done their job and the American people want them home, what we want to see done is where the benevolence of the United States can help get something accomplished, where people are looking for our safety net, and our technical help with the peacekeepers can make a difference. Listen to these words from the former director of the Darfur Coalition who I have worked with, and I thank him and thank them for their leadership. Bush insisted there must be consequences for rape and murder, and he called for international troops on the ground to protect innocent Darfuris. According to contemporaneous notes by one present, he spoke of bringing justice to the janjaweed, the Arab militia, that has participated in atrocities that the President has repeatedly described as nothing less than genocide. Congresswoman Jones, you remember it was the Congressional Black Caucus sitting down with Secretary Colin Powell, and I thank him for what he did, but colleagues like our chairman of the Subcommitte on Africa, Donald Payne, claimed this was genocide, called this genocide many months before. But it was our persistence to meet with the Secretary of State, to sit down in a meeting at which he came, and at that meeting he made the statement which he then made public that he had determined this was genocide based on the pursuit, the pressure, the information, the agitation, the advocation of members of the CBC and of course other colleagues in the Democratic Caucus and of course in the Republican Caucus, because this is a bipartisan issue. So the Secretary of State Colin Powell announced, I believe in 2004, that this was genocide by this government. So the President recognized what was happening, and the article goes on to say that the White House, President Bush, had an understanding of the issue that went beyond simple responding to a briefing that had been given, said David Rubinstein, a participant who was then executive director of the Save Darfur Coalition, which has been sharply critical of the administration's response to the crisis. He knew more facts than I expected him to know, and he had a broader political perspective than I expected him to know. Yet a year and a half later, having known all of this information, the situation as you reported on the ground in Darfur is little changed, and more than 2 million people remain displaced. The question is that if we know all of this, if the administration knows all of this, if we have declared genocide, it is imperative that we act. In my visit in August, I could see there was no action. There was no action in the south to settle that down so rebels are scattered. There are now multiple rebel groups, and then there is the conflict with the janjaweed. I think tonight what we wanted to do was to reconfirm and reaffirm the Congressional Black Caucus is not going to let this rest. We are not going to suffer the indignities that these people are experiencing and suffering. We are going to call on our colleagues in the Congress. We are going to thank Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer and Majority Whip Clyburn, Chairman Emanuel and Vice Chairman Larson and our leadership in the Congressional Black Caucus, which I am proud to serve as whip, our leadership, that what I believe we need now is for this administration to move on getting the peacekeepers on the ground, to not take no for an answer, to help move the U.N. so they can join with the African Union peacekeepers, because it is clear we need additional help other than the African Union troops. We must have additional help. The last thing I want to say, we have friends and allies, and they include members of the Arab League and China. We cannot continue to have our allies empower and embolden the Khartoum Government without solving this problem. If they think 2.4 million people are okay and nothing is happening, I am here to tell you they are wrong. Rape and pillage and suffering is going on. I ask on this floor for the U.N. and the new Secretary General to take a firm stand to move U.N. peacekeepers in now and to help the AMIS effort, the African Union peacekeepers now, and have these people move back to their places of residence and to solve the violence and the viciousness going on in Darfur. Enough of genocide and enough of the travesty on human rights. I include the remainder of The Washington Post article dated September 29, 2007, for the Record. Way of Sending Troops At an appearance in Tennessee this summer, Bush raised a question many have asked about the situation in Darfur: ``If there is a problem, why don't you just go take care of it?'' But Bush said he considered--and decided against--sending U.S. troops unilaterally. ``It just wasn't the right decision,'' he said. With the United States tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, skepticism about using U.S. soldiers, even in a limited way, cut across agencies and bodies that often disagree, from the State Department to the Pentagon to Vice President Cheney's office, according to many current and former officials. Advisers say Bush came to accept, albeit grudgingly, the arguments against using U.S. military assets--especially the possibility that they might attract al-Qaeda. ``In my mind, there would never be enough troops to impose order on this place,'' former secretary of state Colin L. Powell said an interview. ``The only way to resolve this problem was for there to be a political settlement between the rebels and the government.'' Sharing this belief was Powell's bureaucratic nemesis, then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who advocated sending troops to Iraq but not to the middle of Africa, according to many officials in the government. This aversion to any use of force was frustrating to some lower-ranking government officials, who saw a modest U.S. military effort as indispensable to making the Sudanese take American diplomacy seriously. Early in the crisis, in the summer of 2004, the U.S. mission in Khartoum made clear to Washington its belief that the African Union was incapable of dealing with the security problem in Darfur on its own. It recommended that several hundred U.S. troops help fly in African Union forces and provide other assistance, according to a former State Department official. The idea was never seriously entertained, the official said, and it was not until two years later that the United States began making efforts at the United Nations to bolster the overmatched African mission. Roger Winter, a former State Department official who was intimately involved with Sudan policy during the Bush administration, argues that the United States has never been serious about pressuring the Sudanese government. ``They know what we will do and what we won't do,'' he said. ``And they don't respond unless there is a credible threat. And they haven't viewed everything that has happened up until now as credible.'' Carrots vs. Sticks Over the course of the conflict, Bush has found himself torn between different factions in his administration over how to handle Sudan--whether, simply put, to try carrots or sticks. In early 2006, Bush empowered Zoellick to seek a peace deal between Khartoum and the Darfur rebel groups. Zoellick, now president of the World Bank, was essentially pursuing what one senior U.S. official described as a policy of engagement with the Sudanese government, even though the Bush administration believed it was involved in perpetrating the atrocities in Darfur. Zoellick worked closely with senior Sudanese officials and dangled the possibility of improved relations and other incentives should Khartoum cooperate in bringing peace to Darfur. And he came close to pulling it off: An agreement to end the violence was negotiated in the spring of 2006, but it fell apart after key rebel leaders refused to sign on. Some U.S. officials say Bush never completely bought into Zoellick's approach. He seems to have been influenced in that regard by Gerson, the then-speech writer who was given a wide-ranging policy berth in the early part of Bush's second term. Gerson, now a Washington Post columnist, is a devout Christian who was especially animated by the part of the Bush agenda that focused on alleviating suffering in Africa. He traveled to Sudan with Zoellick in late 2005, a trip that included a meeting with Bashir, and came back convinced that Khartoum was not seriously interested in efforts to improve conditions in Darfur. ``There was always a series of incremental steps, and nothing changed on the ground,'' Gerson said later. Returning to Washington, Gerson told Bush that Bashir was feeling no pressure to cooperate and that the African Union peacekeepers were not up to the task of protecting civilians. He also suggested that it might be useful to establish a no- fly zone to prevent the Sudanese government from flying bombing missions in support of Janjaweed attacks. Several months later, Gerson sent Bush some articles criticizing the U.S. approach as anemic, and Bush summoned his aide to the Oval Office, a little hot under the collar because he did not agree with the criticism. But he assured Gerson, as the former aide remembers, ``I want you to know we are acting on this.'' In February 2006, Bush proposed using NATO forces to help quickly bolster the beleaguered African Union mission. The president seemed so excited about the idea that he mentioned it, almost casually, in response to a question about Uganda during a public appearance in Florida. The statement stunned some in the U.S. bureaucracy. But even Bush's efforts to promote the idea did little to move the process along. The French were leery of a new NATO mission outside its normal sphere of operations, and there was no interest from Sudan or the African Union in a major role for this quintessentially Western military alliance, according to U.S. officials. The plan went nowhere. Now, 20 months later, with Zoellick and Gerson gone, new administration figures are working with other countries on new plans for peace and peacekeepers in Darfur. Given the track record, those who have handled Darfur over the years are cautious. ``Overall,'' concluded John R. Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, ``Sudan is a case where there's a lot of international rhetoric and no stomach for real action.'' Madam Speaker, the genocide in Darfur has taken a horrific toll on that region of Sudan. It has destroyed well over 60 percent of the villages in Darfur, displaced over 2 million people, killed an estimated 400,000, and driven 200,000 into refugee camps in neighboring Chad. Today the House considered H. Res. 740, condemning in the strongest terms the attacks on African Union peacekeepers that occurred in Haskanita, Darfur, Sudan, on September 29, 2007, which I introduced, together with my good friend and distinguished colleague, Mr. Chabot. This measure was cosponsored by 55 of my colleagues, and it passed the House by voice vote. Since 2003, we have witnessed a systematic campaign of displacement, starvation, rape, mass murder, and terror in the western Sudanese region of Darfur. In the worst humanitarian crisis of our time, an estimated 400,000 people have been killed in Darfur by the Government of Sudan and its Janjaweed allies. An additional 2,000,000 people have been displaced from their homes and livelihoods. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate declared that the atrocities in Darfur constitute genocide in July 2004, and the Bush administration reached the same conclusion in September 2004. However, three years later, the situation in Darfur continues to deteriorate. The United Nations reported a substantial decline in the humanitarian situation during the first three months of 2007, during which time 21 humanitarian vehicles were hijacked, 15 additional vehicles were looted, and gunmen raided 6 humanitarian compounds. The security situation makes it extremely difficult for aid organizations to reach vulnerable populations, and, in the 12 months preceding April 2007, the number of humanitarian relief workers in Darfur decreased by 16 percent, largely due to security concerns, restrictions on access, and funding limitations. The flow of humanitarian aid has been severely threatened by the escalating violence in the region. Since 2004, a small contingent of African Union peacekeepers have been deployed to Darfur, responsible for maintaining security in a region roughly the size of France. The 7,000 peacekeepers under the banner of the African Union Mission in Sudan, or AMIS, have displayed exemplary courage and resilience, but they are woefully outmanned and outgunned, as well as chronically short of funding. Recognizing the near-collapse of the AU Mission, the United Nations, in July 2007, approved a UN-AU hybrid peacekeeping mission, to be known as UNAMID, which is meant to take over from AMIS shortly. The AMIS peacekeeping mission recently encountered yet another significant setback. On September 29, 2007, an estimated 1,000 members of a heavily armed Darfur rebel group, in 30 vehicles armed with heavy artillery and mortars, overran a small base in Haskanita, Darfur, Sudan, which was occupied by AMIS peacekeepers. The ambush resulted in several hours of intense fighting that killed ten peacekeepers- seven Nigerian peacekeepers and three other soldiers from Mali, Senegal, and Botswana- and wounded many others. According to UN estimates, in the aftermath of this brutal attack, which was described by the African Union commander as ``deliberate and sustained,'' 15,000 civilians fled the area to neighboring towns or the wilderness, fearing for their safety. This attack is considered to be the worst on AMIS peacekeepers since their deployment in July 2004. The United Nations Security Council condemned this ``murderous attack'' on AMIS peacekeepers, and demanded that ``no effort be spared'' to identify and bring to justice the perpetrators of this assault. Only recently, during the August recess, I had the opportunity to lead a Congressional Delegation (CODEL) to Darfur. This was the first CODEL to the region since the announcement of the joint UN/AU peacekeeping force. Along with my colleagues Mr. Chabot, who joins me as the lead Republican cosponsor of this legislation, and Mr. Smith, I had the I opportunity to meet with government officials, civil society leaders, international aid workers, and affected civilians, as well as with the African Union peacekeepers responsible for protecting Darfur. I saw first hand the immense suffering of the people of Darfur, as well as the enormous strain on the courageous but outnumbered AU peacekeepers. I strongly condemn recent attacks on African Union peacekeepers. This legislation also expresses the condolences of this House to the people and Governments of Nigeria, Mali, Senegal, and Botswana, the families and friends of those individuals who were killed or missing in the attacks, and expresses its sympathies to those individuals who have been injured. It expresses the solidarity of the people and Government of the United States with the African Union and the African Union peacekeepers as they recover from these attacks, and the readiness of Congress to support efforts to bring to justice those individuals responsible for the attacks and efforts to detect, pursue, disrupt, and dismantle the networks that plan and carry out such attacks. My legislation also looks forward, to the process of bringing about a peace settlement for Darfur. Crucial though effective peacekeeping forces are, they are no substitute for a serious and sustained peace process. Consequently, this bill also expresses its support for the people of Darfur, Sudan, in their continued struggle against extremism and violence and support for their efforts to secure a permanent peace, justice, and return to their restored villages and homes, and it encourages all parties involved in the conflict to commit to negotiate a final and binding peace agreement at the peace talks, which began on October 27, 2007, in Tripoli, Libya. Early reports from these negotiations have not been promising. With key rebel groups boycotting the peace talks, media reports indicate that mediators will now have to travel to Darfur to meet with rebel leaders before actual peace agreements can be reached. Despite these setbacks, UN Special Envoy Jan Eliasson has maintained optimism, saying yesterday ``I refuse to state that the peace process is interrupted.'' In Darfur, rape has been an important aspect of the genocide. Women and girls have been targeted specifically as spoils or war. Though it is impossible to know or even estimate exact numbers of rape victims, particularly in light of the Government of Sudan's practice of harassing or even detaining representatives of organizations attempting to report such statistics, they would certainly be extremely high. In Darfur, rape is linked to racial slurs. When rape victims were interviewed by human rights workers, they reported hearing Janjaweed militia and Sudanese soldiers shouting their intent--to rape the women and girls, forcing them to have Arab children. According to a Refugees International report, one woman interviewed in a refugee camp in Chad said that a Janjaweed militiaman who raped her told her: ``I will give you a light-skinned baby to take this land from you.'' One Sudanese human rights activist has noted, ``The war in Darfur is centered on identity, and rape is being used as a weapon of war in the struggle for the identity of the region. Women have a very important role in Darfur's culture, and rape destroys not only a woman but her tribe.'' Though many survivors of these attacks are able to find their way to displaced persons camps, they remain at risk. Many women and girls are attacked when they leave the relative security of the camps to collect firewood and other necessities. When women living in refugee camps were asked why they went to fetch water and risk rape rather than the men, they answered, ``If we let the men go, they will be killed. It is better for us to be raped than for our husbands to be killed.'' Today, the House also considered H. Res. 726, introduced by my colleague, Congresswoman DeLauro, which I was proud to cosponsor. This resolution draws attention to this savage practice, and it calls on the President, the Secretary General of the United Nations, and the United Nations Security Council to take measures to provide assistance to these victims, to fully fund the UN Mission in Darfur, and to find the government of Sudan in noncompliance with Security Council Resolution 1325. It also calls upon the government of Sudan, responsible for unleashing this madness on the women and girls of Darfur, to provide full legal protection to the victims of rape and to bring the perpetrators to justice. The international community must do much, much more to protect the women and girls of Darfur, to meet the needs of those who have already been sexually abused or raped, and to finally bring this horrific conflict to an end. The deployment of the hybrid UN/AU peacekeeping force is a necessary and important step, but it is no substitute for a serious and sustained peace process.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, today on the floor of the House, I was very pleased to have debated H. Res. 740 that I authored with Congressman Chabot from Ohio and joined by 55 of my colleagues. This resolution denounced the attack on African Union peacekeepers. And it was a result of the codel led by myself, joined by Congressman Chabot and Congressman Smith from Nebraska, the first codel to go into Darfur since the signing of the agreement dealing with the peacekeepers. It is time now for our eyes to focus on a safe return of those who have suffered to their homeland, 2.4 million displaced Sudanese, Darfurians, who live in a state of flux and fear. It is an outrage that these peacekeepers would be attacked. It is an outrage that, as the African Union has stood up to be counted and provided soldiers on the field to protect those refugees, it is an outrage that they are being attacked. We ask the U.N. to intervene to provide more peacekeepers. We ask that the genocide stop. And we ask that Khartoum recognize that they have an obligation to the people of Sudan. Stop the genocide.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairwoman for her leadership, along with Chairman Dingell and Chairman Rangel. You know, as I listen on the floor, it is so curious to hear us quarreling over helping children, falling down on incorrect facts, details, while our country is facing tragedy. Our friends in California are suffering because of a natural disaster, and here we are on the floor trying to help our children, many of them who live in a suffering State because they have no health insurance. Today I will vote in a bipartisan manner with my colleagues to support this bill, and I will again hope the President will sign it. But I will join my bipartisan colleagues, 72 percent of the American public who support it, two-thirds of the Senate, the majority of the House. We will stand for the children. And in particular, as I come from the State of Texas, this is a bill that we need. This bill will provide and is capped at 300 percent of poverty. This bill is standard law. We will cover legal immigrants, and the law already indicates that those who are undocumented will not be covered. In my own particular community of Harris County, we started in September of 2006 being able to do 56,000. This is a county of 4 million people, and now in the metroplex we are up to 62,000. Do you think that is enough? Absolutely not. In our own State, the Center for Public Policy Priorities Associate Director says Texas will need additional Federal funds in coming years if the State wants to cover the 300,000 children eligible. We are a State that is 20 million plus, but not enrolled in the program today is a mere 300,000. The State is 20 million plus, but we have 300,000 that can't get health insurance, as well as pregnant women. We need this bill. The Texas version of SCHIP covers children and families with incomes at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. Our State representative, Representative Coleman, has said this veto handcuffs Texas' ability to continue to reduce the number of uninsured children in our State. You can bet your bottom dollar I'm going to stand with the majority of this Congress in a bipartisan way, not quarrelling over serving our children. Vote for the SCHIP bill. This is the best way to save our children here in America. Mr. Speaker, as the Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I rise to announce that I will proudly cast my vote in support of H.R. 3963, the ``Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007.'' I rise in strong support of this legislation because I am listening, and responding to the will of the American people. Last November 2006, Americans went to polls by the millions united in their resolve to vote for change. They voted for a new direction and a change in the Bush Administration's disastrous neglect of the real needs of the American people, particularly children who lack health insurance through no fault of their own. The new Democratic majority heard them and responded by passing H.R. 976, ``State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007.'' The President vetoed the bill, basing his decision on the absurd and laughable claim that the program was thinly-disguised ``socialized medicine'' and that it was too costly to provide health insurance for America's needy children. The President's senseless veto of the SCHIP bill suggests that this Administration is operating under the misimpression that it is entitled to a continuation of the ancient regime under which the Republican-led Congress look askance and gave the President a blank check to mismanage the affairs of our nation. Those days are over. No matter how many veto threats the President issues, this Congress is not going to give him a blank check to escalate and continue the war in Iraq or to ignore the pressing domestic needs of the American people. It is long past time for change in Iraq and in the direction of the United States. Just as the people and government of Iraq must responsibility for their own country, the people's representatives in Congress must take the lead in addressing the real problems of real Americans living in the real world. H.R. 3963 is a necessary step in the right direction because it provides dependable and stable funding for children's health insurance under titles XXI and XIX of the Social Security Act in order to enroll all six million uninsured children who are eligible for coverage today, but not enrolled. That is why I strongly support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, next to the Iraq War, there is no more important issue facing the Congress, the President, and the American people than the availability of affordable health care for all Americans, especially children. By vetoing the bipartisan SCHIP Authorization Act, the President vetoed the will of the American people. By vetoing that legislation, the President turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to the loud message sent by the American people last November. I voted to override the President's veto because I can think of few goals more important than ensuring that our children have access to health coverage. I voted to override the President's veto because I put the needs of America's children first. Texas Children I am extremely pleased to know that the children in the State of Texas stand to benefit tremendously from the SCHIP Reauthorization Act. Texas has the highest rate of uninsured children in the nation, and Harris County the highest in the state. The bill goes a long way to provide coverage for the 585,500 children enrolled in Texas's CHIP program; and to reach the 998,000 children in families with incomes under the 200% Federal Poverty Level (FPL) who remain uninsured. Mr. Speaker, this important legislation commits $50 billion to reauthorize and improve the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) and cover the six million children who meet its eligibility criteria. Mr. Speaker, SCHIP was created in 1997, with broad bipartisan support, to address the critical issue of the large numbers of children in our country without access to healthcare. It serves the children of working families who earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but who either are not able to afford health insurance or whose parents hold jobs without healthcare benefits. Children without health insurance often forgo crucial preventative treatment. They cannot go to the doctor for annual checkups or to receive treatment for relatively minor illnesses, allowing easily treatable ailments to become serious medical emergencies. They must instead rely on costly emergency care. This has serious health implications for these children, and it creates additional financial burdens on their families, communities, and the entire nation. This year alone, 6 million children are receiving healthcare as a result of CHIP. However, stopgap funding for this visionary program expires November 16. Congress must act now to ensure that these millions of children can continue to receive quality, affordable health insurance. As Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I can think of few goals more important than ensuring that our children have access to health coverage. It costs us less than $3.50 a day to cover a child through CHIP. For this small sum, we can ensure that a child from a working family can receive crucial preventative care, allowing them to be more successful in school and in life. Without this program, millions of children will lose health coverage, further straining our already tenuous healthcare safety net. Additionally, through this legislation, we have an opportunity to make health care even more available to America's children. The majority of uninsured children are currently eligible for coverage, either through CHIP or through Medicaid. We must demonstrate our commitment to identifying and enrolling these children, through both increased funding and a campaign of concerted outreach. This legislation provides States with the tools and incentives they need to reach these unenrolled children without expanding the program to make more children eligible. In my home state of Texas, as of June 2006, SCHIP was benefiting 293,000 children. This is a decline of over 33,000 children from the previous year. We must continue to work to ensure that all eligible children can participate in this important program. To this end, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed legislation in June which, among other things, creates a community outreach campaign for SCHIP. In addition to reauthorizing and improving the SCHIP program, this legislation also protects and improves Medicare. Due to a broken payment formula, access to medical services for senior citizens and people with disabilities is currently in jeopardy. Physicians who provide healthcare to Medicare beneficiaries face a 10 percent cut in their reimbursement rates next year, with the prospect of further reductions in years to come looming on the horizon. The budget proposed by the Bush administration does not help these doctors, or the patients that they serve. This is extremely important legislation providing for the health coverage of six million low-income children, as well as protecting the health services available to senior citizens and persons with disabilities. President Bush was wrong to veto this legislation. I stand strong with the children of America in voting to reauthorize this program. I urge all members to join so that we pass the bill with a veto-proof majority. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield back the balance of my time. According to Center for Public Policy Priorities Associate Director Anne Dunkelberg, Texas will need additional federal funds in coming years if the state wants to cover the 300,000 children eligible but not enrolled in the program, as well as pregnant women. Texas' version of SCHIP covers children in families with incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great privilege to be able to rise on the floor of the House today to challenge all of our colleagues to stand for our children. We are going to do it again, and that is to put on the floor of the House the Children's Health Insurance Program, $35 billion for 10 million children. Forty days in Iraq will equal insuring 10 million children in giving them and providing uninsured low-income children with health care, insuring the lowest income children, pregnant women will be covered. Parents will not be covered. Mental health will be covered. Preventative care, saving the lives of our children, giving them the opportunity for a vigorous and prosperous future. Protecting our soldiers on the front lines when they can't pay for their children's health insurance. This has to be the road we take, the journey to help our children. Let us do it in a bipartisan manner, joining with two Houses, putting it on the desk of the President of the United States. What will this Nation do for her most precious resource? I hope we will pass the SCHIP bill together, united for all of our children.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1680, legislation critical to securing our Nation against further acts of terrorism. I am proud to cosponsor this legislation, which I believe effectively balances necessary measures to provide additional security with the need to protect our agricultural industry. On September 11, 2001, our enemies demonstrated their ability to use everyday objects as deadly weapons. Ammonium nitrate is a product of great use to our Nation's agricultural sectors, but, in the hands of terrorists, could cause America great harm. Like the airplanes flown into buildings, fertilizer bombs have been used to deadly effect, beginning infamously with the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. We need to balance these very real security concerns against the vital value of ammonium nitrate fertilizer to the U.S. plant food industry, its many local retail agribusiness outlets, and the farmers and livestock producers they serve. Ammonium nitrate fertilizes our Nation's crops, and it helps the American economy grow. It provides a relatively inexpensive source of the nitrogen required to grow crops, and it has economic, agronomic, and environmental benefits to the entire society. It can also, however, be used to create explosive devices, as demonstrated by the Oklahoma City bombing as well as by subsequent terrorist plots in 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004. According to a 1998 National Research Council report, ``Containing the Threat From Illegal Bombings,'' short of a method of neutralizing the explosive properties of ammonium nitrate, which we do not yet have, commercial controls and regulatory action ``offer the best means of reducing the threat from illegal bombings.'' H.R. 1680 will require the creation of these controls and regulations. This bill will provide the Department of Homeland Security with the authority to develop a nationally consistent, effective, and integrated approach to control access to ammonium nitrate, and it will require the Department to develop a regulatory system aimed at keeping these fertilizers away from those who would use it to threaten our Nation. Under the provisions of this legislation, the Department of Homeland Security will register all producers, sellers, and purchasers of ammonium nitrate, and those who purchase and take custody of this product will be required to provide their names, addresses, and telephone numbers to the Department. All of these individuals will be accountable for any ammonium nitrate they take possession of. In addition, this legislation will require producers and sellers to maintain records of all sales and transfers for at least three years. Sellers will have the right to refuse sale to prevent misappropriation of this potentially dangerous substance, and they will be provided with guidance on identifying suspicious activity, as well as how to alert law enforcement officials to such behavior. Additionally, producers and sellers will be required to report any loss or theft to law enforcement within 24 hours. This legislation also provides further means for enforcement, establishing a process for the Department to track, monitor, and audit the ammonium nitrate records. Under the provisions of this bill, enforcement may be delegated to States where cooperative agreements and sufficient funding exist. To punish violations, the Department may levy civil fines of up to $50,000. This legislation does not preempt or alter any State statute providing additional protection against ammonium nitrate falling into the hands of terrorists. Yet in our counterterrorism efforts we should not lose sight of the need to protect the American farmer, especially small and minority farmers struggling to make ends meet on the family farm. Ammonium nitrate is an essential tool they use to sustain themselves and their families and those essential needs should not be overlooked. Our counterterrorism efforts should not be detrimental to the continued availability of ammonium nitrate fertilizer to U.S. farmers, endangering their way of life and threatening their livelihoods. H.R. 1680 offers an opportunity to strengthen our defenses against the threat of terrorism without placing an extraordinary burden on industry. This legislation has the support of the Fertilizer Institute, an industry group representing most fertilizer producers. Mr. Speaker, as our Nation's leaders, it is our responsibility to be proactive, and to make every effort to remain several steps ahead of any who might attack our country. This bill is an opportunity to do just that, to not wait for another devastating attack to address what we already recognize to be a serious security threat. I strongly support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorist Prevention Act of 2007, introduced by my distinguished colleague from California, Representative Harman. This important legislation recognizes the threat of homegrown terrorism and seeks to address this burgeoning problem while maintaining the civil rights and liberties of American citizens. Since May of this year, two separate plots against strategic American targets have been foiled and prevented by American officials; what distinguishes them from previous terrorist plots against the United States is that the potential terrorists here had no support from Al- Qaeda or any other overseas terrorist cells. America must be unique in its approach to homegrown terrorism, given the civil rights and civil liberties protections that are unique to America and enjoyed by all American citizens. As a senior Member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure, I believe we can secure our homeland and remain true to our values simultaneously. In our fights against global terrorism, it is critical that Muslim Americans continue to be our allies. The Muslim American Community has grown in size and prominence, and is an integral part of the fabric of this Nation. Muslim Americans share the same values and ideals that make this Nation great. Ideals such as discipline, generosity, peace and moderation. Many years of civil rights jurisprudence and law have been ignored and thrown out the window when the racial profiling, harassment, and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans is permitted to occur with impunity. These practices show a reckless and utter disregard for the fundamental values on which our country is founded: namely, due process, the presumption of innocence, nondiscrimination, individualized rather than group suspicion, and equitable application of the law. We cannot allow xenophobia, prejudice, and bigotry to prevail, and eviscerate the Constitution we are bound to protect. The securing of our homeland and protection of our national security is on the forefront of my agenda. However, using 9/11 as an impetus to engage in racial profiling, harassment, and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans is not only deplorable, it undermines our civil liberties and impedes our success in the global war on terror. We must fight our war on terror without compromising our freedoms and liberties. It is precisely for these reasons that I so strongly support H.R. 1955. This Act calls for the creation for the creation of the National Commission to examine the various causes of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in order to propose concrete and meaningful recommendations and legislative strategies in order to alleviate these threats. It also establishes a Center of Excellence for the Prevention of Radicalization and Home Grown Terrorism that will study the social, criminal, political, psychological and economic roots of the problem as well as provide homeland security officials across the government with suggestions for preventing radicalization and home grown terrorism. Furthermore, it requires our homeland security officials to thoroughly examine the experiences of other nations that have experienced homegrown terrorism so that our government might learn from those experiences. As such, H.R. 1955 does more than merely address the current situation with regard to homegrown terrorism but also works to identify the causes behind the problem and address them as well. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio. I must say that she is representative of the talent and the commitment of members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that we are very proud of this Congress. We are proud of all of our colleagues. We may agree or disagree with our friends across the aisle, but we know that they bring to bear great talent. We are proud of the Democratic Caucus, with our leadership, Speaker Pelosi; Majority Leader Hoyer; Majority Whip Mr. Clyburn; and, of course, our chairman, Rahm Emanuel; Vice Chairman John Larson; and, of course, the distinguished gentleman who chairs the DCCC, for his leadership. When we speak of the Congressional Black Caucus, we really speak of them in the framework of providing conscious and pointed leadership in many areas. I must say that the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio has always reminded us that you can be a benevolent prosecutor. You can have the spirited forcefulness that is necessary to ensure that people understand that they must follow the law, and that if you do the crime, you must do the time. But, at the same time, you can have a sense of fairness. I am so proud that she has brought her leadership to this place. I will quickly speak of some issues and then move to this question of why this is such a crucial special hour. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the gentlewoman from Ohio is not only a prosecutor and former judge herself, but she likewise now brings that to bear on several issues. I am going to speak very briefly about our members who engage in criminal justice and homeland security, but she is now the chairperson of the Ethics Committee. What a wonderful balance, recognizing that we must self-regulate, but yet she is firm and fair. So, with the 17 cochairs that we have who are members of the Congressional Black Caucus, we are able to spread out and have a visible impact, from Transportation, Homeland Security, Education, to a number of issues that these subcommittee Chairs are engaged in, and working with John Conyers, the chairman of Judiciary; the chairman of the Ways and Means, Charlie Rangel; and the chairman of Homeland Security. But let me tell you why I think that we are most relevant to be speaking of this, if you will, confirmation hearing tomorrow, because members of the Congressional Black Caucus have worked on issues. In fact, tomorrow, Madam Chairwoman, we will be holding a hearing on selective prosecution, held by Chairman Conyers, because that is something that has plagued our judicial system. That is why I am going to lead into this circumstance with Judge Southwick. Then, of course, there is legislation that we filed, No More Tulias. That was a place where the prosecution relied on one police officer, a rogue cop, by the way, and I love my law enforcement, I work very well with them, who, unfortunately, pointed the finger at 50 African Americans or more, who were ultimately prosecuted and went to jail because of one officer's testimony, no other witnesses. And this is the issue that we face, the politicizing of U.S. Attorneys. John Conyers focused on it. But my good friends Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Danny Davis, and so many of us who were cosponsors, led on the Second Chance bill. So she balanced prosecution with recognizing that people should have a second chance. This came out of the bowels, if you will, of the Congressional Black Caucus, the criminal justice system being fair. Then, of course, she mentioned the Jena Six. I want to just frame this not by the Congressional Black Caucus affirming bad behavior. We have sons. We have daughters. We have children. We have children that go to schools, public schools. But the question that we just can't get over is how three young people that hung nooses that triggered the bad feelings then get a pass. Fine. Someone administratively decided we want these young people to stay in school. That is their decision. But then you take young people of color and you decide that they should be in the adult criminal justice system. So the African American community looked to the Congressional Black Caucus to make a stand. I am delighted that, with the leadership of Chairwoman Carolyn Kilpatrick, we have worked with the lawyers, we have worked with civil rights activists to keep this before us. The good time early release bill, because in the federal system there is no parole. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus have focused on nonviolent criminals who have been in prison for a period of time getting considered for good time early release. We have spent $100,000 a year, almost, for the 2.4 million people that are in the federal system. The SCHIP bill was led by convening leadership of Majority Whip Clyburn, working with Charlie Rangel. But we stood fast to say: No backing down on the SCHIP bill. Of course Bennie Thompson, my chairperson, was able to pass for the first time the 9/11 bill. That leads me to why we are here talking about Judge Southwick, and a personal story. I am a voting rights baby. This district that I represent, represented first by Barbara Jordan and then by Mickey Leland, would not have existed but for the 1965 Voting Rights Act that then provided the representation not at large, but by district. Many people don't know that Barbara Jordan ran over and over again in Houston, Texas, and lost, because she had to run countywide, citywide. It was only when they carved out or were able to get a senatorial district that concentrated diverse people, that concentrated African Americans, that she was elevated to the State Senate. So the Fifth Circuit was the place of first Federal response, beyond the district courts, to save us from the discriminatory practices that were going on in the South, and Texas is the South. So when Judge Southwick has cavalierly used the ``N'' word, and, by the way, the NAACP buried that word, and most of us know it is an offensive word, despite the first amendment, then I can't imagine that the Senate tomorrow is even going to think about affirming this individual. Because he ruled that a white employee who had been fired for calling an African American coworker a good old ``N,'' he thought that that certainly was equivalent to calling somebody a teacher's pet. But go back to the Jena Six. That is the same response the Department of Justice under Bush gave us, that we didn't think it was important to chastise, to admonish, to prosecute three young people who hung a noose, and the noose epidemic is going around America. So here you want to elevate someone to the Fifth Circuit who believes that the ``N'' word is equal to, that it is like ``teacher's pet.'' The Mississippi Supreme Court, by the way, unanimously reversed Southwick. He has also rejected defense claims that prosecutors struck African American jurors based on race. I know it firsthand as a lawyer. We see it every day in the Harris County courthouse when the prosecution in down-south Houston, Texas, repeatedly rejects African American jurors. So that is not the temperament for being on the Fifth Circuit, because we appeal those cases to you. His expressed views also raised doubts about his ability to rule fairly in cases involving the civil rights of gays and lesbians. We have gotten past that in the United States Congress. In fact, we understand you have employee rights not to be discriminated against in the workplace or anywhere in America. What will that do for us to be able to have a judge on the Fifth Circuit that has no understanding that we are diverse? Then, of course, one other point that I am going to make before I close, one of the most important privileges is the privilege of being in the workplace safe and secure without discrimination, and it has been proven that Judge Southwick is not one that supports the rights of workers and the victims who suffer personal injury. What it means is that you come before his court, obviously on appeal, and whether it be a malpractice case or whether if be a huge personal injury case, then he has not been warmly received or well received, these cases. So I would simply ask, when you talk about judicial temperament, for those of us who are heavily dependent on the equality and balance of the judiciary, I reminded my colleagues and others in the hearing last week that the Federal Government is the ``rainy day umbrella.'' That is why we were so frustrated with Hurricane Katrina and the response by this administration, because we looked to the Federal Government as that last stopgap. So those of us in the South look to the Federal Government, whether it was John F. Kennedy calling down when Martin Luther King was in jail or Eisenhower sent the troops into Little Rock, we look to the Federal Government. All of us do. So you are going to put on the bench someone who is predisposed that the ``N'' word is just a ``funny word,'' and then those of us who go to the Fifth Circuit on redistricting cases, short of the law that already exists, can't expect any relief because why do you ``N'' people need to have districts that you are able to vote on someone from communities of interest, in essence, or someone who is representative of your perspective or your view? That is what we get with the affirmation of Judge Southwick. So I am going to make a personal plea to Senators who might have voted in the committee and whoever wants to take this plea to recognize the pain that would be generated from the affirmation of Judge Southwick. It is untenable. For those of us who want to hold up this flag that I am looking at right now as representative of all of America, the Stars and Stripes, that we would allow him to be affirmed. Letting him stay where he is, fine. I welcome his continued service. But the Fifth Circuit, the next court subject to appeal down from the Supreme Court, we cannot afford someone who would be so intolerable that they would disrespect workers, disrespect those who would be the victims of using the ``N'' word, those who are gay and lesbian who deserve the privileges of every citizen, and certainly does not respect the right of everyone to serve as a juror in order for someone to be tried by a jury of their peers. Congresswoman, I am more than appalled that we would be here tonight to have to entreat, to encourage, to demand, to cajole, if you will, to express outrage, that we have to defend our position for someone who is certainly both untenable and certainly seemingly without the temperament to judge on behalf of the United States of America. I ask my good friends in the Senate, I ask the other body to consider the words of those of us who are here on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus and this conscience that America deserves. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman, and I hope these words are not in vain. Frankly, I hope that we will have a good day tomorrow so that we can make America a better place to live. Another interesting thing, because the Supreme Court only takes cases that they choose, and in the law we use the term certiorari which means certification, that the Supreme Court certifies it is an issue that they want to take up, the Fifth Circuit Court and all the circuit courts become like the Supreme Court for almost every other case that will never reach the Supreme Court, and that is what makes a nomination to the circuit court even that much more important.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. The gentlewoman has made an excellent point, and let me emphasize the word ``supreme.'' It is the top Court, nine justices. They selectively select cases they will review. There are 11 circuits. The circuits obviously are more plentiful than the Supreme Court. And sometimes that circuit court, in this instance the Fifth Circuit Court, will often be the court of last resort for many. Also, before the court was split between the fifth and the 11th, the Fifth Circuit Court was the bountiful court of all civil rights cases. It covered at that time from Mississippi to Alabama, to both Carolinas, Georgia, down through Louisiana and back over to Texas. We were all under the Fifth Circuit. It might have even included Arkansas; I am not sure of that. But all of the civil rights cases, all of these cases that ultimately were pursued, some of the cases, some of the old murder cases that were not taken up by the State systems ultimately went to the district courts and then might have made their way to the circuit court. This court is a court of first impression on many civil rights cases. When I say that, making the cases end at the Fifth Circuit on many of them. In the old days, might I say, the Fifth Circuit of LBJ and Carter, those judges understood the pain of civil rights cases. They understood the redistricting cases and they understood the Voting Rights Act. They understood that they were not making law. They understood affirmative action cases. You're right, these circuit courts now become courts that are the last refuge for many petitioners and litigants. And on the jury selection case if you were to take it up on appeal, this attitude that African American jurors can be stricken and it is not a race question would be devastating. Might I say, the Jena Six case was a white judge, was a white prosecutor and an all-white jury for Michael Bell. And as I understand it, let me say this on the floor so I can correct it if I am wrong, they said that they noticed African American jurors. The African American jurors said they didn't get the notice, and some who came got there too late and so the jury pool was not diverse. If something had occurred that ultimately would be taken up on appeal to a Federal court, look who we would have to assess the case, Judge Southwick.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman. I proudly rise to vote to override the President's veto and to support 10 million children with health care. Madam Speaker, as the chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I rise to announce that I will proudly cast my vote to override the President's veto of H.R. 976, the ``State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Authorization Act of 2007.'' By vetoing the bipartisan SCHIP Authorization Act, the President vetoed the will of the American people. By vetoing this legislation, the President turned a deaf ear and a blind eye to the loud message sent by the American people last November. I will vote to override the President's veto because I can think of few goals more important than ensuring that our children have access to health coverage. I will vote to override the President's veto because I put the needs of America's children first. Madam Speaker, this important legislation commits $50 billion to reauthorize and improve the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and it also makes critical investments in Medicare to protect the health care available to our Nation's senior citizens. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting to override the President's veto. Madam Speaker, SCHIP was created in 1997, with broad bipartisan support, to address the critical issue of the large numbers of children in our country without access to health care. It serves the children of working families who earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but who either are not able to afford health insurance or whose parents hold jobs without health care benefits. Children without health insurance often forgo crucial preventative treatment. They cannot go to the doctor for annual checkups or to receive treatment for relatively minor illnesses, allowing easily treatable ailments to become serious medical emergencies. They must instead rely on costly emergency care. This has serious health implications for these children, and it creates additional financial burdens on their families, communities, and the entire Nation. This year alone, 6 million children are receiving health care as a result of SCHIP. However, funding for this visionary program expires September 30. Congress must act now to ensure that these millions of children can continue to receive quality, affordable health insurance. As chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I can think of few goals more important than ensuring that our children have access to health coverage. It costs us less than $3.50 a day to cover a child through SCHIP. For this small sum, we can ensure that a child from a working family can receive crucial preventative care, allowing them to be more successful in school and in life. Without this program, millions of children will lose health coverage, further straining our already tenuous health care safety net. Additionally, through this legislation, we have an opportunity to make health care even more available to America's children. The majority of uninsured children are currently eligible for coverage, either through SCHIP or through Medicaid. We must demonstrate our commitment to identifying and enrolling these children, through both increased funding and a campaign of concerted outreach. This legislation provides States with the tools and incentives they need to reach these unenrolled children without expanding the program to make more children eligible. In my home state of Texas, as of June 2006, SCHIP was benefiting 293,000 children. This is a decline of over 33,000 children from the previous year. We must continue to work to ensure that all eligible children can participate in this important program. To this end, Texas Governor Rick Perry signed legislation in June which, among other things, creates a community outreach campaign for SCHIP. In addition to reauthorizing and improving the SCHIP program, this legislation also protects and improves Medicare. Due to a broken payment formula, access to medical services for senior citizens and people with disabilities is currently in jeopardy. Physicians who provide health care to Medicare beneficiaries face a 10 percent cut in their reimbursement rates next year, with the prospect of further reductions in years to come looming on the horizon. The budget proposed by the Bush administration does not help these doctors, or the patients that they serve. This is extremely important legislation providing for the health coverage of 11 million low-income children, as well as protecting the health services available to senior citizens and persons with disabilities. President Bush was wrong to veto this legislation. I stand strong with the children of America in voting to override his cruel veto.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida, a former jurist, and let me acknowledge that the RESTORE Act is the right balance between national security and the protection of our civil liberties. I beg to differ with my good friend from California because in fact there are elements of this bill that clearly provide the parameters for foreign-to-foreign surveillance. The only difference is the fact that we protect an American citizen who may be targeted inappropriately as the court intervenes in providing a warrant. My friends, we are moving forward to secure America. I support this rule and I support the rule in its present form, because we need to now substitute a real bill that secures America supported by the language of Director McConnell and as well provides the civil liberties that all Americans deserve. I look forward to the debate on the floor. The RESTORE Act is what it is says, protecting us and providing the right surveillance and ensuring that terrorists do not attack America. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support H. Res. 746, the rule governing debate on H.R. 3773, the RESTORE Act. I thank the gentlemen for yielding and wish to use my time to discuss an important improvement in the bill that was adopted in the full Judiciary Committee markup. The Jackson-Lee Amendment added during the markup makes a constructive contribution to this important legislation that already is superior to the misnamed ``Protect America Act'' by orders of magnitude. It does this simply 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. I hasten to add, Mr. Speaker, that nothing in the bill or in my amendment will requires 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, the bill requires, as our amendment makes clear, 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. And 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. In short, my amendment gives the Government precisely what Director of National Intelligence McConnell asked for when he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee: ``It is very important to me; it is very important to members of this Committee. We should be required--we should be required in all cases to have a warrant anytime there is surveillance of a US [sic] person located in the United States.'' In short, my amendment makes a good bill even better. For these reasons, I am happy to support the rule and urge all members to do likewise.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 225, which commemorates the 50th anniversary of the dawn of the Space Age. I would like to thank my colleague Mr. Gordon for his excellent leadership in shepherding this important legislation to passage on the House floor. The year 2008 will mark the 50th anniversary of the dawn of the Space Age and the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). I support the resolution because it affords the Congress an opportunity to pay tribute to the extraordinary partnership between NASA and its 10 space and research centers. Mr. Speaker, NASA has a distinguished history. The United States of America won the race to land a man on the moon and, thanks to the courage, dedication, and brilliance of NASA, America has continued to lead the world in the exploration of the solar system and the universe. On October 1, 1958, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration began operation. At the time it consisted of only about 8,000 employees and an annual budget of $100 million. Over the next 50 years, NASA has been involved in many defining events which have shaped the course of human history and demonstrated to the world the character of the people of the United States. Many of us remember how inspired we were when, on May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy proclaimed: ``I believe this Nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.'' Always at the forefront of technological innovation, NASA has been home to countless ``firsts'' in the field of space exploration, from the 1958 launch of Pioneer 3, the first U.S. satellite to ascend to an altitude of 63,580 miles, to the January 1998 signing of the International Space Station agreement between 15 countries, establishing the framework for cooperation among partners on the design, development, operation, and utilization of the Space Station. Over the past 50 years, NASA's accomplishments have included: On 20 February, 1962, John Glenn became the first American to circle the Earth, making three orbits in his Friendship 7 Mercury spacecraft. On 6 April, 1965, the United States launched Intelsat I, the first commercial satellite (communications), into geostationary orbit. On 13 November, 1971, the United States launched Mariner 9, the first mission to orbit another planet (Mars). On 12 April, 1981, NASA launched the space shuttle Columbia on the first flight of the Space Transportation System (STS-l). On 18 to 24 June, 1983, NASA launched space shuttle Challenger (STS- 7) carrying three mission specialists, including Sally K. Ride, the first woman astronaut. In another historic mission, 2 months later NASA launched STS-8 carrying the first black American astronaut, Guion S. Bluford. On 22 July, 1999, the space shuttle Columbia's 26th flight was led by Air Force COL Eileen Collins, the first woman to command a Shuttle mission. On July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 astronauts Neil A. Armstrong and Edwin E. Aldrin made the first lunar landing mission while Michael Collins orbited overhead in the Apollo command module. Armstrong set foot on the surface, telling the millions of listeners that it was ``one small step for man--one giant leap for mankind.'' Aldrin soon followed him out and planted an American flag but omitted claiming the land for the U.S., as had routinely been done during European exploration of the Americas. The two Moon-walkers left behind an American flag and a plaque bearing the inscription: ``Here Men From Planet Earth First Set Foot Upon the Moon. Jul. 1969 A.D. We came in Peace for All Mankind.'' On April 24, 1990, the Hubble space telescope was launched into space aboard the STS-31 mission of the space shuttle Discovery. The Hubble has revolutionized astronomy while expanding our knowledge of the universe and inspiring millions of scientists, students, and members of the public with its unprecedented deep and clear images of space. Mr. Speaker, in addition to these historic events, NASA has greatly contributed to our understanding of our universe. In 1968, Apollo 8 took off atop a Saturn V booster from the Kennedy Space Center for a historic mission to orbit the Moon. As Apollo 8 traveled outward, the crew focused a portable television camera on Earth and for the first time humanity saw its home from afar, a tiny, lovely, and fragile ``blue marble'' hanging in the blackness of space. This transmission and viewing of Earth from a distance was an enormously significant accomplishment and united the Nation at a time when American society was in crisis over Vietnam, race relations, urban problems, and a host of other difficulties. The success of the United States space exploration program in the 20th century augurs well for its continued leadership in the 21st century. This success is largely attributable to the remarkable and indispensable partnership between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and its 10 space and research centers. One of these important research centers is located in my home city of Houston. The Johnson Space Center, which manages the development, testing, production, and delivery of all United States human spacecraft and all human spacecraft-related functions, is one of the crown jewels of NASA and a lodestar Houston area. The other nine research and space centers are: 1. The Ames Research Center in California's Silicon Valley provides products, technologies, and services that enable NASA missions and expand human knowledge in areas as diverse as small spacecraft and supercomputers, science missions and payloads, thermal protection systems and information technology. 2. The Dryden Flight Research Center, the leading center for innovative flight research. 3. The Glenn Research Center, which develops power, propulsion, and communication technologies for space flight systems and aeronautics research. 4. The Goddard Space Flight Center, which specializes in research to expand knowledge on the Earth and its environment, the solar system, and the universe through observations from space. 5. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the leading center for robotic exploration of the Solar System. 6. The Kennedy Space Center, the gateway to the Universe and world leader in preparing and launching missions around the Earth and beyond. 7. The Langley Research Center, which continues to forge new frontiers in aviation and space research for aerospace, atmospheric sciences, and technology commercialization to improve the way the world lives. 8. The Marshall Space Flight Center, a world leader in developing space transportation and propulsion systems, engineers the future to accelerate exploration and scientific discovery. 9. The Stennis Space Center, which is responsible for rocket propulsion testing and for partnering with industry to develop and implement remote sensing technology. NASA's stunning achievements over the last 50 years have been won for all mankind at great cost and sacrifice. In the quest to explore the universe, many NASA employees have lost their lives, including the crews of Apollo 6, the space shuttle Challenger, and the space shuttle Columbia. Mr. Speaker, in the centuries to come, when space travel will be commonplace and America will have successfully led the way for humanity to colonize and utilize the resources of other planets, these first 50 years of NASA's existence will be remembered as the most significant era of human space exploration. It is, therefore, important that we commemorate the great achievements of NASA's first 50 years. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this historic legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in strong support of H.R. 2102, the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, which I am proud to co-sponsor. This legislation provides a qualified immunity from prosecution or contempt to journalists for refusing to disclose confidential sources or information. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I am confident that this legislation adequately addresses and resolves the conflict between society's competing interests in a free and vigorous press, on the one hand, and not unduly hampering the ability of law enforcement to investigate and prosecute crimes. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the freedom of the press, the Department of Justice's Statement of Policy is clear. It states ``Because freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news, the prosecutorial power of the government should not be used in such a way that it impairs a reporter's responsibility to cover as broadly as possible controversial public issues.'' 28 C.F.R. 50.10. I have long been a strong proponent of a qualified privilege for journalists. Indeed, in 2001 I spoke out in favor of the need for such a privilege when I went to the Federal Detention Center in Houston today to support the efforts of Professor Vanessa Leggett, a 33-year- old freelance non-fiction writer who had been jailed without bond since July 20, 2001 for asserting her journalistic privilege and First Amendment right not to reveal confidential source information. After visiting Professor Vanessa Leggett I became convinced of the justice of her cause and the importance of her case. Professor Leggett had spent four years researching the 1997 murder of Doris Angleton. When she refused to give in to threats and intimidation by an overzealous prosecution, and asserted her First Amendment rights in a grand jury investigation, she was found in contempt and jailed. Mr. Speaker, like you I believe the First Amendment is the most important amendment in the Bill of Rights. And it is not a coincidence that the freedoms of speech and press are the first freedoms listed in the First Amendment. I believe allowing journalists the right to maintain the confidentiality of their sources when doing research must be protected because it is indispensable to a free press which is the sine qua non of a free society. We must heed the counsel of Justice Douglas's dissent in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972): ``The people, the ultimate governors [of our democracy], must have absolute freedom of and therefore privacy of their individual opinions and beliefs.'' Justice Douglas reminds us that ``effective self-government cannot succeed unless the people are immersed in a steady, robust, unimpeded, and uncensored flow of opinion and reporting which are continuously subjected to critique, rebuttal, and re-examination.'' Again, this principle, codified at Title 28 CFR 50.10 of the Department of Justice Statement of Policy, clearly recognizes and protects one of our most sacred democratic institutions: the media. It requires, for example, that the Department of Justice ``strike the proper balance between the public's interest in effective law enforcement and the fair administration of justice,'' while other subsections clearly require that sanctions, such as those administered by the Department of Justice in this case, shall be reviewed by the Attorney General. As such, this Section presents a tension with the Court precedents set in Branzburg and in Jascalevich. The Supreme Court's decisions in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), and New York Times v. Jascalevich, 439 U.S. 1331 (1978) establish the precedent that a journalist cannot rely upon an absolute First Amendment-based privilege to justify refusal to testify when called by a grand jury, unless the grand jury investigation is instigated in bad faith. However, since the Court handed down its decision in Branzburg, 49 states and the District of Columbia now recognize some version of a shield law protecting the press, to varying degrees, from unfettered disclosure of sources, work product, and information generally. These various state protections range in type and scope, from broad protections that provide an absolute journalistic privilege to shield laws that offer only qualified protection. The majority of state shield laws currently in place offer some form of a qualified privilege to reporters, protecting source information in judicial settings, unless the compelling party can establish that the information is: (1) relevant or material; (2) unavailable by other means, or through other sources; and (3) a compelling need exists for that information. There is considerable variation among the states on the last prong, with some requiring the party seeking disclosure to establish a compelling need for the information. Other states require a compelling showing that disclosure is needed to achieve a broader and greater public policy purpose. In Federal courts, however, there is no current uniform set of standards to govern when testimony can be sought from reporters. Rather, the Federal jurisprudence has developed on an ad hoc, case-by- case basis. That is why we need, and I support, H.R. 2102. H.R. 2102 establishes a procedure by which disclosure of confidential information from a journalist may not be compelled to testify or provide documents related to information obtained or created by the journalist unless the following conditions are met by a preponderance of the evidence and after notice to be heard: (1) The party seeking production must have exhausted all reasonable alternative sources of the information; (2) in the case of a criminal investigation, the party seeking production must have reasonable grounds to believe a crime has occurred and the information sought is critical to the case; (3) disclosure is necessary to: prevent an act of terrorism against the United States or other significant specified harm to national security or to prevent imminent death or significant bodily harm or to identify a person who has disclosed a trade secret actionable under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1831 or Sec. 1832; or (4) the party seeking production must prove that the public interest in compelling disclosure outweighs the public interest in gathering or disseminating news or information. Mr. Speaker, section 4 of the bill defines the key terms used in this bill. A ``Covered Person'' is a person who, for financial gain or livelihood, is engaged in journalism, including supervisors, employers, parents, subsidiaries, or affiliates of a covered person. ``Journalism'' is defined as the ``gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.'' Mr. Speaker, I applaud and commend Mr. Boucher's efforts to address the many concerns of his colleagues relating to the scope of a ``covered person'' and the definition of ``journalism.'' Initially, I was troubled that one day in the future some runaway court or wayward judge may construe these definitions so narrowly that situations like the one involving Vanessa Leggett that I have previously discussed would be excluded. However, based on my consultations with the lead sponsors, as well as my detailed discussions and consultations with groups like the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, I am satisfied that the proposed language is broad enough to cover journalists who are in Vanessa Leggett's situation. Under this legislation, a freelance journalist facing a similar subpoena will be able to represent to a judge that at the time she was talking to sources, she represented to them that she was working on a story or non-fiction book that she planned to sell to a newspaper or magazine or publisher. A reasonable judge would have little choice but to find her to be covered by the statute. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the District Court and the 5th Circuit never questioned Vanessa Leggett's status as a journalist. Rather, the court assumed she was a journalist using the test of In re von Bulow, 828 F2d 94 (2d Cir. 1987). If the issue of a freelancer being covered was found to be vague in the statute, I believe a court would revert to the von Bulow standard, which holds someone is a journalist if she represented to her sources at the time of the interview that she was a journalist and was gathering information intending to write a story to disseminate to an audience. In short, Mr. Speaker, because I believe the language of the bill now leaves no doubt that the Congress specifically intends the Free Flow of Information Act to cover situations similar to the Vanessa Leggett case, I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 2102.