Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the two subcommittee Chairs. Might I just for a moment thank them for a bill that is enormously challenging, transportation and housing. I want to thank the staff for their very hard work and the commitment that this particular bill has in place as it relates to the Treasury and other agencies. Let me acknowledge the importance of hard work as well. Mr. Chairman, we can't do without the workers that provide the engine of our economy. If we are to appreciate workers, I think it is extremely important that we do not have outside forces that would, in fact, take away from the dignity and the responsibility to the American worker; and that's what my amendment is about. It is a very simple amendment. It is sometimes fashionable to speak ill about working Americans who are in unions. This amendment simply provides support for union workers on federally funded projects, simple without any additions to it. It is to reinforce the importance of that work and to reinforce the importance of those workers. I believe that the engine of America is fused by American workers, and many of them are both union and nonunion workers. I stand today to affirm all workers. My amendment simply asks that those Federal funds that are utilized, nothing is done in the federally funded project to undermine America's workers. I believe that we have had a long history of the American labor movement. It was started by a group of dreamers who simply believed that we should have the best working atmosphere for America's workers. Employees represented by free and democratic unions of their own choosing participate actively in determining their wages, hours and working conditions. Their living standards are the highest in the world. Their job rights are protected by collective bargaining. They have fringe benefits that were unheard of less than a generation ago. I know that the support of these workers is bipartisan. I ask my colleagues to join me in a very simple amendment that ensures that these projects that are federally funded comply with the law, simply comply with the law, and do not undermine the working people of America. I ask my colleagues to support working people, working people of America, as we issue Federal funds so that they can be protected. My amendment is simple but makes an important contribution to the legislation. My amendment simply provides that none of the funds made available in this appropriations bill shall be used in a manner inconsistent with the National Labor Relations Act. Mr. Chairman, I know it is fashionable today to disparage, downplay, or minimize the importance of organized labor to our country. That is easy to do but it would be wrong. In the post 9-11 age, where our transportation systems and infrastructure have been demonstrated to be targets of those who would do us harm, it is more important than ever that those who work in the transportation sectors are the best, most able, most professional, most experienced, and committed workers this nation has to offer. To do otherwise would put the security of our nation at risk. Mr. Chairman, those who would destroy or further limit the rights of organized labor--those who would cripple collective bargaining or prevent organization of the unorganized--do a disservice to the cause of democracy. Fifty years or so ago the American Labor Movement was little more than a group of dreamers, and look at it now. From coast to coast, in factories, stores, warehouse and business establishments of all kinds, industrial democracy is at work. Employees, represented by free and democratic trade unions of their own choosing, participate actively in determining their wages, hours and working conditions. Their living standards are the highest in the world. Their job rights are protected by collective bargaining agreements. They have fringe benefits that were unheard of less than a generation ago. Our labor unions are not narrow, self-seeking groups. They have raised wages, shortened hours and provided supplemental benefits. Through collective bargaining and grievance procedures, they have brought justice and democracy to the shop floor. But their work goes beyond their own jobs, and even beyond our borders. Our unions have fought for aid to education, for better housing, for development of our national resources, and for saving the family-sized farms. They have spoken, not for narrow self-interest, but for the public interest and for the people. Mr. Chairman, unions are as important as they ever were--because corporations are just as dedicated to their bottom line, regardless of the consequences for workers. The nature of work in America is changing. Employers are trying to shed responsibilities--for providing health insurance, good pension coverage, reasonable work hours and job safety protections, for example--while making workers' jobs and incomes less secure through downsizing, part- timing and contracting out. Working people need a voice at work to keep employers from making our jobs look like they did 100 years ago, with sweatshop conditions, unlivable wages and 70-hour workweeks. In my hometown of Houston, I know firsthand the commitment, dedication, and professionalism of organized transit workers employed by the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO). These workers are making the transportation system of Houston one of the best in the nation. Accordingly, I want to take this opportunity to extol their accomplishments and to express my commitment to the protection of their hard won right to engage in and enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining. I think most of my colleagues can agree that these hard won rights should not be taken away or undermined, and my amendment reaffirms this proposition. And lest we forget, Mr. Chairman, it was the men and women of organized labor who rushed into the burning World Trade Center Towers when others were rushing out. The men and women of organized labor put their lives on the line for their fellow Americans every day. They do not ask for much. All they ask is to be treated with respect and dignity. They want what we all want: to do their jobs and to make a better life for their families. The least we in the Congress can do, Mr. Chairman, is to go on record in support of our working men and women in the vitally important transportation industries of our country. We can and should affirm that none of the funds made available in this appropriations bill shall be used in a manner that undercuts the hard won rights of American workers that are reflected in the National Labor Relations Act and other important federal labor laws. I urge all members to support my amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman and I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member of the subcommittee. Let me thank both of the individuals, the chairperson, Mr. Olver, and the ranking member, Mr. Knollenberg, for their leadership. I thank you so very much. We've worked on this issue in the past, and I think many of us are aware of the surrounding neighborhoods around large airports, and I know that as Members of Congress we have been challenged by that because we recognize that the vitality of airports certainly support the economy of our cities. I happen to represent a very large airport in Houston, Texas, and I also represent the neighborhoods that surround it. At this time, of course, we are working on a number of noise studies in our area, and it is a continuing journey as our airport continues to expand. Sometimes it takes money but sometimes it takes policy. We recognize that one of the advantages of modern life is the convenience of air travel. America's air transportation system is the best and safest in the world, but airports are not quiet. If you ask any resident that lives near a busy airport, you will hear many grievances about the noise level. Although there is no way to make airports soundproof, it is possible to reduce airport noise so it is less disruptive to the lives of the families that live near some of the Nation's busiest airports who work and pay their taxes. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to encourage the Federal Aviation Administration to be more proactive in helping communities reduce, eliminate or cope with the ever increasing levels of airport noise. Specifically, I call upon the FAA to undertake a nationwide study of airport mitigation problems and best practices at the 10 busiest airports in America and report its findings, along with recommendations to address major problems found to be existing, to the Congress within 180 days. Under the airport improvement program administered by the FAA, grants are available to airports and local governments to fund noise reduction projects located in areas significantly affected by airport noise above 65 decibels over a 24-hour average, as indicated by the notation 65 dB(A) DNL. Noise mitigation grants are generally not available for areas in which the noise level may be substantial, but does not exceed 65. Please, all of you, join me in those surrounding neighborhoods, and try to be able to resolve or to be able to accept the noise at that level. Therefore, money does not solve the problem; policy does. So we would like to ensure that we have the real information opportunity to determine the impact, substantial impacts that occurred to millions of people well below the 65 decibel level. Information generates policy. This value is inadequate for several reasons. We find from the scientific perspective, it is not supported by research. The 65 decibel level is derived from the Schultz curve, which correlated people reporting being highly annoyed by noise with noise levels. Substantial impact occurs well before people become highly annoyed. In addition, the data used in the Schultz curve for airports show that highly annoyed occurs around 57 decibels, not 65. That comes from the Journal of Acoustical Society of America. The EPA has identified 55 dB(A) DNL as a more appropriate noise level. The day-night average sound level is the level of noise expressed in decibels as a 24-hour average, and averages do not adequately account for the impact of aircraft noise on individuals. Research has shown that the noise disruption as low as 55 decibels can negatively affect communities near airports. Our airports are trying. In my own district, we have had several meetings. I know that this issue is a concern, because we have addressed this question in airports and cities around the Nation, including the State of Minnesota. It is important to stress that this amendment does not entitle any airport, local government or other eligible entity, to receive a noise mitigation grant, nor does it have any financial impact that reduces funding in noise mitigation. This amendment provides for an opportunity for focusing on the issue of noise mitigation and the difficulty of using a singular number, 65, while communities around the Nation suffer. We are going to continue to pursue this. We have done this every year to bring attention to this problem of noise mitigation and the fact that no person who lives in and around an airport acknowledges the fact that the airport is not important, but what we are trying to emphasize is that we must provide solace for those who live surrounding airports. I ask my colleagues to support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, sometimes it takes money, but sometimes it takes policy. We recognize that one of the advantages of modern life is the convenience of air travel. America's air transportation system is the best and safest in the world, but airports are not quiet. If you ask any resident that lives near a busy airport, you will hear many grievances about the noise level. Although there is no way to make airports soundproof, it is possible to reduce airport noise so it is less disruptive to the lives of the families that live near some of the Nation's busiest airports, work and pay their taxes. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to encourage the Federal Aviation Administration to be more proactive in helping communities reduce, eliminate, or cope with ever-increasing levels of airport noise. Specifically, I call upon the FAA to undertake a nationwide study of airport noise mitigation problems and best practices at the 10 busiest airports in America and report its findings, along with recommendations to address major problems found, to the Congress within 180 days. Mr. Chairman, under the Airport Improvement Program administered by the FAA, grants are available to airports and local governments to fund noise reduction projects located in areas significantly affected by airport noise above 65 decibels over a 24-hour average, as indicated by the notation 65 dB(A) DNL. Noise mitigation grants are generally not available for areas in which the noise level may be substantial but does not exceed the 65 dB(A) DNL. Thereby money does not solve the problem; policy does. However, substantial impacts occur to millions of people well below the 65 decibel level. This value is inadequate for several reasons: From a scientific perspective, it is not supported by research. The 65 decibel level is derived from the Schultz Curve which correlated people reporting being highly annoyed by noise with noise levels. Substantial impact occurs well before people become highly annoyed. In addition, the data used in the Schultz Curve for airports shows that ``highly annoyed'' occurs around 57 decibels, not 65, and that comes from a Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. The EPA has identified 55 dB(A) DNL as a more appropriate noise level. The day/night average sound level is the level of noise expressed in decibels as a 24-hour average, and averages do not adequately account for the impacts of aircraft noise on individuals. Research has shown that noise disruption as low as 55 decibels can negatively affect communities near airports. Unfortunately, communities that have a dB(A) less than 65 are precluded from applying for an Airport Improvement Program grant to reduce airport noise. We need to help them. I have even heard from cities in Minnesota. It is all over the country. It is important to stress that this amendment does not entitle any airport, local government or other eligible entity to receive a noise mitigation grant. Nor does it have any financial impact. This amendment does not even affect an applicant's eligibility to be considered for an airport noise reduction grant. Each applicant must demonstrate that its proposed project deserves to be funded, but no applicant can be disqualified from consideration merely because the area covered by the grant request does not have a dB(A) DNL greater than 65. Mr. Chairman, communities coexisting with major airports is one of the great challenges of modern life. My amendment is intended to help us rise to that challenge. I urge all members to support my amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. It is my intent to withdraw both of these amendments, and I will just briefly describe my intent to continue to work with authorizers on these two very vital points. We have firsthand experience with the tragedy of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and many of the constituents in my congressional district are alumni of trailers, the same trailers that have proved to be dangerous and unhelpful and unuseful. I hope that we will continue to work with the relevant agencies to look at alternative technology for housing so that in our future disasters, we can be able to work effectively. There has been effective legislation moving on this issue, and I know that the many constituents that are impacted by poor housing will welcome this Congress continuing to work on that particular issue. I move quickly to the question of security and safety on the question of transportation workers who drive a number of transportation vehicles throughout America. In many instances, in my own hometown of Houston, these very transportation workers, particularly bus drivers, do not have the necessary safety equipment such as walkie-talkies, such as two-way radios, such as other handheld communication devices. I will look forward to working with the appropriate committees to address the question of these particular workers who are begging for relief. A recent tragedy in Houston with an assault on a bus driver brought this particular issue to a head. We look forward to working with the various committee Chairs on trying to bring some response to those transportation workers across America driving transportation vehicles. I ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the two amendments that have been placed pending on the record, to withdraw both amendments.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments that I would like to subsequently withdraw. I would like them taken en bloc.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I am grateful that the gentleman from Iowa raised the question, if you would, because I do want to reinforce what the amendment says. The amendment specifically says, with respect to workers on federally funded transportation projects. So your sensitivity is clarified by the amendment. As I indicated in my remarks, I am affirming all workers, labor and union and nonunion. It is a generic term. I want to make sure that we treat workers on federally funded projects fairly and balanced, and that they are not diminished if they are on federally funded projects. We have many individuals who work after the project is finished, and I want to make sure that they are protected as well, union and nonunion. The amendment is simply a straightforward affirmation of the protection of workers on federally funded transportation projects. With that in mind, I would ask my colleagues to affirm the importance of protecting workers on federally funded transportation projects, under section A of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935. With that, I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I would hope that my colleagues would see this as an affirming amendment of all American workers.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I think you might have misheard me. I think I indicated that in the past amendment I asked for a report from the FAA. My concern here is simply a statement of affirmation that federally funded projects protect the workers that are on those projects and protect those who may be associated with the union. I don't believe that we asked for a study.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, let me thank Mr. Kildee for moving this legislation and thank him for his leadership. Two years ago, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act was enacted. The act was a major advance in our Nation's efforts to protect our children from sexual and other violent crimes, to prevent child pornography, and to make the Internet safer for our sons and daughters. Among its provisions, the act includes a mandate that each tribe either affirmatively opt-in to the new sex offender requirements enacted as part of that act, or cede its authority for enforcement to the State in which the tribe is located. The act requires all tribes register their intentions by July 27, 2007. While initially this deadline appeared to be reasonable, the tribes' ability to comply with it has been made virtually impossible in light of the fact that the Justice Department has taken much longer than expected to issue the necessary guidelines that will help implement the new requirements under the Adam Walsh Act. In fact, we are advised that these guidelines will not be finalized until after the registration deadline. Under these circumstances, it only stands to reason that the tribes should be given additional time to make the necessary certification. H.R. 3095, offered by Mr. Kildee, addresses this problem by simply extending the registration deadline for one year until July 27, 2008. Without this brief extension, the sovereign authority of countless tribal lands will be substantially undermined. I commend my colleagues, from Michigan Mr. Kildee and Mr. Renzi of Arizona, for their leadership on this measure. H.R. 3095 goes a long way toward protecting the sovereign authority that historically has bestowed upon tribal lands. Accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, commonsense proposal. Two years ago, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act was enacted. The act was a major advance in our Nation's efforts to protect our children from sexual and other violent crimes, to prevent child pornography, and to make the Internet safer for our sons and daughters. Among its provisions, the act includes a mandate that each tribe either affirmatively opt-in to the new sex offender requirements enacted as part of that act, or cede its authority for enforcement to the State in which the tribe is located. The act requires all tribes to register their intentions by July 27, 2007. While initially this deadline appeared to be reasonable, the tribes' ability to comply with it has been made virtually impossible in light of the fact that the Justice Department has taken much longer than expected to issue the necessary guidelines that will help implement the new requirements under the Adam Walsh Act. In fact, we are advised that these guidelines will not be finalized until after the registration deadline. Under these circumstances, it only stands to reason that the tribes should be given additional time to make the necessary certification. H.R. 3095 addresses this problem by simply extending the registration deadline for 1 year until July 27, 2008. Without this brief extension, the sovereign authority of countless tribal lands will be substantially undermined. I commend my colleagues from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and Arizona (Mr. Renzi) for their leadership on this measure. H.R. 3095 goes a long way toward protecting the sovereign authority that historically has been bestowed upon tribal lands. Accordingly, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan, commonsense proposal. H.R. 3095 offers a commonsense solution that respects the historically recognized sovereignty of our Nation's tribes while not compromising the critical objectives of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act with respect to protecting our Nation's children from sexual and other violent crimes. This bipartisan measure warrants our support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. This is a very wise and important judgment that has been made by this legislation. H.R. 3095 offers a commonsense solution that respects the historically recognized sovereignty of our Nation's tribes, while not compromising the critical objectives of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act with respect to protecting our Nation children's from sexual and other violent crimes. I ask my colleagues to support this bipartisan measure. It is deserving of our support. I would ask that this measure be supported. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Indiana for his courtesies. That is the note which I will end on, is a note of courage. As we look at this young man, and I am going to do something quite unusual, Mr. Pence, the family is watching, and I would hope that that would be the spirit of this resolution, simply to acknowledge the courage of David Ray Ritcheson, this talented young man, as I have said, Laticia and Albert Galvan's child, the brother of so many siblings, that they would understand what it took to come into the Judiciary Committee room. We would like to thank the cosponsors of this legislation, and I would like them to have a lasting impression of this distinguished young man. The courage, fortitude, the work he has done has enlightened many. As Mr. Pence said, we can have a number of debates and questions about the underlying issue, but the above-lying issue is simply a resolution thanking a young man who has lost his life in the face of an unspeakable tragedy. And we are all committed, whether it is a moral question or whether it is by legislative initiative, we abhor hatred. This Nation was not founded to promote hatred, although many of us came to this Nation differently. So I would simply ask my colleagues to join me. And I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for an inquiry. His family is watching, and I hope this can be perceived, this is an unlikely question to you, be perceived simply as a resolution, making no further statement, on the celebration of his life. We would like to call for a vote, and we would like to have your support. I have heard that you are willing to support this on that basis, and I would like to commend this to my colleagues simply on that basis. This is a resolution honoring a young man who has called to the attention of all of us the idea of the fact that we all abhor hatred of any kind.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I am prepared to close. If the gentleman would close, I will follow.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as this bill is intended to do, let me dwell on the life of David Ray Ritcheson and how much he has contributed to moving this country forward. I would like to read just a portion of his statement from his own words in the Judiciary Committee speaking about the experience of his tragedy: ``After burning me in the center of the forehead, the skinhead attacker was heard saying that now I looked like an Indian with a red dot on my forehead. Moreover, the witnesses to the attack recall the two attackers calling me a `wetback' and a `spic' as they continued to beat me as I lay unconscious. Once the attack came to an end, I was dragged to the rear of the backyard and left for dead.'' The bill that David was so articulate in helping us move forward provides resources for our smaller communities in order to ensure that if Federal resources are needed, that nexus, that connection, that assistance would be provided. Therefore, it is clear that David's testimony helped assist rural communities. I cite, for example, another tragic incident that occurred in a rural area, and maybe the county in that area might not have been able to move forward. This bill, however, is already out of the House. So our tribute today really focuses on the courage which David provided to move that bill forward. In Wyoming, Matthew Shepard was in a rural area. It was a rural area in Jasper, Texas, with Mr. James Byrd. So we know that the bill that has passed the House truly would provide assistance to those communities that would ask for it if such a tragedy occurred in their community. Again, Mr. Speaker, simply if they asked for it. I want to emphasize that this is about David, so let me share with you his words. These are the words that he offered to the Judiciary Committee: ``It has been a blessing to know that the most terrible day of my life may help put another human face on the campaign to enact a much needed law such as H.R. 1592. I can assure you from this day forward I will do whatever I can to help America become our great country, the United States of America a hate-free place to live.'' These are David's words. As we move forward in trying to capture what his life was truly about, this young, friendly, cheerful student at Klein Collins High School in the Houston suburb of Spring, Texas, popular and a talented football athlete, who was loved and admired by his family and friends, we want to ensure that, as we go forward, if such a dastardly act would happen again, we focus on the family. Mr. Speaker, we would like to see health care support, including supportive counseling and therapy to prevent future severe depression; construction and personnel costs for shelters and hate crime support centers; direct service providers who are trained to try and help those who have been victims of hate crimes; health care insurance for counseling and therapy; hotline services, so for those who witness hate crimes or other acts, we would be able to provide an immediate source of information for them to report what happened; short- and long-term individual counseling and support groups for hate crime victims and their families. This is a time to acknowledge this former running back and freshman homecoming prince, who spent more than 3 months in the hospital. But at the same time, it is a time of celebration. That is what this resolution stands for. Let me thank the list of cosponsors who have provided their affirmation of the importance of David's life. Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me take an opportunity to acknowledge Albert and Laticia Galvin, the parents of David Ray Ritcheson. I mention them, their strength and their sense of dedication. I also wanted to acknowledge the outpouring of support by the Members of Congress, members of the House Judiciary Committee and our local community. We came together, people from all segments of the community, to honor him in his passing, but also to commit ourselves to ridding our community of hate. Representatives from the NAACP and LULAC, faith leaders, elected officials, all of them put aside differences, as my good friend from Indiana has indicated, partisan differences, and realized that hate is really not the definition of America. And if I might refresh the memories of my colleagues, just a few weeks ago we stood on the floor to acknowledge July Fourth, the Independence Day for America, again a day of joy. But the points of accolades for this Nation really focused not only on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which gives us the freedom of association, due process so that your rights are protected, but we're reminded of the Declaration of Independence. And it indicated that we all are created equal, with certain inalienable rights of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's all that David sought in his young life, and I hope that as we move legislation forward, in the other body and here, on stomping out hate crimes, we will be reminded of this young life, not only David, but his mother and father, Albert and Laticia Galvin, who, if you met them, you would know how David was able to be so strong and so determined. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would be happy to yield.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Thank you for your kindness. Let me bring my remarks to a close by reading some of the words I read before. I will end with these words: ``It has been a blessing to know,'' and this was testimony in the House Judiciary Committee ``that the most terrible day of my life may help put another human face on the tragedy,'' and these are my words, of hate crimes and hatred. Let me thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his leadership. Let me thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), as well as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime Mr. Scott. All of them have been generous, as has the staff of the Judiciary Committee, in helping us pay tribute to David Ray Ritcheson. May he rest in peace. God bless his family, and God bless America for being the Nation that abhors hate and recognizes this beautiful young man.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 553, which puts the House of Representatives on record in mourning the passing of Lady Bird Johnson, the former First Lady of the United States. Claudia Alta ``Lady Bird'' Taylor Johnson was the wife of U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson. Throughout her life, she was an advocate for beautification of the nation's cities and highways and conservation of natural resources. The former First Lady was a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. Lady Bird Johnson studied journalism and art at St. Mary's Episcopal School for Girls, a junior college in Dallas. She graduated with honors from the University of Texas with a Bachelor's degree in Arts in 1933 and a degree in Journalism in 1934--a time when women were hard pressed to have a career of their own, let alone a college education. Her goal was to become a reporter but her media career was deferred when a friend in Austin introduced her to Lyndon Baines Johnson, a young up- and-coming political hopeful. On their first date, which was breakfast the next morning at the Driskill Hotel and a long drive in the country, Lyndon Johnson proposed. Lady Bird did not want to rush into marriage, but Lyndon Johnson was persistent and did not want to wait. The couple married on November 17, 1934, at Saint Mark's Episcopal Church in San Antonio, Texas. Three years later, when Lyndon decided to run for Congress from Texas' 10th district in the Hill Country, Lady Bird provided the money to launch his campaign. She took $10,000 of her inheritance from her mother's estate to help start his political career. They had two daughters, Lynda (born in 1944), whose husband Charles S. Robb went on to become governor of Virginia and a U.S. Senator, and Luci (born in 1947), who married, firstly, Pat Nugent and, secondly, Ian Turpin. As First Lady, Lady Bird Johnson started a capital beautification project (Society for a More Beautiful National Capital) to improve physical conditions in Washington, D.C., both for residents and tourists. Her efforts inspired similar programs throughout the country. She was also instrumental in promoting the Highway Beautification Act, which sought to beautify the nation's highway system by limiting billboards and by planting roadside areas. She was also an advocate of the Head Start program. Johnson's press secretary from 1963-1969 was Liz Carpenter, a fellow University of Texas alumna. Carpenter was the first professional newswoman to be press secretary to a First Lady, and she also served as Lady Bird's staff director. In 1970, A White House Diary, Lady Bird Johnson's intimate, behind- the-scenes account of Lyndon Johnson's presidency from November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969, was published. Beginning with the tragic assassination of John F. Kennedy, Mrs. Johnson recorded the momentous events of ber times, including the Great Society's War on Poverty, the national civil rights and social protest movements, her own activism on behalf of the environment, and the Vietnam War. Indeed, Lady Bird Johnson and her husband were champions of civil rights and were instrumental in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I know that her comforting words and her encouragement were part of the decision making of President Johnson as he made some critical decisions during some difficult times regarding the civil rights of individuals who had been discriminated against for most of the history of this country. Long out of print, the paperback edition of A White House Diary will be available again through the University of Texas Press in Fall 2007. She was acquainted with a long span of fellow First Ladies, from Eleanor Roosevelt to Laura Bush, and was protected by the United States Secret Service for forty-four years, longer than anyone else in history. Lady Bird Johnson was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Gerald Ford on January 10, 1977. The citation for her medal read: ``One of America's great First Ladies, she claimed her own place in the hearts and history of the American people. In councils of power or in homes of the poor, she made government human with her unique compassion and her grace, warmth and wisdom. Her leadership transformed the American landscape and preserved its natural beauty as a national treasure.'' Johnson then received the Congressional Gold Medal on May 8, 1984. In addition to the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center, her name has been lent to the Lady Bird Johnson Park on Columbia Island in Washington, D.C., which was founded as a result of her efforts as First Lady to beautify the capital. After former President Johnson died in 1973, Lady Bird Johnson remained in the public eye, honoring her husband and other Presidents. In the 1970s, she focused her attention on the Austin riverfront area through her involvement in the Town Lake Beautification Project. From 1971 to 1978, Johnson served on the board of regents for the University of Texas System. On December 22, 1982 (her 70th birthday), she and actress Helen Hayes founded the National Wildflower Research Center, a nonprofit organization devoted to preserving and reintroducing native plants in planned landscapes, located east of Austin, Texas. The Center opened a new facility southwest of Austin on La Crosse Avenue in 1994. It was officially renamed The Lady Bird Johnson Wildtlower Center in 1998. On June 20, 2006, The University of Texas at Austin announced plans to incorporate the 279 acre Wildflower Center into the University. For twenty years Lady Bird Johnson spent her summers on the island of Martha's Vineyard renting the home of Charles Guggeinheim for many of those years. She said she had greatly appreciated the island's natural beauty and flowers. On October 13, 2006, Lady Bird Johnson made a rare public appearance at the renovation announcement of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum. Sitting in a wheelchair and showing signs of recent health problems, Lady Bird seemed engaged and alert, and clapped along with those present at the ceremony. Mr. Speaker, in the last year the state of Texas has lost several of its greatest sons and daughters: Governor Ann Richards; Senator and Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen; columnist and progressive icon Molly Ivins; and now Lady Bird Johnson. The Lone Star State mourns the loss of our favorite daughter and it will be grieving for some time. But the memory of Lady Bird Johnson will never be forgotten so long as the flowers bloom in the capital city of our nation and along the highways and byways of the several states, especially her beloved Texas. I strongly support H. Res. 553 and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, allow me to rise and yield myself such time as I may consume to thank Mr. Latham for his sensitivity and leadership. Mr. Speaker, let me acknowledge that there are men and women as we speak on the front lines in the battle for their Nation. Many in Iraq and Afghanistan but many lose their lives elsewhere around the world in the Nation's uniform. This is an instructive and important legislative initiative, but can we imagine being lost in battle, a fallen soldier who's not able to provide for his or her family or his child? H. Con. Res. 175 and the backdrop of those who are now losing their lives in battle will help the children of these fallen soldiers by providing necessary guidance to the courts about how to treat the expressed desires of a deceased servicemember when it comes to the distribution of a death gratuity. Hopefully, the constituent of Mr. Latham and many others will find refuge and relief. It is certainly not the Nation's desire to leave them wanting and destitute. This particular bill provides comfort to those who need comfort and financial support for those who are suffering. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution so the wishes of the soldiers are given proper respect and consideration and a grateful Nation is truly grateful. Let me also thank the ranking member, Mr. Smith; the full committee chair, Mr. Conyers; Mr. Berman and Mr. Coble of which this particular amendment and legislation has come through. And we ask that the legislation be passed with great support in this body. I ask my colleagues to support it.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 139, ``Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United States should address the ongoing problem of untouchability in India.'' I believe that this is a very important issue that demands immediate attention, and I am very pleased to see it come before the House today. I would first like to commend our distinguished colleague, Mr. Trent Franks of Arizona, for introducing this important resolution. Many Americans would be shocked to learn that the caste system continues to have a substantial hold on Indian society. The caste system is the traditional system of social stratification on the Indian Subcontinent, in which social classes are defined by a number of endogamous, hereditary groups often termed as castes. Within a caste there exist exogamous groups known as gotras, the lineage or clan of a person. Roughly 20 million people in India are subject to cruel and inhuman treatment simply due to their caste. The terrible discrimination inflicted against the people known as Dalits and Tribals in India occurs solely because a person was born into a certain family. 13 Dalits are murdered every week; 3 Dalit women are raped every day, often with impunity; and a crime is committed against a Dalit every 18 minutes. The Indian Constitution has formally outlawed caste-based discrimination, but the caste system still plays a major role in Indian society and politics. The leaders of independent India decided that India will be a democratic, socialist and secular country. According to this policy there is a separation between religion and state. Enforcement of the law must be strengthened, and this resolution seeks to state clearly the sense of the United States Congress in this regard. I look forward to working with the vibrant Indian-American community on this continued concern. We must continue to raise this issue during our bilateral meetings with our good friends in the Government of India, especially during a time in which the United States-India relationship has entered into an unprecedented partnership. It is our moral obligation to speak out about abuses of human rights wherever they take place. That is why this Congress must address the problem of the treatment of Dalits and Tribals in India. I strongly support this resolution and urge my colleagues to do the same.