Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3678, the ``Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act of 2007.'' I support this bill because it extends the moratorium imposed by Congress in the Internet Tax Freedom Act, ITFA, for 4 years, extends the grandfather protections for my home State of Texas and eight other States for 4 years for Internet access taxes levied before October 1998, and provides a new definition for Internet access that will narrow what generally constitutes Internet access. The Internet Tax Freedom Act, ITFA, was enacted on October 21, 1998, as Title XI of Division C of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. The ITFA placed a 3 year moratorium on the ability of State and local governments to: (1) impose new taxes on Internet access; or (2) impose any multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. The Act also grandfathered the State and local access taxes that were ``generally imposed and actually enforced prior to October 1, 1998[.]'' This initial Internet tax moratorium expired on October 21, 2001. The Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act was then enacted on November 28, 2001. It provided for a 2 year extension of the prior moratorium through November 1, 2003. The moratorium was then extended for an additional 4 years, through November 1, 2007, by the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-435 (2004). Taxes on Internet access that were in place before October 1, 1998, were protected by a grandfather clause. Mr. Speaker, I oppose making the Internet Tax Freedom Act, ITFA, permanent because it would have several significant adverse effects on the ability of State and local governments, including my home State of Texas, to raise the revenue necessary to fund programs necessary to protect the health and safety, and promote the general welfare, of their citizens. First, under the current, extremely broad definition of ``Internet access'' in the ITFA virtually all goods and services delivered over the Internet would be exempt from State and local taxation. Keeping this definition in a permanent ITFA could prevent States and localities from extending their conventional sales taxes to online music, movies, games, television programming, and similar products. Many sellers of such content, even if they do not truly provide an end-user with a connection to the Internet, arguably are selling ``Internet access'' as defined in ITFA: ``a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the Internet.'' For example, the ``Rhapsody'' service sold by RealNetworks, Inc. streams an unlimited amount of music on demand to a subscriber for a fixed monthly fee. RealNetworks literally is providing ``a service that enables users to access content . . . over the Internet.'' Accordingly, the company could take the position that the Rhapsody service is tax-exempt ``Internet access'' under ITFA's definition and refuse to charge tax on it. Also, the definition of ``Internet access'' includes ``access to proprietary content, information, and other services as part of a package of services offered to consumers.'' Nothing in this definition places any limits on the type or quantity of such ``content, information, and other services.'' Thus, any Internet access provider could achieve tax-exempt status for such content and services by ``bundling'' them with ``Internet access'' as conventionally understood and selling the package for a single, combined price. Under this definition of ``internet access,'' States and localities would lose the hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue from their sales taxation of conventional cable TV service and the hard- media versions of music, movies, software, and computer games sold in stores. As is illustrated by the rapid growth of Apple Computer's iTunes music service, the majority of such ``digital content'' is likely to be distributed over the Internet eventually. The same is likely with respect to the majority of television programming, which in some parts of the country is already being distributed via so-called ``Internet Protocol TV'', IPTV. A permanent ITFA with a definition that seems to encompass all online content and services and that places no limits on what a telecommunications or cable TV company bundles with tax-exempt Internet access is likely to lead to a serious long-term drain on sales tax revenues. Second, eliminating ITFA's grandfather clause could have far- reaching, unintended consequences by invalidating a wide array of state and local taxes currently paid by companies providing Internet access, such as sales taxes levied on their equipment purchases. ITFA defines a ``tax on Internet access'' as ``a tax on Internet access, regardless of whether such tax is imposed on a provider of Internet access or a buyer of Internet access.'' Because of the inclusion in the definition of taxes on Internet access providers, State and local officials have long been concerned that Internet access providers could take the position that a wide variety of taxes to which all types of businesses are subject constitute indirect taxes on Internet access services and are therefore banned by ITFA. Acknowledging the legitimacy of such concerns, language was added to ITFA in 2004 expressly ``carving-out'' from the definition of a ``tax on Internet access'' four categories of taxes imposed on Internet access providers--taxes on ``net income, capital stock, net worth, or property value.'' However, this list by no means covers all of the type of taxes Internet access providers may have to pay. For example, it does not include sales taxes on computer servers purchased by such companies or state unemployment compensation taxes. The very limited coverage of the tax carve-out language added to ITFA in 2004 did not overly-concern State and local officials, because virtually all of the significant taxes on Internet access providers potentially at risk had been enacted prior to 1998. Accordingly, ITFA's general grandfather clause served as a back-stop to the explicit protection added in 2004. With the grandfather clause eliminated, however, all State and local taxes on Internet access providers other than the four types carved-out in the 2004 provision could be at risk. It is not at all clear that States could convince a court that any taxes except for the four types explicitly named are still legal when applied to an Internet access provider. If anything, the fact that some taxes on Internet access providers were explicitly preserved might create an inference on the part of a court that Congress intended to ban all other taxes on providers. Third, if ITFA's grandfather clause were repealed, State and local governments in Texas and eight other States would lose existing revenues from currently protected taxes on Internet access services. The State of Texas alone stands to lose more than $50 million in annual revenue. The other eight States--Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin--and some of their local governments--would lose collectively between $30 million and $70 million in annual revenue flowing from previously- grandfathered taxes on Internet access services. Revenue losses of this magnitude are sufficient to trigger the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which classifies Federal preemptions of State and local taxing powers as an unfunded mandate. Most of the taxes directly affected by repeal of the grandfather clause are conventional State and local sales taxes that apply to a wide array of goods and services in addition to Internet access. In and of itself, the direct impact of repeal of the grandfather clause on revenue in the affected States is not significant. In combination with the other impacts discussed above, however, State finances would be adversely affected. Due to balanced-budget requirements, Texas and the eight other States and their affected local governments would either have to reduce state services or increase other taxes to compensate for the lost revenue. For all these reasons, I oppose making the Internet Tax Moratorium Act permanent. I strongly support H.R. 3678, which extends the moratorium for four years and retains the protections for Texas and other States that were grandfathered in the original legislation and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this wise and beneficial legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 734, expressing the sense of House of Representatives regarding the withholding of information relating to corruption in Iraq, introduced by my distinguished colleague from California, Representative Henry Waxman. This important legislation recognizes the incongruities amongst reporting on the situation in Iraq and seeks to hold the Government accountable for the provision of and access to accurate and consistent information. This resolution expresses the sense of the House that the State Department is misusing the national security classification process to withhold from the American people information about widespread and increasing corruption within the Government of Iraq. This misuse includes the retroactive classification of documents and directions to employees not to answer questions in an open forum that calls for ``broad statements/assessments which judge or characterize the quality of Iraqi governance or the ability/determination of the Iraqi government to deal with corruption, including allegations that investigations were thwarted/stifled for political reasons.'' Mr. Speaker, the American people have poured vast amounts of resources and treasure into the misguided war in Iraq. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, CBO, the U.S. is spending an estimated $10 billion per month in Iraq. This $10 billion a month translates into $329,670,330 per day, $13,736,264 per hour, $228,938 per minute, and $3,816 per second. For this huge sum of money, we could have repaired the more than 70,000 bridges across America rated structurally deficient ($188 billion), potentially averting the tragedy that occurred August 1st in Minneapolis, MN. We could have rebuilt the levees in New Orleans ($50 billion), protecting that City from future hurricanes that could bring Katrina-like destruction upon the City. We could have provided all U.S. public safety officials with interoperable communication equipment ($10 billion), allowing them to effectively communicate in the event of an emergency, and we could have paid for screening all air cargo on passenger planes for the next 10 years ($3.6 billion). And, we could have enrolled 1.4 million additional children in Head Start programs ($10 billion). Instead of funding increased death and destruction in Iraq, we could have spent hard-earned taxpayer dollars on important progress here at home. Given the enormous amount of resources involved, coupled with the catastrophic costs in human lives, we would certainly expect adequate oversight and management of U.S. funds and military supplies. We would expect clear records of exactly where those $10 billion a month is going, and to whom it is being given. And yet, the GAO reports that the Pentagon has lost track of over 190,000 weapons, given to Iraqis, particularly in 2004 and 2005. The report's author stated that the U.S. military does not know what happened to 30 percent of the weapons the United States distributed to Iraqi forces from 2004 through early this year as part of an effort to train and equip the troops. These weapons could be used to kill our American troops. Americans who are footing this enormous bill deserve real answers about where their money is going. Recent indications have suggested that it is not being well spent. The recently released Government Accountability Office report on Iraqi progress toward the 18 legislative, economic, and security benchmarks indicated that only three of these benchmarks have been met by the Maliki government. Despite the surge, despite increasing U.S. military involvement, the Iraqi Government has not made substantial progress toward stabilizing their country. The over 3,750 U.S. casualties and the $3,816 per second we are spending in Iraq have not bought peace or security. Mr. Speaker, the time has long passed for the Iraqi Government to step up to take control of their own nation. However, as long as corruption remains endemic in Iraq, the government will find it difficult, if not impossible, to address the ongoing insurgency and to successfully achieve stability in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, leading experts have testified to the widespread corruption of the Iraqi Government, and that this problem continues to threaten our mission in Iraq as long as it's not effectively addressed. According to Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, corruption in Iraq is ``a second insurgency'' that ``stymies the construction and maintenance of Iraq's infrastructure, deprives people of goods and services, reduces confidence in public institutions, and potentially aids insurgent groups reportedly funded by graft derived from oil smuggling or embezzlement.'' The Comptroller General of the United States, David Walker, agreed, testifying that ``widespread corruption undermines efforts to develop the government's capacity by robbing it of needed resources, some of which are used to fund the insurgency.'' The State Department must answer questions about the extent of corruption in the government of Iraq, and how this corruption is undermining both our governments' abilities to successfully end the insurgency. Instead, however, on September 25, 2007, the State Department instructed officials not to answer questions in an open setting that asks for ``broad statements/assessments which judge or characterize the quality of Iraqi governance or the ability/ determination of the Iraqi government to deal with corruption, including allegations that investigations were thwarted/stifled for political reasons.'' On top of this, the State Department retroactively classified portions of a report on Iraqi corruption previously released by Comptroller General Walker. In order to emerge successfully from our war in Iraq, we must be able to understand the situation on the ground and have access to documents and information that will allow our troops and fund to go where they are most needed. While the administration has put forward in a myriad of reports a sunny picture of the situation in Iraq emphasizing the progress of a few over the majority. This legislation is so significant because it addresses the corruption, within both the Iraqi and the United States Government, which have allowed for such a skewed perception of the reality in Iraq. This legislation illuminates the active work of the State Department in masking information on Iraq from public view. In order for this Congress to do its duty and protect its citizens, both at home and serving in our military overseas, it must be able to see what it is that its funds and soldiers are supporting overseas. Voices of dissent and honesty must be heard. We cannot continue to provide open-ended funding and protection for a government which has failed in its mission to be transparent and based in integrity. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve more. The men and women who have fallen in this war due to this endemic lack of information deserve more. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 25, expressing the sense of Congress that it is the goal of the United States that, not later than January 1, 2025, the agricultural, forestry, and working land of the United States should provide from renewable resources not less than 25 percent of the total energy consumed in the United States and continue to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed, and fiber. I am proud to join over 70 of my colleagues in cosponsoring this important legislation. I would like to thank my distinguished colleague Congressman Peterson for introducing this bill, as well for his leadership on this issue as the Chairman of the Agriculture Committee. Madam Speaker, the issue of energy is not only a critical economic issue, it is an urgent national security issue which has reached crisis proportions. With gasoline prices at record levels, the American people are suffering for our dependence on foreign oil. In addition to being from the energy capital of the world, for the past 12 years I have been the Chair of the Energy Braintrust of the Congressional Black Caucus. During this time, I have hosted a variety of energy braintrusts designed to bring in all of the relevant players ranging from environmentalists to producers of energy from a variety of sectors including coal, electric, natural gas, nuclear, oil, and alternative energy sources as well as energy producers from West Africa. My energy braintrusts were designed to be a call of action to all of the sectors who comprise the American and international energy industry, to the African American community, and to the nation as a whole. Energy is the lifeblood of every economy, especially ours. Producing more of it leads to more good jobs, cheaper goods, lower fuel prices, and greater economic and national security. Bringing together thoughtful yet disparate voices to engage each other on the issue of energy independence has resulted in the beginning of a transformative dialectic which can ultimately result in reforming our energy industry to the extent that we as a nation achieve energy security and energy independence. This Congress has demonstrated its commitment to taking our Nation in a new direction, toward energy security and away from dependence on foreign oil. Today, we are considering legislation, known as the ``25 by '25 proposal,'' that expresses the sense of Congress that the goal of the U.S. is that America's farms, forests, and ranches provide 25% of the total energy consumed in America from renewable resources by 2025, while continuing to produce safe, abundant, and affordable food, feed, and fiber. Madam Speaker, we live in a nation of extraordinary resources. As world oil prices continue to soar, now reaching a record $86 per barrel, it is vital that harness our vast resources here at home. This legislation lays out an ambitious goal, one which will require innovation and new thinking about national priorities. However, I believe that the goal of producing 25% of America's energy from renewable resources is well worth aiming for. Renewable energy can be harnessed in every one of America's 50 States. It can come from resources including wind, solar, hydropower, and biofuels, and it is currently the fastest growing energy sector. In particular, ethanol introduces the possibility that we can produce 25% of our projected gasoline use in 2025 from farm and forest resources, including many waste materials. Both the House and the Senate have taken an important first step toward achieving this critical goal by passing comprehensive and bipartisan energy security measures. These initiatives have included critical proposals aimed at reducing our dependence on foreign oil; lowering energy costs through greater efficiency, cleaner energy, and smarter technology; creating new American jobs; and reducing global warming. Madam Speaker, the legislation we are considering today has the support of a broad range of farm organizations, along with leaders from business, labor, conservation, environmental, and religious groups. It sets an ambitious but achievable goal, and will make important strides toward achieving energy independence. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in a little less than 72 hours, this House will have the opportunity to make one of the most definitive and powerful stands for the Nation's children. Let me go on record by indicating that this Nation has over a period of time mistreated her children. Now we have the opportunity to insure millions of children with health coverage through the SCHIP program, a program now that has seen itself last for a decade of success in preventing devastating health conditions for young children. I know this because just last week I visited St. Joseph's Hospital, the neonatal unit. We heard stories from young mothers talk about children who have been saved and, yes, talk about those who have not been saved because they could not enroll in the SCHIP program. Why in the world would we suffer a veto to deny our children a mere $35 billion to cover them for preventative health care? I ask my colleagues to overturn this veto, and I join the Congressional Black Caucus to ensure that that happens. The fight is for our children. We cannot yield.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my dear friend, Ms. Tubbs Jones of Ohio, for organizing this special order on the very important subject of SCHIP Reauthorization. I have very serious concerns about the compromised SCHIP legislation that will come before this House later this week. My major concern is that the version of the legislation that will come before the House in response to the President's veto will be even less expansive than the version the House voted on previously. This is extremely important because reauthorization of SCHIP is crucial to closing the racial and ethnic health disparities in this country. Narrowing health care coverage of our children, as this newly agreed upon version does, clearly falls far short of the goal that we had hoped for in our efforts to decrease health disparities. It is crucial that this Congress continue to bring awareness to the many health concerns facing minority communities and to acknowledge that we need to find solutions to address these concerns. My colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus and I understand the very difficult challenges facing us in the form of huge health disparities among our community and other minority communities. We will continue to seek solutions to those challenges. Reauthorization of the SCHIP is crucial to realizing those solutions. However, we must not compromise away the health of millions of children who will under this new SCHIP version go without health care coverage. It is imperative for us to improve the prospects for living long and healthy lives and fostering an ethic of wellness in African-American and other minority communities. I thank all of my CBC colleagues who have been toiling in the vineyards for years developing effective public policies and securing the resources needed to eradicate racial and gender disparities in health and wellness. We know that the lack of healthcare contributes greatly to the racial and ethnic health disparities in this country, so we must provide our children with the health insurance coverage to remain healthy. SCHIP, established in 1997 to serve as the healthcare safety net for low- income uninsured children, has decreased the number of uninsured low- income children in the United States by more than one-third. The reduction in the number of uninsured children is even more striking for minority children. In 2006, SCHIP provided insurance to 6.7 million children. Of these, 6.2 million were in families whose income was less than $33,200 a year for a family of three. SCHIP works in conjunction with the Medicaid safety net that serves the lowest income children and ones with disabilities. Together, these programs provide necessary preventative, primary and acute healthcare services to more than 30 million children. Eighty-six percent of these children are in working families that are unable to obtain or afford private health insurance. Meanwhile, health care through SCHIP is cost effective: it costs a mere $3.34 a day or $100 a month to cover a child under SCHIP, according to the Congressional Budget Office. There are significant benefits of the State Children's Health Insurance Program when looking at specific populations served by this program. Minority Children SCHIP has had a dramatic effect in reducing the number of uninsured minority children and providing them access to care: Between 1996 and 2005, the percentage of low-income African American and Hispanic children without insurance decreased substantially. In 1998, roughly 30 percent of Latino children, 20 percent of African American children, and 18 percent of Asian American and Pacific Islander children were uninsured. After enactment, those numbers had dropped by 2004 to about 12 percent, and 8 percent, respectively. Half of all African American and Hispanic children are already covered by SCHIP or Medicaid. More than 80 percent of uninsured African American children and 70 percent of uninsured Hispanic children are eligible but not enrolled in Medicaid and SCHIP, so reauthorizing and increasing support for SCHIP will be crucial to insuring this population. Prior to enrolling in SCHIP, African American and Hispanic children were much less likely than non-Hispanic White children to have a usual source of care. After they enrolled in SCHIP, these racial and ethnic disparities largely disappeared. In addition, SCHIP eliminated racial and ethnic disparities in unmet medical needs for African American and Hispanic children, putting them on par with White children. SCHIP is also important to children living in urban areas of the country. In urban areas: One in four children has healthcare coverage through SCHIP. More than half of all children whose family income is $32,180 received healthcare coverage through SCHIP. Texas Children The reauthorization of SCHIP is crucial for children in Texas. Texas has the highest rate of uninsured children in the nation, and Houston/ Harris County the highest in the state. The SCHIP would go 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 percent Federal Poverty Level (FPL) who remain uninsured. Almost 40 percent of young children in Houston lack immunizations that help prevent deadly childhood illnesses like measles, mumps, pneumococcal disease and whooping cough. I applaud the efforts of the Houston Department of Health and Human Services (HHDHS), the Harris County Public Health and Environmental Services (HCPHES), the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS), Texas Children's Hospital, the Rotary Club of Houston, and the national organization Every Child By Two (ECBT) who have created a new partnership and campaign, ``Immunize On Time, Every Time'' to increase vaccination rates among Houston's infants and toddlers. To sustain programs such as these, we need to provide our children with the health insurance coverage they so desperately need and deserve. According to the Immunization Bureau, Houston Department of Health and Human Services, Houston's childhood immunization rates are below average for both Texas and the country, leaving our children--and our wider community--vulnerable to potentially life-threatening illnesses. In Texas, the SCHIP bill is the only hope for securing health care and increasing the quality of all aspects of health care for our children. Far too often in Texas, those who lack health care coverage frequently delay seeking medical care until they are seriously ill. That fact does nothing more than exacerbate the health care problem because it leads to the overload of emergency rooms which are required by law to treat them even if the patient has no ability to pay. Since emergency care is far more expensive than a scheduled visit to a doctor or clinic, hospitals end up with large costs that they, in turn, pass on to insured patients using their overtaxed facilities. As a result, insurance companies raise their rates even higher to cover the increased payouts, making their policies too expensive for more working families. The result is a health care system spiraling out of control and more children left unprotected and in poor health. Reauthorization of SCHIP would reverse this trend. Children in Urban Areas SCHIP is also important to children living in urban areas of the country. In urban areas: One in four children has healthcare coverage through SCHIP. More than half of all children whose family income is $32,180 received healthcare coverage through SCHIP. Children in Rural Communities SCHIP is significantly important to children living in our country's rural areas. In rural areas: One in three children has health care coverage through SCHIP or more than half of all children whose family income is under $32,180 received healthcare coverage through Medicaid or SCHIP. Seventeen percent of children continue to be of the 50 counties with the highest rates of uninsured children, 44 are rural counties, with many located in the most remote and isolated parts of the country. Because the goal is to reduce the number of uninsured children, reauthorizing and increasing support for SCHIP will be crucial to helping the uninsured in these counties and reducing the 17 percent of uninsured. Mr, Speaker, I would much rather have extended the deadline for reauthorization of SCHIP, while we diligently and reasonably consider the unsettled issues in this debate so that millions of the most vulnerable population, including many African American and other minority children can receive the health care coverage they need to remain healthy and develop into productive citizens of this great country. It is not as important to reauthorize an inferior bill under pressure of fast-approaching deadlines, as it is to ensure that we provide health care to those children who remain vulnerable to health disparities. I urge my colleagues to join me in ensuring health care coverage for millions of children and reducing health disparities among the most vulnerable populations. I will continue to fight vigorously to ensure that we provide health coverage for millions of this nation's uninsured children. As leaders of this great nation, we have no other choice. The health of our children should not be compromised while we spend billions of dollars in other countries in the name of ensuring the health and safety of our international neighbors. While it is honorable to love thy neighbor as thyself, charity must certainly begin at home. There is no reason why this country should continue down a dreadfully deleterious road of denying healthcare to any citizen of this country who needs it. Many of the health conditions, such as diabetes, obesity, kidney failure, cancer, hypertension and HIV/AIDS, the prevalence of which plagues minority communities most, could be curtailed or even prevented if everyone had access to health insurance. I will continue to fight hard for the most effective policy measures that aim to narrow the racial health disparity gap.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3056, the Tax Collection Act of 2007. This legislation will amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the authority of the Internal Revenue Service to use private debt collection companies, to delay implementation of withholding taxes on Government contractors, to revise the tax rules on expatriation, and for other purposes. I would like to thank my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel, for introducing this legislation, as well as for his leadership in bringing this important issue to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, this legislation strengthens Government accountability and protects taxpayers and confidential tax information. It will repeal the IRS's authority to enter into, renew, or extend contracts with private companies to collect Federal income taxes. Currently, the private debt collection program exposes taxpayers to harassment, wastes tax dollars by paying a bounty of up to 24 percent to debt collectors, and jeopardizes long-term taxpayer compliance. The collection of Federal income taxes is an inherently governmental function that should be restricted to IRS employees. Furthermore, the use of private contractors violates the special and confidential relationship between taxpayers and the Federal Government, and could jeopardize the privacy of taxpayers, possibly undermining long-term taxpayer compliance. In addition, private debt collection is an extremely inefficient way to collect Federal income taxes. Since the authority to enter into private debt collection contracts was first granted in 2004, the Federal Government has spent $71 million to collect a net of $20 million in tax receipts. If this money was spent hiring IRS employees, the National Taxpayer Advocate estimates the Federal Government could have collected $1.4 billion. This provision is estimated to cost $1.054 billion over 10 years. In addition, this legislation delays the application of the withholding requirement on certain governmental payments for goods and services. For payments made after December 31, 2010, the Code requires withholding at a 3 percent rate on certain payments to persons providing property or services made by Federal, State, and local governments. The withholding is required regardless of whether the government entity making the payment is the recipient of the property or services, those with less than $100 million in annual expenditures for property or services are exempt. Numerous government entities and taxpayers have raised concerns about the application of this provision. The provision would delay for 1 year, through December 31, 2011, the application of the 3 percent withholding requirement on Government payments for goods and services in order to provide time for the Treasury Department to study the impact of this provision on government entities and other taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, this legislation stops the tax benefits for expatriates who renounce their citizenship. U.S. citizens and long-term U.S. residents are subject to tax on their worldwide income. Taxpayers can avoid taxes by renouncing their U.S. citizenship or terminating their residence. It would immediately impose a tax on these individuals, strengthening current law to ensure that certain high net-worth taxpayers cannot renounce their U.S. citizenship or terminate U.S. residence in order to avoid paying taxes. Under this provision, high net-worth individuals will be treated as if they sold all of their property for its fair market value on the day before such individual expatriates or terminates their residency. Gain will be recognized to the extent that the aggregate gain recognized exceeds $600,000, which will be adjusted for cost of living in the future. Finally, H.R. 3056 increases information return penalties. This provision would increase the penalties for failing to file correct returns, failing to furnish correct payee statements, and failing to comply with other information reporting requirements. If a taxpayer fails to file a correct information return before August 1, current law imposes a $50 penalty. This bill would increase this penalty to $100 per information return, with a maximum penalty of $600,000 per calendar year, $250,000 in the case of small businesses. Where a taxpayer files a correct information return after the filing date but before 30 days after the filing date, the current law $15 penalty will be increased to $25, with a maximum penalty of $200,000 per calendar year, $75,000 in the case of small businesses. Where a taxpayer files a correct information return more than 30 days after the filing date but before August 1, the penalty for information returns will be increased from $30 to $60, with a maximum penalty of $500,000, $150,000 in the case of small businesses. The provision is a scaled-back version of the Treasury Department's proposal to increase penalties on failures to provide information returns. Mr. Speaker, we can reduce the tax gap and make sure that taxpayers pay their fair share by having the IRS collect unpaid Federal taxes compared to private debt collectors. The American people demanded a new direction for America in the 2006 elections, and I believe that Congress must stand up for the American taxpayer. The current program's practice of giving unaccountable private contractors unfettered access to the personal financial data of American citizens poses an unnecessary and unacceptable risk. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 3056, the Tax Collection Responsibility Act of 2007.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2895, the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007. I would like to thank my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mr. Frank, for introducing this legislation, as well as for his leadership in bringing this important issue to the floor. Mr. Chairman, in recent months we have seen a crisis in subprime mortgage lending, which has threatened the stability of the housing market and the livelihoods of large numbers of Americans. This Democratic Congress is committed to strengthening the housing market and stabilizing the economy, and this legislation is an important step toward these important goals. Because of the lack of regulation by the Federal Government, many loans were accompanied by fraud, inadequate information and other failures of responsible marketing. With exceptionally high (and rising) foreclosure rates across the country, homeowners all over America are losing their homes. Homeowners are surprised to find out that their monthly payments are spiking and they are struggling to make these increasingly high payments. The sub-prime mortgage crisis has impacted families and communities across the country. Home foreclosure filings rose to 1.2 million in 2006--a 42 percent jump--due to rising mortgage bills and a slowing housing market. In Iowa, 3,445 families experienced foreclosure last year, up 64 percent from 2005. Nationally, as many as 2.4 million sub- prime borrowers have either lost their homes or could lose them in the next few years. I commend the Democratic-led House Financial Services Committee for its work on this issue, toward achieving a balanced solution that helps stabilize the mortgage market, stops abuses, preserves access to credit, and aids stable homeownership. H.R. 2895 establishes a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund to build or preserve 1.5 million homes or apartments over the next 10 years, and it does so without increasing Government spending or the Federal deficit. This legislation is a fiscally responsible way of expanding affordable housing and mortgage loan opportunities for families at risk of foreclosure, while also strengthening consumer protections against future risky loans. H.R. 2895 initially allocates between $800 million and $1 billion annually, funded through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This funding is given directly to States and local communities, and is targeted to be used for the construction of affordable housing and support for lower income families, who face the greatest housing affordability challenges. Mr. Chairman, 17 million households, or one in seven, spend more than 50 percent of their income on housing. On any given night, approximately 750,000 men, women, and children are homeless. Constructing more affordable housing is necessary to help families who have lost their homes in the subprime mortgage crisis or due to a family financial crisis, such as illness or job loss. It will also make significant strides toward reducing homelessness and the number of Americans living in unsafe housing conditions. The National Affordable Housing Trust Fund, established by this legislation, must be used for low- and moderate-income families, or those below 80 percent of State or local median income. At least 75 percent of funds must go to extremely low-income families, who are below 30 percent of median income. This legislation also helps the families of our Nation's nurses, teachers, firefighters, and police officers by reserving 10 percent of trust fund money for families who earn between 50 and 80 percent of the national median income. H.R. 2895 allows these funds to be used for construction, rehabilitation, acquisition, preservation incentives, and operating assistance to facilitate affordability. These funds may be used for both affordable rental housing and for down payment and closing cost assistance by first-time homebuyers. Mr. Chairman, provisions in this legislation ensure equitable distribution of funds across our Nation. Of these funds, 60 percent will go to participating local jurisdictions, and 40 percent will go to States, Indian Tribes, and insular areas. All grantees will be required to make funds available in rural areas, proportionate to identified need in such areas. Eligible recipients of these funds can be any organization, agency, or other entity that has demonstrated the experience and the capacity to carry out the proposed trust fund activity, including for-profits, nonprofits, and faith-based organizations. Funds may not be used for administrative costs or expenses, political activities, advocacy, lobbying, counseling, travel expenses, and preparation of or advice on tax returns. Grantees are required to develop systems to ensure program compliance and oversight. In my home district in Houston, homelessness remains a significant problem. Houston's homeless population increased to approximately 14,000 in 2005, before Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and hurricane evacuees remaining in the Houston area could result in the homeless population increasing by some 23,000. Approximately 28 percent of homeless Americans are veterans. In August, I, in coordination with the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, hosted a workshop on the introductory concepts and considerations in applying for Housing Tax Credits in Texas. This workshop was designed to create new incentives for developers to expand business opportunities in housing development, as well as to generate a significant increase in the availability of low-income and affordable housing for the residents of Houston and Harris County. I believe that an increase in affordable housing and job opportunities will help reduce the high rates of homelessness among Houston residents. Mr. Chairman, the 110th Congress has already demonstrated its commitment to moving America in a new direction. This includes strengthening the housing market and stabilizing the economy, particularly after the recent subprime mortgage crisis. This legislation is an important step toward expanding affordable housing and mortgage opportunities for American families. 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 am pleased to yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I am prepared to close at this time. Let me thank my very generous friend Mr. Bilirakis from Florida for expressing the negotiations that occurred in the Foreign Affairs Committee and the spirit in which we work in that committee by coming together in a bipartisan way to make such an important statement today. In closing, I would like to indicate that democracy, political stability, and economic development are linked to the welfare of our women and children. This Congress has announced its commitment to all three of these admirable goals, and I firmly believe that if we are truly dedicated to building and supporting stable, open and prosperous societies throughout the world, we must work to eliminate these practices of serious persecution and discrimination. The distinguished gentleman from Florida has indicated that we're doing this together. The time has long since passed for us to strongly declare that women are not chattel, should not be trafficked, and not sold for services and must not be denied the right to own property. The fundamental rights to freedom of worship, expression, association, conscience and pursuit of happiness ought never to be threatened by violence, oppression, slavery or manipulation. My legislation denounces the barbaric practices of female genital mutilation, domestic violence, ``honor'' killings, acid burning, dowry deaths, and other gender-based persecutions. It gives women hope around the world. It demands a cessation of these barbaric practices and condemns the perpetrators. I'm delighted to be supported by Amnesty International; the United Nations Women's Fund; the CARE, Council on American-Islamic Relations, equal rights advocates; and NOW. I'm also delighted to be able to have this Congress express that regardless of religion, geography or form of government, women should not be denied equal rights, should have the opportunity to be defended when their rights are abridged, challenged or violated. So, in the spirit of protecting the women around the world from the violence that they experience and suffer every day from the trafficking and from the inhumane treatment, I ask my colleagues to enthusiastically support H. Res. 32. Amnesty International USA commends Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee and the U.S. House of Representatives for authoring and considering H. Res. 32 to denounce the practices of female genital mutilation, domestic violence, ``honor'' killings, acid burning, dowry deaths and other gender-based persecution and to urge participation, protection, recognition and independence of women. Violence against women is a human rights scandal. At least one out of every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime. In Europe, domestic violence is the major cause of death and disability for women aged 16 to 44. In the United States, a woman is raped every 6 minutes; a woman is battered every 15 seconds. Rape of women is widespread in armed conflicts such as in Colombia and Darfur. Trafficking of women has become a global phenomenon where victims are sexually exploited, forced into labor and subjected to abuse. Murders of women in Guatemala, Russia, India, and other countries often go uninvestigated and unpunished. The experience or threat of violence affects the lives of women everywhere, cutting across boundaries of wealth, race and culture. In the home and in the community, in times of war and peace, women are beaten, raped, mutilated, and killed with impunity. The U.S. government should move forward in ratifying the Treaty for the Rights of Women (CEDAW)--the most complete international agreement on basic human rights for women. The United States played an important role in drafting the Treaty, which 185 nations have ratified as of October 2007. As the leading superpower, U.S. ratification would lend weight to the Treaty and provide valuable support to women seeking reforms in countries around the world. Amnesty International USA encourages members of the U.S. House of Representatives to move quickly towards passage of H. Res. 32 and encourages all members of the legislative body to actively work to stop violence against women throughout the world.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 32) denouncing the practices of female genital mutilation, domestic violence, ``honor'' killings, acid burning, dowry deaths, and other gender-based persecutions and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that participation, protection, recognition, and independence of women is crucial to achieving a just, moral, and honorable society, as amended.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 32, denouncing the practices of female genital mutilation, domestic violence, ``honor'' killings, acid burning, dowry deaths, and other gender-based persecutions and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the participation, protection, recognition, and independence of women is crucial to achieving a just, moral, and honorable society. Allow me to thank Chairman Lantos and Ranking Member Ileana Ros- Lehtinen for working with my staff and working collaboratively to bring forward this legislation that really is a statement of our committee. Let me also thank the staff who worked on this bill. The full committee: Kristin Wells, Pearl-Alice Marsh, Joan Condon and Yleem Poblete. I also thank the members of my staff: Yohannes Tsehai, Nina Besser and Samia Elshakie. It is very important as we move forward in making this statement that we recognize that we are attempting to save lives. May I share with my colleagues the loneliness of being a woman anywhere in the world where they're not protected against brutality, dowry killings, honor killings, and that they have no refuge and no opportunity to address their grievances in their own Nation. Might I show you some of the dastardly pictures, horrific that they are, showing how women are burned, how women are scarred, and how women are beaten all over the world. It is time for the United States to join in making a very pronounced statement because women are lonely, and they need the statement or the support of women and this Congress. I would like to thank the chairman of the Foreign Affairs, as I indicated, my good friend and colleague, Congressman Lantos, again, and as well the ranking member. In recent decades, women have made crucial strides toward equality. Our daughters now have a wide range of options and opportunities, and they can look forward to a life full of promise. Despite this important progress, women and girls throughout the world, including here in our own Nation, continue to face gender-based persecutions. In many parts of the world, a culture of violence and discrimination persists, denying women rights equal to those of men, and legitimizing the exploitation of women for personal gratification, political purposes and financial gain. My legislation strongly denounces such practices and reaffirms the societal values of the independence of women. Human rights violations against women and girls know no borders. They take place throughout the world on six continents. Statistics are shocking. In North Africa, 6,000 women are genitally mutilated each day. Over 7,000 women in India are killed by their families and in-laws in disputes over dowries annually. A woman in Pakistan was raped by a person in the military, and no one was willing to address her grievances. More than 15,000 women will be sold as sexual slaves in China this year. Two hundred women in Bangladesh are horribly disfigured when their spurned husbands or suitors burn them with acid each year, according to the Bangladesho Prime Minister. The 2002 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe estimates that the leading cause of death worldwide among women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. In the Russian Federation alone, every day 36,000 women are beaten by their husbands or partners. Even here in the United States, a woman is raped every six minutes, and a woman is battered every 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, these practices are contrary to international law. In 1998, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda issued a groundbreaking verdict with the successful prosecution of rape as a tool of genocide. Further prosecutions under the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia solidified rape as a crime of war and as the basis for prosecution for torture. Despite these ever- evolving legal traditions, the rape of women continues to be used as an instrument of armed conflict in the 21st century. I'm very proud of the Foreign Affairs Committee because we work in a bipartisan manner, and therefore, this legislation was able to come out of the committee in a bipartisan manner. And so, as we look to be of help, this is an important forward step in acknowledging the brutality towards women around the world. In addition to rape, another persistent form of gender-based persecution is female genital mutilation. Despite existing laws forbidding this practice, this tradition is often embedded in cultural, religious and nonmedical practices, making it more difficult to overcome. Such traditions legitimize the exploitation of women for personal gratification and political gain. The situation faced by women worldwide is intricately tied to a number of other issues that we have addressed in recent months in the committee. Women and children are particularly affected by extreme poverty, which exacerbates the obstacles they face. Nearly 70 percent of those living in abject poverty are women, according to the United Nations. And while women perform two-thirds of the world's work, they earn less than 5 percent of all income, and they own less than 1 percent of all property. The United Nations estimates that three of every four illiterate adults in the world are women, and two-thirds of children denied primary education are girls. I ask my colleagues to support H. Res. 32. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 32, denouncing the practices of female genital mutilation, domestic violence, ``honor'' killings, acid burning, dowry deaths, and other gender-based persecutions, and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the participation, protection, recognition, and independence of women is crucial to achieving a just, moral, and honorable society. I would like to thank the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my good friend and colleague Congressman Lantos, for his support and his leadership on this important issue. I have been pleased to work with the Committee on this legislation, and I would to thank the Committee staff for their work on this issue. Mr. Speaker, in recent decades, women have made crucial strides toward equality. Our daughters now have a wide range of options and opportunities, and they can look forward to a life full of promise. Despite this important progress, women and girls throughout the world, including here in our own nation, continue to face gender-based persecutions. In many parts of the world, a culture of violence and discrimination persists, denying women rights equal to those of men, and legitimizing the exploitation of women for personal gratification, political purposes and financial gain. My legislation strongly denounces such practices, and reaffirms the societal value of the independence of women. Human rights violations against women and girls know no borders. They take place throughout the world, on six continents. The statistics are shocking. In North Africa, 6,000 women are genitally mutilated each day. Over 7,000 women in India are killed by their families and in-laws in disputes over dowries annually. More than 15,000 women will be sold as sexual slaves in China this year. 200 women in Bangladesh are horribly disfigured when their spurned husbands or suitors burn them with acids each year, according to former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. The 2002 Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe estimates that the leading cause of death worldwide among women ages 14-44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. In the Russian Federation alone, every day 36,000 women are beaten by their husbands or partners. Even here, in United States, a woman is raped every six minutes, and a woman is battered every 15 seconds. Mr. Speaker, these practices are contrary to international law. In 1998, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) issued a groundbreaking verdict with the successful prosecution of rape as a tool of genocide. Further prosecutions under the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) solidified rape as a crime of war and as the basis for prosecution for torture. Despite these ever evolving legal traditions, the rape of women continues to be used as an instrument of armed conflict in the 21st century. In addition to rape, another persistent form of gender-based persecution is female genital mutilation. Despite existing laws forbidding this practice, this tradition is often embedded in cultural, religious, and non-medical practices, making it more difficult to overcome. Such traditions legitimize the exploitation of women for personal gratification and political gain. The situation faced by women worldwide is intricately tied to a number of other issues that we have addressed in recent months in this Committee. Women and children are particularly affected by extreme poverty, which exacerbates the obstacles they face. Nearly 70 percent of those living in abject poverty are women, according to the United Nations, and, while women perform 2/3 of the world's work, they earn less than 5 percent of all income, and they own less than 1 percent of all property. The United Nations estimates that three out of every four illiterate adults in the world are women, and that two-thirds of children denied primary education are girls. Mr. Speaker, democracy, political stability, and economic development are linked to the welfare of women and children. This Congress has announced its commitment to all three of these admirable goals, and I firmly believe that if we are truly dedicated to building and supporting stable, open, and prosperous societies throughout the world, we must work to eliminate these practices of serious persecution and discrimination. Mr. Speaker, the time is long since passed for us to strongly declare that women are not chattel, should not be trafficked, nor sold for services, and must not be denied the right to own property. The fundamental rights to freedom of worship, expression, association, conscience and pursuit of happiness ought never to be threatened by violence, oppression, slavery, or manipulation. My legislation denounces the barbaric practices of female genital mutilation, domestic violence, `honor' killings, acid burning, dowry deaths, and other gender-based persecutions. It demands the cessation of these barbaric practices and condemns the perpetrators. Regardless of religion, geography, or form of government, women should not be denied equal rights, which should be defended when their rights are abridged, challenged, or violated. Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress, I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this extremely important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for her leadership and my good friend and colleague Mr. Bilirakis for their support of this legislation. Let me commend Congressman Engel and Congressman Burton, both chairman and ranking member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs, and the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Lantos, and the ranking member of the committee. This is an important step that cements and further enhances the relationship between Brazil and the United States, the largest economy, population land mass in South America. But it's even more important to reinforce the strategic relationship that we are establishing between Brazil and the United States, the friendship that we are establishing, and to have both countries wake up to the importance of our relationship to each other and for it to be a natural relationship. Brazil is also the right country in which to cooperate with alternative energy sources. It has an enormously diverse population and a very large Afro-Brazilian population. In fact, it is the largest African population in South America. I would hope that as we move forward on this legislation that we emphasize the successful relationship between Brazil and the United States as we work towards alternative fuels. This is a good partnership. It is a good legislative initiative, and I congratulate the sponsors and look forward to working with them on expanding our relationship between the United States and Brazil.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to pay tribute to our fallen colleague, the Honorable Jo Ann Davis, Member of Congress from the Commonwealth of Virginia. Let me, first of all, offer my deepest sympathy to her family and to acknowledge the special role that Congresswoman Davis had in this body. She was a veteran legislator, a business woman, and a Member of Congress from Virginia's First District. She was the first Virginia Republican woman elected to the House in her own right, and she was the second woman from Virginia to be elected in the United States Congress. More importantly, she loved the work. She loved this House and loved America. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs Committees, she was diligent in her work. I am reminded of her participation in the Women's Caucus. The caucus was bipartisan. We had many opportunities, as women Members of the United States House, to sit together to study issues, particularly health issues, the way a number of diseases impacted women. We were able to gather together to sponsor legislation that particularly focused on enhanced research on diseases that impacted women negatively. I am reminded of the leadership of a former colleague also recently deceased, Congresswoman Juanita Millender-McDonald, who organized the women's effort to lay a wreath at the Women's Memorial at Arlington Cemetery, and I have in my mind a memory of Congresswoman Davis joining us on those many occasions, uniting around our effort to pay tribute to women members of the armed services of the United States of America. So this evening I simply say that we will miss her, thank her for her pioneering spirit and her leadership, and I would like to say simply to her husband, Chuck; her children; and to thousands of her friends around the Nation and in her district our prayers and condolences are to your family and certainly to your community. So many lives were touched by your service. So we say to you, farewell, our dear friend. May you rest in peace.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I rise to pay tribute to a great American and a member of this House. Jo Ann Davis was a veteran legislator, businesswoman, and Member of Congress from Virginia's First Congressional District. Her district, which stretches from the Washington suburbs to the Hampton Roads area, is often called ``America's 1st District; the site of the Jamestown settlement is located there. Congresswoman Davis was the second woman from Virginia, and the first Virginia Republican woman, elected to the House in her own right. She was reelected by substantial margins in 2002, 2004, and to her fourth term in 2006. She was a productive member of three very important committees in the House: Armed Services, Intelligence, and Foreign Affairs. She was the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy. Jo Ann Davis was born in Rowan County North Carolina, but lived in Virginia since she was 9 years old. She attended Hampton Roads Business College and worked in real estate before she was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in 1997. She was reelected in 1999, where she served until her election to Congress. Congresswoman Davis died on Saturday, October 6, 2007 and was a respected member of this body and respected by all who knew her. She was a legislator's legislator. She was known to often to put aside partisan politics and reach across the aisle to legislate in a bipartisan manner for the best interests of the American people. Her presence will be greatly missed and we all mourn her loss and extend our sincerest condolences to her husband Chuck and her children and grandchild. Mr. Speaker, a dear colleague has fallen but she will not be forgotten. We are all saddened by our loss but we are happy to have served with her. Our prayers and condolences go out to her husband, Chuck, her children, and to thousands of friends around the Nation. She touched so many lives during her tenure in this body and she will be missed very much by the people she represented so ably.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 400, the ``War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007.'' I support this bill because it strengthens the tools available to Federal law enforcement to combat contracting fraud during times of war, military action, or relief or reconstruction activities. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 400 creates a new criminal offense in title 18 of the United States Code for fraudulent acts involving contracts or the provision of goods and services in connection with war, military actions, and relief or reconstruction activities. This new offense provides a significant new tool for federal law enforcement, as well as creating a strong deterrent to those who would contemplate exploiting the exigencies of war, military actions, relief or reconstruction activities to commit fraud and profit thereby. The new offense may be committed in two ways: (1) By committing fraud or (2) by making a materially false statement. The fraud provisions would make it a crime to execute or attempt to execute a scheme or artifice to defraud the United States or to materially overvalue any good or service with the specific intent to defraud. These provisions are designed to prohibit schemes to defraud the United States, including efforts to exploit ``cost plus'' or ``no-bid'' contracts by materially overvaluing goods or services with the specific intent to defraud. These provisions are not intended to prohibit or punish contractors providing goods or services in the normal course of business, and the legislation specifically requires that violators may only be criminally liable if they materially overvalue any good or service ``with the specific intent to defraud.'' This provision is intended to ensure that no contractor will be prosecuted under this offense for mere negligent or mistaken conduct. The material false statement provisions would make it a crime to: (1) Falsify, conceal, or cover up by any trick, scheme or device a material fact; (2) make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations; or (3) make or use any materially false writing or document knowing they contain a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement. This language is consistent with other material false statement provisions under Federal law, such as sections 1001 and 1035 of title 18 of the U.S. Code. The new offense also requires that conduct be done knowingly and willfully to constitute a criminal violation. The new offense would require that the fraud or material false statement be in connection with any war, military action, or relief or reconstruction activities. This would include circumstances where war was declared, or where the executive branch was engaged in any military action with or without congressional authorization. This would also include relief or reconstruction activities, whether or not a war or military action was undertaken. This new offense is intended to deter fraud and material false statements committed in connection with any of these exigencies. The new offense also requires that the conduct be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This term is to be interpreted broadly consistent with the jurisdictional scope of the federal material false statement statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001. In addition, the new offense explicitly provides extraterritorial jurisdiction and is intended to extend jurisdiction for this offense to the full extent of U.S. law. This provision has been included to ensure that offenses occurring outside the United States, even by non-U.S. nationals, may be prosecuted. Furthermore, consistent with other federal fraud provisions, the U.S. Government need not be a victim or suffer a loss from this offense provided the conduct meets the other elements of the offense. The bill also establishes venue for the offense as authorized by existing federal statutes (see 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3231-3244) including extradition, or in any district where any act in further of the offense took place, or where any party to the contract or the provider of goods or services is located. Violations of the fraud provisions in this bill would be punishable by imprisonment for up to 20 years, and violations of the material false statement provisions would be punishable by imprisonment for up to 10 years. All violations of this new offense would be subject to fines of up to $1,000,000 or twice the gross profits or other proceeds of the offense. The offense provides for criminal and civil forfeiture of any unlawful proceeds, and makes the new offense a predicate crime for money laundering (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1956(c)(7)) and for racketeering offenses (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961(1)). Let us strengthen the tools available to federal law enforcement to combat contracting fraud during times of war, military action, or relief or reconstruction activities. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 400, the ``War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007.''

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3246, the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007. I would like to thank my colleague, Representative Oberstar, for introducing this important legislation, as well as for his leadership on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, this legislation creates a comprehensive regional approach to economic and infrastructure development in some of the most severely economically distressed regions of our nation, authorizing $1.25 billion through Fiscal Year 2012 for two existing commissions and three new regional economic development commissions. It authorizes these five regional economic development commissions under a common framework of administration, providing a rubric for economic development planning. All five regional commissions will employ the model of the highly successful Appalachian Regional Commission, crafted in the 1960s to address persistent poverty in the Appalachian region. The Appalachian Regional Commission, through the several hundred projects it funds annually, has created thousands of new jobs, as well as improving local water and sewer systems, increasing school readiness, expanding access to health care, assisting local communities with strategic planning, and providing help and resources for new businesses. Crucially, this model combines targeting communities with greatest need with a unified framework of management and decision-making. Two of the five regional commissions authorized by today's legislation, the Delta Regional Commission and the Northern Great Plains Regional Commission, are existing entities that will be reauthorized by this legislation. The first of these, the Delta Regional Commission, was proposed by President Clinton in 1998, and is designed to strengthen the economic development of the chronically impoverished lower Mississippi River area. Included in this region are counties in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee. In addition to systemic poverty and underdevelopment, this region is particularly in need of support after the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Hurricane Katrina resulted in more than 1,800 deaths, nearly 500,000 homes in Louisiana and Mississippi being destroyed or made uninhabitable, and about 1.5 million people being at least temporarily displaced from their homes. From housing to health care to education, the region remains in a state of crisis. Though this Congress has directed more than $6.4 billion in assistance to the victims of this disaster, we still have a great deal of work to do to rebuild these devastated communities. Other regions will also greatly benefit from this legislation. The Northern Great Plains Regional Commission encompasses all counties in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota, as well as certain counties in Missouri. The Southeast Crescent Regional Commission consists of all counties in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida that are not served by the Appalachian Regional Commission or Delta Regional Commission. The Southwest Border Regional Commission covers certain counties in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. The Northern Border Regional Commission includes specified counties in Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. For each of these commissions, this legislation establishes membership, voting structure, and staffing, as well as outlining conditions for financial assistance, authorizing grants to local development districts, and establishing an Inspector General for the commissions. It also includes additional provisions designed to produce a standard administrative framework. By providing a uniform set of procedures, this bill creates a consistent method for distributing economic development funds throughout the regions most in need of such assistance and ensures a comprehensive regional approach to economic and infrastructure development in the most severely distressed regions in the country. H.R. 3246 authorizes the appropriation of $1.25 billion from 2008- 2012 to establish these development commissions. It also directs the five regional commissions to award grants to state and local governments, Indian tribes, and nonprofit organizations to promote economic and infrastructure development. At least 40 percent of the authorized funds will be directed to grants to develop transportation, telecommunications, and other basic public infrastructure. Remaining funds will be used for other economic development activities, such as providing job training, improving public services, and promoting conservation, tourism, and development of renewable and alternative energy projects. Mr. Speaker, the Appalachian Regional Commission has had great success bringing about economic revitalization and improving the lives of many residents of the region. I believe that this legislation can make significant strides toward bringing similar development to five more regions of our nation. These commissions will stimulate struggling economies, and they will help strengthen communities by providing education and job training and supporting local entrepreneurship and leadership. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues, in the future, to work to extend coordinated economic development projects to some of our nation's urban areas. Many inner city areas of our country suffer from a level of economic distress similar to that felt by residents of the regions addressed by this bill, and I believe that we can do a great deal to assist the economic development of these urban areas as well. Mr. Speaker, this is extremely important legislation that will go a long way toward improving the quality of life for significant numbers of Americans. It will create prospects for the future and strengthen communities. I believe this is extremely important legislation for our nation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there are certain principles that do not divide us by whether we've Republican or Democrat or an independent and that is, of course, the precious Bill of Rights, and the idea that we live in a country that is so unique and so different and so many people aspire to find just a simple taste of the democracy that we enjoy. And yet, after 9/11, all of us gathered together realizing that if we allowed the terrorists to terrorize us, change our way of life, they had won. Unfortunately, we have seen a number of legislative initiatives and as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I take no back step to securing America. But I understand that our values of democracy and the protection of the Bill of Rights should be the anchor of this society. And if we terrorize ourselves by taking away our rights, the terrorists have won. And so I stand here to emphasize certain basic principles as we look to revise the FISA law, and that is, of course, the law that clearly intercepts, undermines the fourth amendment; the right to be in your home and to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure. I'm delighted that you will be hearing, over the next couple of days, along with a markup coming up, the principles enunciated that emphasize the protection of the values of America. And so we simply believe, as I believe, in joining with a number of colleagues to emphasize that we believe that we live in a dangerous world, but we also should be guided by principles. Those principles should ensure that Americans do not have to be surveilled in their homes when they are communicating with fellow Americans. We should not be suspect of our telecommunications companies to think that they are in cahoots, collaborating with our government to spy on us. We realize that there is a difference when we talk about foreign-to- foreign communications, that there is a need for surveillance. And I'm here today to emphasize that we should stand and fight for the protection of the fourth amendment, to protect you in your homes and, at the same time, you can be protected against terrorists, because terrorism depends upon making sure that you have the information. And when you have a court that is made available under the existing FISA law that was established in 1978 that understands the necessity and the urgency of the law enforcement officers that come to them, then you should support the idea of court intervention whenever someone determines from the Federal Government to intervene and to listen to your communications between one American and another. So I stand here today to emphasize that the court system, the FISA system, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, is an imperative to protect you as Americans when your government wants to spy on you. Will we be safe from terrorists? Absolutely. Because part of the terrorism is to ensure that information is shared with law enforcement so that we can be in front of this issue. I am looking forward to the markup. I'm looking forward to an opportunity to devise legislation that preserves the preciousness of the Bill of Rights and the fourth amendment. We cannot step back and be subjected to our own terror, and that is to be frightened so much that we take the Bill of Rights and extinguish it. I may not agree with the interpretation of the second amendment, but it does exist and it is part of the Bill of Rights. You may have a different interpretation of the first amendment, but it is part of the Bill of Rights. You may have a suspect interpretation of the fourth amendment, but the language is clear: you are to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure. It is unreasonable to not go into a court established to do that, to protect you, to have a court objectively look at what the urgency is and to provide that intervention to protect your rights. I look forward to working with a number of colleagues on language that I have joined and written to establish the parameters of protecting us from the violation of the fourth amendment. Keep the FISA law as it is. Modernize it. Ensure that the FISA court that intervenes protects our rights and keeps our values, the values that so many have strived so hard to seek a place in the sun in this Nation because they truly believe that the democracy and the liberties that we have are worth protecting, worth protecting with their lives. And I believe here in the United States Congress, we must stand in that tradition.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 298, the Improving Government Accountability Act. I would like to thank my colleague, Congressman Cooper, for introducing this important legislation, as well as the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Congressman Waxman, for his leadership in bringing this important issue to the floor. Mr. Chairman, Inspectors General play a vital role for the U.S. taxpayer. Their work is crucial in preventing and detecting waste, fraud, and abuse in federal programs. In 2006 alone, audits by Inspector General offices resulted in potential savings from audit recommendations of $9.9 billion and criminal recoveries of $6.8 billion. However, in order to effectively carry out their mission, Inspectors General must be independent and objective, which requires that they be insulated from improper management and political pressure. The legislation we have before us today contains a number of important provisions designed to enhance the effectiveness and independence of Inspectors General, as well as provisions to enhance the accountability of the entire Inspector General system. It updates the Inspector General Act of 1978 to promote independence and accountability for Inspectors General in executive branch departments and agencies. Mr. Chairman, there are many badly needed reforms to the Inspector General system that this legislation directly addresses. It defines the terms of office for Inspector Generals as fixed seven-year terms, helping to insulate Inspectors General from political retribution. It goes on to enumerate conditions for removal of Inspectors General, who currently serve at the pleasure of their appointing authorities, allowing for their termination before the end of their terms only for serious cause, such as malfeasance, permanent disability, inefficiency, neglect of duty, or conviction of a felony. Both of these provisions will go a long way in enhancing the ability of Inspectors General to remain politically independent. In addition, this legislation requires Inspectors General to submit their budgets to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Congress. This provision is intended to deter officials in their respective agencies from slashing their funding in retaliation for unfavorable audits, further enhancing the independence of Inspectors General. Mr. Chairman, recently, concerns have been raised about possible misconduct by certain Inspectors General. This legislation, therefore, includes provisions to raise the level of accountability of the Inspectors General system. To cite a recent example, last week seven current and former members of the State Department's Inspector General office alleged that Inspector General Howard Krongard repeatedly thwarted investigations into alleged contact fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan, including refusing to send investigators to Iraq and Afghanistan to investigate $3 billion worth of State Department contracts. These employees allege that Krongard's partisan political ties have led him to thwart these investigations in order to protect the Bush Administration from political embarrassment. Mr., Chairman, as you are well aware, these are extremely serious accusations that go deep into the heart of our Inspector General system. If those we are entrusting to remain independent and objective are instead being swayed by political ties, then our Inspector General system is broken. In the wake of the recent Baghdad shootout involving U.S. contractors from the private firm Blackwater USA, in which 17 people were killed and 24 were injured, it is imperative that all agencies sending contractors to Iraq and Afghanistan be able to maintain sufficient oversight of these contracts. If Inspectors General cannot do their job because of political pressure or affiliation, it is our responsibility to fix the Inspector General system. To do so, this bill contains provisions to hold Inspectors General themselves accountable for their decisions and actions. It also provides a mechanism for investigating and resolving allegations of misconduct by Inspectors General. The bill creates an Inspectors General Council and requires the Council to appoint an Integrity Committee, chaired by the Council's FBI representative. This Integrity Committee shall investigate any allegations of wrongdoing made against Inspectors General or their senior staff members and report substantiated allegations to the executive branch. Reports of Integrity Committee investigations must be submitted to both the Executive Chairperson of the Council and to Congress. Mr. Chairman, we rely on the system of Inspectors General, and on the individuals who serve in this capacity, to serve as the principal watchdogs of the nation's major federal agencies. In 2006 alone, audits by Inspector General offices resulted in potential savings from audit recommendations of $9.9 billion and criminal recoveries of $6.8 billion. To effectively carry out this crucial mission, it is imperative that Inspectors General remain independent and objective, which in turn requires that they be insulated from improper management and political pressure. This legislation is a crucial step forward. By enhancing the independence of the Inspectors General and improving the accountability of the Inspector General system overall, this legislation will have a positive impact on the integrity and accountability of our government. I strongly support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. The recognition of the service of contractors such as Blackwater is a bipartisan recognition. For those of us who have traveled to Afghanistan and Iraq and a number of places around the world, we recognize the importance of contractors. So this is not an indictment overall of those who serve as asked by the United States of America. It is an indictment of the Department of Defense in the way these contracts are issued. It is an indictment of the incident that allegedly occurred where those Blackwater employees opened fire, killing 11 civilians, and each of the four vehicles opened their windows and began to blast at what appeared to be innocent civilians, even killing a little boy. Yes, it did seem like hell. But, frankly, we do understand that their role is important. This legislation is fair. It has the parameters of helping companies like Blackwater to have order in the midst of, sometimes, disorder. The legislation requires a report by the DOJ Inspector on Contractor Abuses Overseas and also requires the Inspector General of the Justice Department to submit a report to Congress. We should not be left out. We should be aware of what is going on, primarily because the actions of contractors impact not only the soldiers left behind, who then have to clean up what they have done, but also the diplomacy of the United States of America. There is simply no excuse for the de facto legal immunity that our government has permitted for tens of thousands of armed private individuals working on our country's behalf in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our soldiers are court-martialed, and our soldiers are sometimes the unpleasant beneficiaries of the actions of U.S. contractors. The U.S. Government has a responsibility to hold the individuals carrying out its work to the highest standards of conduct and to ensure that these individuals protect human life and uphold the law. They have protected our diplomats. To that we say thank you. This responsibility does not disappear simply because such individuals are contractors instead of government employees. This legislation is especially timely in light of the new report by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee which documents numerous incidents of wrongdoing by Blackwater contractors in Iraq. As we have noted, Blackwater does good work. But incidents that have caused havoc need to be addressed. It can be addressed through this legislation. Then I would simply like to say, as The Washington Post reported, Blackwater security contractors in Iraq have been involved in at least 195 escalation of force incidents since early 2005, including several previously unreported killings of Iraqi civilians. My friends, this goes over all contractors. I hope that we will move forward to ensure that the DoD process is fair and that minority contractors can be involved. But this is a very important first step, and I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for his great leadership on these many issues that come before our committee. This is an important first step, because there are many contractors when you go to Iraq and Afghanistan, and many of them are contractors of the Department of Defense. There really is no tallying of who they are and what they are doing. In this instance, people are dying. And as Blackwater has often said, they are just defending their packages. Those packages are diplomats. We want them to defend them, but we would suggest that it is an important response to address how they do it. The Washington Post article went on to state that according to the State Department, in one of the killings, Blackwater personnel tried to cover up what had occurred and provide a false report. This will stop that. The next step will be to encourage the utilization of minority contractors never heard of by the Department of Defense. This is a clean way to clean up our backyard and to protect all of those who need to be protected. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2740, the ``Holding Security Contractors in War Zones Overseas Accountable Act'' (MEJA Expansion and Enforcement Act). This legislation is intended to ensure that all private security contractors in war zones overseas will be held accountable for criminal offenses committed. Under current law, only those contractors who are on contract with the Department of Defense are indisputably subject to the jurisdiction of the federal courts. This legislation remedies that and other problems. Madam Chairman, H.R. 2740 ensures that all U.S. security contractors in war zones overseas are held accountable. It does this by closing a loophole in current law in order to ensure that all U.S. private security contractors in war zones overseas are held accountable for criminal behavior. It gives U.S. federal courts jurisdiction over the actions by contractors working for any U.S. government agency in areas of foreign countries where U.S. military forces are conducting combat operations. Specifically, the measure subjects employees of all such contractors to the same jurisdiction established by the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA), which currently only covers members of the armed forces, civilian federal employees, and contractors who are on contract with the Department of Defense. Another important feature of the legislation is the designation of the Justice Department as the lead agency in investigating contractor behavior. H.R. 2740 creates an FBI ``theater investigative unit'' for each theater of operations with which contracted employees are involved, to investigate any allegations of criminal misconduct by contractors, including reports of fatalities from the use of force by contractors. The unit would then refer cases that warrant further action to the Attorney General. Additionally, the legislation requires a report by the DOJ Inspector General on contractor abuses overseas. The bill also requires the Inspector General of the Justice Department to submit a report to Congress regarding the identification and prosecution of alleged contractor abuses overseas. This requirement is intended to address the Justice Department's apparent failure to aggressively investigate and prosecute crimes committed by contractors over which the department already has jurisdiction (such as contractors working for the Department of Defense.) Madam Chairman, there simply is no excuse for the de facto legal immunity that our government has permitted for tens of thousands of armed private individuals working on our country's behalf in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. government has a responsibility to hold the individuals carrying out its work to the highest standards of conduct, and to ensure that these individuals protect human life and uphold the law. This responsibility does not disappear simply because such individuals are contractors instead of government employees. Madam Chairman, this legislation is especially timely in light of the new report by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee which documents numerous incidents of wrongdoing by Blackwater contractors in Iraq. On September 16, Blackwater security contractors in Baghdad were involved in a shooting incident in which 11 Iraqi civilians were killed and many others injured. This incident is now under investigation. In addition, on October 1, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee released a report on the behavior of Blackwater contractors in Iraq which disclosed damaging new information. As the Washington Post (10/2/ 07) reported: Blackwater security contractors in Iraq have been involved in at least 195 `escalation of force' incidents since early 2005, including several previously unreported killings of Iraqi civilians . . . The Washington Post article went on to state that according to a State Department document, ``in one of the killings Blackwater personnel tried to cover up what had occurred and provided a false report. In another case, the firm accused its own personnel of lying about the event. The State Department made little effort to hold Blackwater personnel accountable beyond pressing the company to pay financial compensation to the families of the dead.'' Madam Chairman, the misconduct of military contractors working in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other foreign countries reflects poorly upon the United States and frequently is erroneously attributed by the people of the host country to our troops. As you can imagine, such misdirected anger and inflamed passion can lead them to take retaliatory actions which could imperil the safety of our troops. In my view, this is reason alone to support the bill, which I do strongly. I urge all my colleagues to join me in closing a loophole and ensure that all U.S. security contractors in war zones overseas can be held accountable for any criminal acts they commit overseas.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, sometimes you come to the floor in a moment of personal privilege and you come because you feel compelled to speak to those and for those whose voices cannot be heard in this forum. And today I do such a task, and the task involves more than a decade-old allegation that now has been reignited, given new life through the memoirs of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Everyone has a right to defend themselves and to express the concerns that they may have regarding their reputation. All of us do. But I think it is important to take issue with the broad media coverage that Justice Thomas has secured over these days with an intent, it seems, to malign, if you will, the words, the testimony, and the truth told by Anita Hill. Though over four decades have passed since title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited employment discrimination based on race, sex, color, national origin, or religion, a glance at today's New York Times reminds us that workforce harassment is, unfortunately, still raising its ugly head. I am, frankly, offended by the attempt by Justice Thomas to suggest that Ms. Hill was not telling the truth. I do so because, of course, in the forum that he utilizes, Ms. Hill is not able to answer her accuser. In listening to an interview that Ms. Hill did, she emphasizes that she was telling the truth, that there was, in her opinion and others who were witnesses, the same. But I really wonder why we would have to condemn the idea that sexual harassment does not occur and why, in trying to suggest that it doesn't occur, we would have to malign a person's actions or personality with such phrase as: Well, what was she like? Well, she could defend herself. The sentence was not finished. Defend herself against what? Suggesting that she was not the demure, religious, conservative person, I guess, that maybe she was alleged to have portrayed during those hearings before the Senate. I didn't see any of that. I saw a young, energetic, but yet quiet, frightened, and intending-to-tell-the-truth young woman. I saw a young woman with courage who refused to back down in spite of the lights of all the world. Mr. Speaker, sexual harassment is alive and well. You can ask some of my constituents at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston, TX. You can ask individuals who have called my office who have indicated that that is what is occurring to them in the workplace. Ms. Hill's actions during that time were brave. To bring them up and drag her through the mud again in 2007 with little opportunity for her, a professor in Oklahoma, to have the same kind of hearing is unfair and does a great disservice to the work that women have done, that the National Organization of Women has done, and that so many Members of Congress have done, who have tried to bring equality to women. The controversy raised national awareness about sexual harassment in the workplace, with the number of sexual harassment complaints received by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission spiking from 6,127 in 1991 to 15,342 in 1996. Why? Because women felt that at last someone had broken the glass ceiling and they could speak up. The American Association of University Women reported that, according to a 2002 study of eighth to 11th grade students, 83 percent of girls and 78 percent of boys have been sexually harassed. So it crosses gender. I believe a Supreme Court Justice should not have taken the opportunity in a public forum to give disdain to that which we are now trying to overcome. So I want to put into the Record, Mr. Speaker, the New York Times op-ed by Anita Hill, ``The Smear This Time,'' and I would simply ask, Mr. Speaker, that we would recognize that sexual harassment is alive and well and that Anita Hill should not be the scapegoat for someone else trying to repair their reputation. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to discuss an issue that continues to plague our society: sexual harassment. Though over four decades have passed since Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited employment discrimination based on race, sex, color, national origin, or religion, a glance at today's New York Times reminds us that workplace harassment is, unfortunately, still rearing its ugly head in our society. I am extremely concerned about sexual harassment, which statistics indicate remains pervasive in the United States, as well as the rest of the world. Mr. Speaker, though the phrase ``sexual harassment'' was coined in the 1970s, it came to the forefront of our national conscience in 1991, with the confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court. Anita Hill, then a law professor at the University of Oklahoma, alleged that Thomas sexually harassed her during her tenure as his assistant at the U.S. Department of Education and then on his legal staff at the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Despite her testimony before the Senate, Thomas was eventually confirmed by a narrow 52-48 margin. As Ms. Hill writes in today's New York Times, ``The question of whether Clarence Thomas belongs on the Supreme Court is no longer on the table--it was settled by the Senate back in 1991.'' And yet, Mr. Thomas has chosen to use his prestige and his position to once again launch an attack against Ms. Hill, again blaming the victim of his alleged harassment. In his recently published book ``My Grandfather's Son'', for which Thomas has received a reported $1.5 million, Thomas smears Ms. Hill's name, not only calling her testimony lies, but also personally attacking her, describing her as ``touchy and apt to overact,'' and her job performance as ``mediocre.'' In recent interviews surrounding the publication of his book, Thomas has gone even farther, questioning her political views as well as her religious convictions, stating on the TV show ``60 Minutes'', ``She was not the demure, religious, conservative person that they portrayed.'' Mr. Speaker, I am appalled that Justice Thomas has once again victimized Ms. Hill, now a professor of social policy, law and women's studies at Brandeis University and a visiting scholar at the Newhouse Center for the Humanities at Wellesley College. Not only is this yet another case of blaming the victim of abuse, it sets a dangerous precedent of reversing the substantial progress toward combating sexual harassment that we have made since 1991. As Ms. Hill eloquently writes, ``Our legal system will suffer if a sitting justice's vitriolic pursuit of personal vindication discourages others from standing up for their rights.'' Mr. Speaker, sexual harassment is already grossly underreported, and this underreporting will only worsen if the women and men who are victimized are made afraid of decades of retribution, such as Ms. Hill continues to face, should they speak up about the abuse. Ms. Hill's bravery in standing up before the Senate and the country in 1991 and sharing her experiences has led to a number of positive repercussions. The controversy raised national awareness about sexual harassment in the workplace, with the number of sexual harassment complaints received by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) spiking from 6,127 in 1991 to 15,342 in 1996. Recent years have seen the number of sexual harassment cases hovering around 15,000, and in FY 2006 the EEOC reported 12,025 charges of sexual harassment. However, these numbers cannot even begin to illustrate the reality of sexual harassment. According to a 2004 study, 35 percent of women and 17 percent of men surveyed reported being sexually harassed. Sexual harassment is pervasive in our educational system, with the American Association of University Women reporting that, according to a 2002 study of 8th-11th grade students, 83 percent of girls and 78 percent of boys have been sexually harassed. The same organization also conducted a study of university students in 2006, finding that 62 percent of college women and 61 percent of college men report harassment, while 31 percent of university students admit to sexually harassing someone else. Despite progress toward addressing this serious issue, our children remain extremely vulnerable to harassment. Sexual harassment also remains distressingly prevalent in our military. Women have become an integral part of our Nation's armed services, and they now fill 15 percent of military ranks worldwide. After a series of sex scandals in the 1990s, the United States military has made a conscientious effort to address this ongoing problem. The military now holds regular workshops on preventing sexual harassment, and each battalion has a designated Equal Opportunity representative trained to respond to any complaints. However, with unprecedented numbers of women deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, recent complaints by female veterans of these conflicts have indicated that a great deal more must be done. To date, over 160,000 female soldiers have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, as compared with the 7,500 who served in Vietnam and the 41,000 who were dispatched to the gulf war in the early '90s One of every 10 U.S. soldiers in Iraq is female. According to Army studies, female solders in Iraq suffer from post traumatic stress disorder at twice the rate of their male counterparts, with 16 percent of female soldiers meeting the criteria for PTSD, as opposed to 8 percent of male soldiers. Women returning from conflict must not only deal with the psychological remnants of the conflict, many also have experienced harassment by their male counterparts. Mr. Speaker, the courageous recent testimony of several female Iraq veterans indicates that the military's new measures have not been successful in eliminating sexual harassment. A study funded by the Veterans' Administration after the first gulf war suggested that the rates of both sexual harassment and assault rise during wartime. Unfortunately, a number of female Iraq veterans interviewed earlier this year by the New York Times spoke of a pervasive sense that reporting sexual crimes was not worthwhile. This is confirmed by Department of Defense statistics, which indicate that while 3,038 investigations of military sexual assault were completed in 2004 and 2005, only 329, or about one-tenth, of these cases resulted in a court- martial. Sexual harassment is not confined to our Armed Forces. Though Ms. Hill's courageous testimony served as a flash point to illuminate the serious problem of sexual harassment in the workplace, the over 12,000 complaints that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission heard last year clearly indicate that this problem has not been adequately addressed. Though the provision in title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits employment discrimination based on gender was originally written to protect women, I believe it is extremely important to highlight the fact that men too are victims of sexual harassment. In fact, recent years have shown a rapid increase in the number of men reporting sexual harassment, from 9 percent of the cases received by the equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1992 to 15.4 percent in 2006. This is not just the case in the United States; a 2006 study by the government of the United Kingdom indicated that two-fifths of all sexual harassment victims are male. If we are to adequately address this ongoing problem in our society, I believe it is extremely important that we recognize that sexual harassment is perpetrated by both men and women, and victimizes individuals of both genders. Mr. Speaker, much has changed since 1991. After the controversy surrounding Justice Thomas's confirmation was decided by a Senate that was 98 percent male, 1992 saw the election of a record number of female candidates to public office, including a number of women to the Senate. Subsequently dubbed the ``Year of the Woman,'' the 1992 elections were, according to many commentators, a direct reaction to Justice Thomas's nomination and confirmation. Women have since continued to become increasingly involved in politics. Mr. Speaker, I do believe that we are on the right track. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reports that the number of sexual harassment cases has doubled in recent years, and of the 12,025 cases the commission received in fiscal year 2006, 11,936 were resolved, and victims were awarded $48.8 million in monetary benefits. This is an enormous increase from total awards of $7.7 million in 1991 and $27.8 million in 1996. If this progress is to continue, the women, and men as well, who are victims of sexual harassment must be encouraged to come forward. What Anita Hill did in 1991 was incredibly brave; she stood in the face of the powerful to tell the truth about abuses she faced. I am appalled to see Justice Thomas use his prestige and his recent book to lash out, once again, at Ms. Hill. Though over 15 years have passed, and Justice Thomas's position in the Supreme Court is not under threat, he continues to use his pulpit to the detriment of efforts to end sexual harassment. Mr. Speaker, sexual harassment is real, it remains an unfortunate part of our society, and we must do far more to combat it. Anita Hill concludes her article by stating, ``questions remain about how we will resolve the kinds of issues my testimony exposed. My belief is that in the past 16 years we have come closer to making the resolution of these issues an honest search for the truth, which, after all, is at the core of all legal inquiry. My hope is that Justice Thomas's latest fusillade will not divert us from that path.'' I sincerely share Ms. Hill's hope. The Smear This Time (By Anita Hill) Waltham, Mass. On Oct. 11, 1991, I testified about my experience as an employee of Clarence Thomas's at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. I stand by my testimony. Justice Thomas has every right to present himself as he wishes in his new memoir, ``My Grandfather's Son.'' He may even be entitled to feel abused by the confirmation process that led to his appointment to the Supreme Court. But I will not stand by silently and allow him, in his anger, to reinvent me. In the portion of his book that addresses my role in the Senate hearings into his nomination, Justice Thomas offers a litany of unsubstantiated representations and outright smears that Republican senators made about me when I testified before the Judiciary Committee--that I was a ``combative left-winger'' who was ``touchy'' and prone to overreacting to ``slights.'' A number of independent authors have shown those attacks to be baseless. What's more, their reports draw on the experiences of others who were familiar with Mr. Thomas's behavior, and who came forward after the hearings. It's no longer my word against his. Justice Thomas's characterization of me is also hobbled by blatant inconsistencies. He claims, for instance, that I was a mediocre employee who had a job in the federal government only because he had ``given it'' to me. He ignores the reality: I was fully qualified to work in the government, having graduated from Yale Law School (his alma mater, which he calls one of the finest in the country), and passed the District of Columbia Bar exam, one of the toughest in the nation. In 1981, when Mr. Thomas approached me about working for him, I was an associate in good standing at a Washington law firm. In 1991, the partner in charge of associate development informed Mr. Thomas's mentor, Senator John Danforth of Missouri, that any assertions to the contrary were untrue. Yet, Mr. Thomas insists that I was ``asked to leave'' the firm. It's worth noting, too, that Mr. Thomas hired me not once, but twice while he was in the Reagan administration--first at the Department of Education and then at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. After two years of working directly for him, I left Washington and returned home to Oklahoma to begin my teaching career. In a particularly nasty blow, Justice Thomas attacked my religious conviction, telling ``60 Minutes'' this weekend, ``She was not the demure, religious, conservative person that they portrayed.'' Perhaps he conveniently forgot that he wrote a letter of recommendation for me to work at the law school at Oral Roberts University, in Tulsa. I remained at that evangelical Christian university for three years, until the law school was sold to Liberty University, in Lynchburg, Va., another Christian college. Along with other faculty members, I was asked to consider a position there, but I decided to remain near my family in Oklahoma. Regrettably, since 1991, I have repeatedly seen this kind of character attack on women and men who complain of harassment and discrimination in the workplace. In efforts to assail their accusers' credibility, detractors routinely diminish people's professional contributions. Often the accused is a supervisor, in a position to describe the complaining employee's work as ``mediocre'' or the employee as incompetent. Those accused of inappropriate behavior also often portray the individuals who complain as bizarre caricatures of themselves--oversensitive, even fanatical, and often immoral--even though they enjoy good and productive working relationships with their colleagues. Finally, when attacks on the accusers' credibility fail, those accused of workplace improprieties downgrade the level of harm that may have occurred. When sensing that others will believe their accusers' versions of events, individuals confronted with their own bad behavior try to reduce legitimate concerns to the level of mere words or ``slights'' that should be dismissed without discussion. Fortunately, we have made progress since 1991. Today, when employees complain of abuse in the workplace, investigators and judges are more likely to examine all the evidence and less likely to simply accept as true the word of those in power. But that could change. Our legal system will suffer if a sitting justice's vitriolic pursuit of personal vindication discourages others from standing up for their rights. The question of whether Clarence Thomas belongs on the Supreme Court is no longer on the table--it was settled by the Senate back in 1991. But questions remain about how we will resolve the kinds of issues my testimony exposed. My belief is that in the past 16 years we have come closer to making the resolution of these issues an honest search for the truth, which, after all, is at the core of all legal inquiry. My hope is that Justice Thomas's latest fusillade will not divert us from that path.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3087, which requires the President, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other senior military leaders, to develop and transmit to Congress a comprehensive strategy for the redeployment of the armed forces in Iraq. I am in favor of requiring the President to develop a comprehensive strategy for the redeployment of American forces out of Iraq. A good plan is a good thing. A bad plan is a bad thing. But worst of all, is having no plan at all, which has been the sad state of affairs in Iraq for the past four years. So H.R. 3087 represents a small step in the right direction. However, there is more to be done, much more. While I am not opposed to this legislation requiring the administration to develop and transmit to the Congress a comprehensive strategy for redeploying our troops out of Iraq, I believe I speak for most Americans when I say that what we really want is to have the 160,000 brave men and women wearing the uniform in the service of their country reunited with their families and friends and contributing to their communities back here in America. I am working toward the day when our soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen can leave Iraq and return to the United States where they can receive the heroes welcome they deserve. I am working toward the day when the President of the United States issues a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe a national day of celebration commemorating military success in Iraq. I can foresee the day when our troops who have known heat and hardship and horror in Iraq are again returned to their own land where they can be with family and friends and enjoy freedom and faith and fun. If H.R. 3087 hastens that day by just 24 hours, I can support it. But I will never be satisfied until our troops have been delivered out of Iraq and back to their loved ones. Mr. Speaker, the administration has consistently placed far too great an emphasis on military objectives and solutions, and has consequently not allowed diplomacy the role it was intended to play in our global system. The administration stated, ``In the coming months, the United States will continue to operate along four lines of operation-- security, political, economic, and diplomatic--to advance our objectives.'' In our war on terror, diplomacy cannot be used as a last resort. A war on terrorism is, as the Bush Administration has stated, a war for the ``hearts and minds,'' which simply cannot be won through military action. Mr. Speaker, 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 political upheaval. I have, for some time now, argued the importance of the Congress going on record acknowledging for all the world to know the success of the America's armed forces in Iraq. Our brave troops have completed the task we set for them; it is time now to bring them home. Our next steps should not be a continuing escalation of military involvement, but instead a diplomatic surge. As the former chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, recently stated, ``Military power is essential to our security, but if the only tool is a hammer, pretty soon every problem looks like a nail. We must use all the tools of U.S. power--including foreign aid, educational assistance and vigorous public diplomacy that emphasizes scholarship, libraries and exchange programs--to shape a Middle East and a Muslim world that are less hostile to our interests and values. America's long-term security relies on being viewed not as a threat but as a source of opportunity and hope.'' Despite the multitude of mistakes committed by President Bush and former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, our troops have achieved a military success in ousting Saddam Hussein and assisting the Iraqis in administering a democratic election and electing a democratic government. However, only the Iraqi Government can secure a lasting peace. Time and time again, the Iraqi Government has demonstrated an inability to deliver on the political benchmarks that they themselves agreed were essential to achieving national reconciliation. Continuing to put the lives of our soldiers and our national treasury in the hands of what by most informed accounts, even by members of the Bush administration, is an ineffective central Iraqi government is irresponsible and contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the American people. Last month, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, heard testimony on the Government Accountability Office report on Iraqi progress toward the 18 legislative, economic, and security benchmarks. The Comptroller General of the GAO informed members that only three of these benchmarks have been met by the Maliki government. Despite the surge, despite increasing U.S. military involvement, the Iraqi government has not made substantial progress toward stabilizing their country. The more than 3,750 U.S. casualties and the $3,816 per second we are spending in Iraq have not bought peace or security. We are not here today to debate whether there has been some decrease in violence in Baghdad. The United States military is a skilled and highly proficient organization, and where there are large numbers of U.S. troops, it is unsurprising that we see fewer incidents of violence. However, it is our responsibility to take a longer-term view. 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. And so far, we have not seen a demonstrated commitment by the Iraqi government. Mr. Speaker, President Bush stated in June 2005, ``Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.'' Instead of concentrating on building local capacity and applying pressure to the Maliki government to force them to take responsibility for the destiny of their nation, the Administration has chosen to pursue policies, namely the Baghdad security plan, that focus on continued combat by U.S. forces, rather than transferring responsibilities to Iraqis. As a result, Iraqi security forces, ISF remain entirely dependent upon U.S. troops; the August 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reports that the ISF ``have not improved enough to conduct major combat operations independent of the Coalition'' and ``remain reliant on the Coalition for important aspects of logistics and combat support.'' With the New Way Forward strategy, American troops continue to shoulder the majority of the war effort. How will we know when the American forces are no longer needed? In testimony before a Joint Foreign Affairs-Armed Services Committees hearing last week, both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker painted an optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq, making frequent reference to the progress and success in the Anbar province. However, Iraqi Parliament member and leading Shi'a cleric, Jamal Al-Din, said in a Congressional Briefing the following day that he did not recognize the country they described as the Iraq he represents, an Iraq that continues to be riddles with factionalism, extremism, and domestic strife. Even the administration's report projects a daunting list of challenges that face American troops on Iraq as well as Iraqis. These include: communal struggle for power between Shi'a majority and Sunni Kurd and other minorities; Al-Qaeda extremists in Iraq acting as accelerants for ethno-sectarian violence; Iranian lethal support to Shi'a militants; and foreign support to extremists in Iraq. And while General Petraeus and the Bush administration have been stressing the progress made in the region and the need for more time, they failed to note that sizeable increase in ethno-sectarian deaths in July and August and the fact that ethno-sectarian violence presents a substantial challenge to stability in the region, particularly in rural areas where security presence is light. And while the situation in Iraq presents an open-ended military challenge to our forces abroad, our presence in the region may be hindering the security of our Nation. Evidence suggests that not only is increased U.S. military presence in Iraq not making that nation more secure, it may also be threatening our national security by damaging our ability to respond to real threats to our own homeland. The recently released video by Osama bin Laden serves to illustrate that President Bush has not caught this international outlaw, nor brought him to justice. Instead, he has diverted us from the real war on terror to the war of his choice in Iraq. Recently, the former chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 commission, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, published an op-ed in the Washington Post examining the question of whether our nation is safer today, six years after 9/11. Kean and Hamilton concluded, ``We still lack a sense of urgency in the face of grave danger.'' The persistence of this threat is attributed to ``a mixed record of reform, a lack of focus, and a resilient foe,'' and the authors note that our own actions have contributed to a rise of radicalization and rage in the Muslim world. Kean and Hamilton write that ``no conflict drains more time, attention, blood, treasure, and support from our worldwide counterterrorism efforts than the war in Iraq. It has become a powerful recruiting and training tool for al-Qaeda.'' Mr. Speaker, Iraq faces a severe crisis. With a factionalist government in which parties are based on religion, a qualification that is strictly forbidden within the Iraqi constitution, religious, tribal, and ethnic tensions remain high and mere subsistence has become a challenge to the average citizen. The UNHCR has recently said that more than two million Iraqi's have claimed refugee status abroad since the invasion, while an additional 60,000 people flee their homes each month. In a recent statement, Ambassador Crocker the admission of refugees was ``bogged down by major bottlenecks.'' The Administration has spent so much time and money on its military strategy that it is ill-equipped to handle the human rights atrocities that are occurring. And while the United States delays admission of refugees based on a myriad of bureaucratic security checks, Ambassador Crocker states, ``refugees who have fled Iraq continue to be a vulnerable population while living in Jordan and Syria.'' Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the lack of adequate oversight of the American war effort. Given the enormous amount of resources involved, coupled with the catastrophic costs in human lives, we would certainly expect adequate management of U.S. funds and military supplies. We would expect clear records of exactly where those $10 billion a month is going, and to whom it is being given. And yet, the GAO reports that the Pentagon has lost track of over 190,000 weapons, given to Iraqis, particularly in 2004 and 2005. The report states that the U.S. military does not know what happened to 30 percent of the weapons the United States distributed to Iraqi forces from 2004 through early this year as part of an effort to train and equip the troops. These weapons could be used to kill our American troops. In addition, only yesterday, the Iraqi government stated that it would review the status of all private security firms operating in the country. This announcement came after a controversial gunfight on Sunday, involving the U.S.-based firm Blackwater USA, left eight civilians dead. Mr. Speaker, reports indicate that there are currently at least 28 private security companies operating in Iraq, employing thousands of security guards. This incident suggests the need for superior oversight and accountability for contractors in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, the real tragedy of this war has been the deaths of so many of our American sons and daughters. At current count, the Department of Defense had confirmed a total of 3,808 U.S. casualties. In addition, more than 28,009 have been wounded in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003. June, July, and August have marked the bloodiest months yet in the conflict, and U.S. casualties in Iraq are 62 percent higher this year than at this time in 2006. This misguided, mismanaged, and misrepresented war has claimed too many lives of our brave servicemen; its depth, breadth, and scope are without precedent in American history. Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss briefly an important legislative proposal that I will soon introduce. 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. There are many interesting and important legislative proposals relating to the war in Iraq. Most of them, however, are contentious and divisive making it difficult for them to attract broad support across the aisle. In this respect my legislation is different. That is because it involves an issue over which there should be widespread and broad- based consensus. We should all be able to agree that one good and sufficient reason to redeploy U.S. troops out of Iraq is because they have achieved their mission objectives. They have been victorious in every battle and have won the military victory they were sent to win in March 2003. They are victors and heroes who have never been defeated on the battlefield. Blaming the current chaos in Iraq on our military is like blaming the Continental Army for the outbreak of the Civil War. In each case, the armed forces did their jobs--they won the war they were sent to fight; in each case, it was the civilian leadership that failed to win or maintain the peace. The Armed Forces of the United States are not to be used to respond to 911 calls from governments like Iraq's that have done all they can to take responsibility for the security of their country and safety of their own people. The United States cannot do for Iraq what Iraqis are not willing to do for themselves. 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. Outside of 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. I think to myself how lucky I am to live in a nation where so many brave young men and women volunteer to the ultimate sacrifice so that their countrymen can enjoy the blessings of liberty. Now is the time to remind our heroes they have not been forgotten. More importantly, America has not forgotten them. My legislation, the Military Success in Iraq Commemoration Act of 2007, pays fitting tribute to the valor, devotion, and heroism of those who fought in Iraq in the following ways. First, my bill provides an express finding 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. Second, my bill 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.'' Third, my bill 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 bill 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. Mr. Speaker, perhaps no issue will more define this Congress than how we conclude this misguided conflict. I am proud to be a part of a Congress that is listening to the clearly expressed will of the American people, and I remain, as ever, committed to ending this truly tragic conflict.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Tanner is right. It is not the war we haven't won; it is the peace. And I want to encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle, join me in a bipartisan stand to bring our troops home now. I didn't support this bill originally, but I support it now because I understand that we make steps one by one. But I don't want to be chastised about bipartisanship because I want us all to work in a bipartisan way to, one, bring our troops home, and to recognize that it is not only the military power but it is the diplomatic power. This legislation is the right direction. It commands an intervention by the Congress, a 60-day report, how are we going to redeploy, and a 90-day update. But, Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to our troops coming home as heroes, and I'm working every day for them to come home with their families, a proclamation of their military success, a welcome home party in every single hamlet and village, and all the flowers that they can tolerate. That's what I call a declaration of the end of this tragedy. But this is a good step today because we are in the mix. We're fighting to get them home. We are demanding that they come home. We are getting a report. We are forcing the Pentagon to think, and that is what we need to do. But I look forward to my colleagues joining us and having a bipartisan vote on a time certain for these troops to come home.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H. Con. Res. 200, condemning the violent suppression of Buddhist monks and other peaceful demonstrators in Burma and calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. I want to congratulate my good friend and colleague, the distinguished Ranking Member of the House Committee on Homeland Security from New York, Peter King, on this extremely timely resolution on the deteriorating human rights situation in Burma. When this bill was first introduced in August, the main concern was for the well-being of the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize Winner Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and the overall deplorable human rights situation in Burma. Little did the members of Congress or the Committee know that only a few weeks later we would be witnessing this unrelenting brutality, as the Junta released its military personnel to crack down on the non- violent protesters and the Buddhist Monks. These actions set a new low even for this regime. Even before this latest escalation, Burma's human rights record was abysmal. Systematic rapes as a means of war against ethnic minorities, the burning and destruction of their villages, the torture and arbitrary arrest of dissidents and trafficking in people and illicit drugs, are all hallmarks of this illegitimate regime. This unenviable record guarantees the military government a leading place among the world's worst human rights offenders. The Burmese regime has led this beautiful and resource-rich country down the spiraling path of degradation, instability, economic plunder and bankruptcy. Prominent pro-democracy leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, has had various restrictions placed on her activities since the late 1980s. Her party, the National League for Democracy, won a landslide victory in 1990 in Burma's first multi-party elections for 30 years, but she has never been allowed to govern. In 1990, the ruling military junta placed the rightfully and lawfully elected Daw Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest, where she has remained ever since. During her arrest, she was awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 1990, and the Nobel Peace Prize the year after. Her sons Alexander and Kim accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on her behalf. Aung San Suu Kyi used the Nobel Peace Prize's 1.3 million USD prize money to establish a health and education trust for the Burmese people. On August 15, in a sign of incredible courage, non-violent protesters, took spontaneously to the streets and protested the government's actions, demanding the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and a meaningful dialogue to national reconciliation and democracy. Thousands of Buddhist monks started leading protests on September 18, and were joined by Buddhist nuns on September 23. Undeterred by threats of military retaliation, on September 24, as many as 100,000 protesters led by monks marched in the largest protest Burma has seen in two decades. In the wake of the protests, hundreds were arrested, beaten, and severely tortured. Peaceful monks were disrobed and severely abused, tortured and imprisoned. Over the past week, nearly 4,000 monks have been rounded up by the military. There are reports of hundreds if not thousands of bodies now littering the jungles near Burma's largest cities. A United Nations Special Envoy has been in Burma since Saturday, but has yet to meet with the Senior Gen. Than Shwe. Instead of the meeting Gambari sought Monday, he was sent to a remote northern town for an academic conference on relations between the European Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, diplomats reported, speaking on the condition of anonymity. This circus show must stop. The Burmese military leaders need to stop parading these diplomats around, and real dialogue needs to start, so that we can bring an end to the unrelenting violence. This resolution before us rightly calls on our government to continue its leadership role in the international community to move the U.N. Security Council to act swiftly on Burma, and shine a bright spotlight on the actions of those countries, such as the People's Republic of China, which collaborate with this despicable regime. They need to use their influence with the Burmese government to bring an immediate end to those despicable actions, and to force the regime to enter into a meaningful tripartite dialogue with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the National League of Democracy, and the ethnic groups. I urge all Members of Congress to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 200 and in sending the Burmese military regime and the international community a wakeup call. The United States will stand unwavering with the people of Burma, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and the National League of Democracy. It is essential that these violence ends and a peaceful resolution is reached. The Burmese people are yearning for democracy, and as the world's shining beacon of democracy, the United States must not let these protests be in vain. I call on Burma's military leaders to allow its people to freely elect its government and to call for the immediate and unconditional release of Nobel Prize Winner Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.