Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many of us have experienced hunger in our lives. I wonder how many recognize the number of Americans who go to bed every night hungry. It is for this reason that I rise to salute the Houston Food Bank on its 25th anniversary and to acknowledge the 25 years that the Houston Food Bank, connected to many food banks around America, has served our community, serving nearly 500,000 hungry men, women, children and their families. I would like to express my sincere appreciation and thanks to the staff, the board of directors, volunteers and friends of the Houston Food Bank that have generated this most important and especially deserving organization in our community. Hunger is devastating, but, more importantly, hunger can kill. It can kill, because those who suffer can have low nutrition that leads, if you will, to their vulnerability to disease and, yes, ultimately death. Most Americans are not familiar with the extremes of hunger. But, yet, it faces our community, or we are faced with it every single day. In southeast Texas alone, more than 900,000 people are food insecure, meaning they do not know where their food will come from or the next meal will come from. Many children go to school, and their only meal are the free lunches and breakfasts. So it is with great honor and privilege that I pay tribute to the Houston Food Bank and for the celebration that they had today on the steps of City Hall. I was delighted to be able to briefly attend, as I headed back to Washington, and I am even more privileged to be able to salute them tonight. Might I also acknowledge the End Hunger Network, whose programs remove the barriers, lack of transportation, marketing and experience, that prevent Houston from using available food resources. They are a very able partner to the Houston Food Bank. But let me acknowledge again that this organization that acknowledges the fact that nearly 900,000 individuals in southeast Texas are food insecure and this very organization that on a given day in the greater Houston area, where more than 33,000 people suffer from hunger, the Houston Food Bank feeds more than 80,000 people each week, because they are very much aware of the struggles that people who cannot feed themselves or provide for themselves engage in. This organization was first developed in the mid-1960s by retired businessman John van Engel, using surplus crops from local farmers. The Houston Food Bank first opened on March 8, 1982, operating from a donated storefront in a local shopping center. That organization now is on the 59 North freeway in the 18th Congressional District, which is my congressional district. During its first year alone, the organization was able to distribute 1 million pounds of food to hungry families in the Houston area. By 1984, the Houston Food Bank had joined the Second Harvest Network, an organization formed in the mid-1970s, to set up food banks throughout the country. This is part of a national commitment and a national passion, a national avocation. I believe that we should, in our lifetime, stamp out hunger. By the end of 1984, the Houston Food Bank was handling more than 3 million pounds of food. Since that time, the Houston Food Bank has continued to exponentially expand its operations, moving to a new permanent home and reaching more and more needy citizens, again located in the 18th Congressional District. My community has also been represented in the past by the Honorable Mickey Leland. The Houston Food Bank is a tribute to him. Mickey Leland lost his life on the side of an Ethiopian mountain trying to deliver food to the starving Ethiopians in the 1980s. Today around the world, people are hungry, and here in the United States they remain hungry. One in four children in Houston lives at or below the poverty level. On any given day, as I said earlier, 33,000 gulf coast residents are hungry. But we are grateful for the Houston Food Bank for its 38 million pounds of food distribution last year, the 80,000 people fed each week, nearly 400 hunger programs that are supported by the food bank in 18 southeast Texas counties, church food pantries, homeless shelters, safe havens for the battered and abused, nutrition sites for children and the elderly, more than 100,000 volunteer hours contributed annually, and 73,000 square foot central warehouse and other space truck fleet. We can be assured of the fact that the Houston Food Bank is on the front lines of the war against hunger. It is my privilege to pay tribute to them today for 25 years of selfless, hard work of the volunteers and the leadership of their organization. Might I acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, as I close that they also serve the Kids Cafe, the Backpack Buddy Club, Operation Frontline, Community Kitchen Culinary Academy, and today Kroger food store gave $100,000 to the Houston Food Bank. Keep the fight up for another 25 years for together we will stamp out hunger. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to the Houston Food Bank, on the occasion of their 25th anniversary. For the past 25 years, the Houston Food Bank has been serving our community, feeding nearly 500,000 hungry men, women, and children. I would like to express my sincere thanks to the staff, Board of Directors, volunteers, and friends of the Houston Food Bank for all their courageous work, and commend them for making a positive difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of people in the Houston area. Hunger is a devastating condition that plagues communities in America, as well as nations throughout the world. We have all experienced the symptoms of temporary hunger, and we know all too well the lethargy, weakness, and inability to concentrate that hunger pains can cause. Even with this knowledge, it is difficult to imagine living with these symptoms daily, always wondering where the next bit of nourishment will come from. It is unthinkable to fathom the plight of parents, forced to choose between feeding their children and paying to heat their homes. It is nearly impossible to envision the prospect of facing the world with a perpetually empty stomach. And yet, this is a scenario that is all too real for hundreds of thousands of Americans. In southeast Texas alone, more than 900,000 people are ``food insecure,'' or they do not know where their next meal will come from. Nationwide, the statistics are just as staggering, with one in 100 households experiencing hunger, and 11.9% of families nationwide suffering from food insecurity. Particularly vulnerable are children. In southeast Texas, 44% of those hungry are under 18 years old, while nationally one in every five children does not know where their next meal will be found. These children suffer particularly in the summer, when schools are closed. Mr. Speaker, our children should be concerned about their grades in school; they should spend their days studying, dreaming up and planning future careers, engaging in athletic activities, and socializing with their friends. They should not be expected to worry about food; they should not have to wonder where they might find proper nourishment. Into this bleak situation come organizations like the Houston Food Bank. Food banks were first developed in the mid-1960s by retired businessman John van Engel, using surplus crops from local farmers. The Houston Food Bank first opened on March 8, 1982, operating from a donated store-front in a local shopping center. During its first year alone, the organization was able to distribute 1,000,000 pounds of food to hungry families in the Houston area. By 1984, the Houston Food Bank had joined the Second Harvest Network, an organization formed in the mid-1970s to set up food banks throughout the country. By the end of 1984, the Houston Food Bank was handling more than 3,000,000 pounds of food. Since that time, the Houston Food Bank has continued to exponentially expand its operations, moving to a new permanent home and reaching more and more needy citizens. Today, the Houston Food Bank distributes 38 million pounds of food each year to nearly 400 hunger agencies in 18 counties in southeast Texas. This food reaches 80,000 different people each week, and about 498,000 people a year. These numbers are absolutely staggering. That's nearly 500,000 grateful men, women, and children, who, thanks to the tireless efforts of the staff, volunteers, and supporters of the Houston Food Bank are granted some security in their uncertain worlds. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly proud to mention the Houston Food Bank's programs for children. Of the 80,000 individuals that the food bank feeds each week, about 44% are children. Children who are hungry cannot concentrate in school; they will not have the energy to play sports or enjoy other activities with their peers. They are also more prone to illnesses and other health issues. With these unfortunate facts in mind, the Houston Food Bank has developed the Kid's Cafe program, one of the nation's largest nutrition education programs, providing children with the nourishment they may not get at home. Through the collaboration of local chefs, dietitians, students and volunteers, Kid's Cafe is able to provide 500 kids each month with nutritious meals in safe surroundings. The program goes on to emphasize food safety, nutrition education, and hands-on instruction, helping to instill in these children the skills and knowledge they need to create healthy lifestyles. The Houston Food Bank also touches the lives of needy children through the Backpack Buddy Club. Because many hungry children receive meager or no meals on weekends, the Houston Food Bank has implemented a program to give children backpacks, filled with food that is child- friendly, nonperishable, easily consumed and vitamin fortified, every Friday in participating schools. This program ensures that local children can receive proper nutrition even on days that they are not in the classroom. In addition to these two programs, the Houston Food Bank operates a number of other initiatives designed to provide nutrition education, outreach, and job training to the local community. These programs are crucial to the development of positive nutrition habits, and they speak to the very real long-term needs of the community. The Houston Food Bank has also proven its leadership in disaster relief, successfully accommodating the sharp increases in demand following the catastrophic Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Since September 2005, volunteers traveling from as far away as Hawaii have distributed nearly 9 million pounds of food in disaster relief. The Houston Food Bank successfully provided relief to hurricane evacuees displaced from their homes, their belongings, and their livelihoods. Organizations like the Houston Food Bank have been a crucial aspect of ensuring that hurricane victims have felt welcome and well-treated in Houston. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Brian Greene, the President and CEO of the Houston Food Bank, together with the Board of Directors, the staff, the many dedicated volunteers, and all other supporters of the Houston Food Bank. These individuals are making a profound impact in their local community, and they are changing the worlds of thousands of hungry children. I thank you for your service to our community and your compassion to your fellow humans, and I wish you every success in future endeavors.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I will take my time now to applaud and thank both the chairman of the full committee Mr. Conyers, and the ranking member of the full committee, my colleague from Texas, Mr. Smith, and our former colleague Mr. Van Hollen for having a partnership between H.R. 2317 and H.R. 2316. I think the first point I'd like to make is that as I have spent a lot of time in this first session, first couple of months, with a lot of visitors who have come to this Capitol, I've watched them look in awe, visit with their Member of Congress, and appreciate this most powerful law-making body that cherishes democracy and values integrity. I know that visitors have a great sense of respect for their individual Members of Congress. I want you to know that that respect is well deserved. Your Member is hard-working. They cherish not only the democratic values of this Nation, but they pride themselves in promoting integrity and promoting your interests over their interests. But sometimes we need a little cleanup. It does not mean that the whole body has disregarded the question of integrity and the question of ensuring your interests be put forth. But we have had some bumps in the road. So we have projected two legislative initiatives that will separate out the interests at work of lobbyists. That is part of the Democratic process, but it will also provide an opportunity for voices to be heard, the right of the protections of the first amendment. As it relates to the concept of bundling, which sounds like a very interesting and difficult word, that is the course of putting a number of financial contributions together. We will have a system that will work, that everyone who is here to put forward the interests of the American people, will, in fact, know that that is the first priority. But we have a system that does not promote public finance. I would like to see us have a complete system of public financing. That means the taxpayers will contribute toward the presidential candidates, and they would not be able to opt out Federal congressional candidates, Senate and House. That will be a system dominated by the people. But we don't have that system. So we have good-thinking people who want to contribute, and we have good people, good-thinking people who would receive. Let us not taint all of them. But I rise to support these two initiatives, because they provide the open-door transparency that we need. I want to thank Chairman Conyers, first of all, for accepting my amendment that clearly stated that those advocacy groups that wanted to be heard, the right of the protections of the First Amendment. Nothing in this bill denies any first amendment protection for expression or association. I know the leadership of Chairman Conyers on the issue of civil liberties, in complete, but I wanted to reaffirm this fact so that we know for sure, any Member coming to the floor to vote for this, they know their university or they know their place of faith, or they know the Boy Scouts or the Girl Scouts, or they know their various civil rights organizations will still have the opportunity to convey their voice with the assurance of first amendment protection. I also want to thank Mr. Van Hollen for working with me to include language that I hope all Members will appreciate, and that is, as I stated earlier, that Members come here with the greatest sense of integrity and respect for their duty to the American people. So we provided a provision that instructs lobbyists to give notice to the Member of the list of items that they are going to file. That Member cannot, if you will, stop the list from being filed, but the Member will have the opportunity, the Member of Congress, to be able to read the list and make sure that it is accurate as it is being filed. We will not stop the time from ticking, if you will, for the filing process, but we will make the system work better and provide for the participation by all of the impacted parties. The congressional Member will be allowed to receive the notice of this filing and have the opportunity to correct it, to make sure it is consistent with his or her files. These are difficult times, because we all realize our ultimate responsibility is to the American people. We must put them over self. But my amendment in this bill, I believe, will help the open-door transparency proceed, family and I ask my colleagues to support it. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2317, the ``Lobbying Transparency Act of 2007.'' I rise in support of legislation that will help bring about the most open government and the most honest leadership in the history of the Congress. Most of the credit for this achievement goes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen, for his tenacity in shepherding this legislation through the gamut that is the House legislative process. In particular, Madam Speaker, I wish to commend Mr. Van Hollen and the Rules Committee for agreeing to incorporate my friendly amendment to H.R. 2316. Let me describe the bill and explain why I believe the incorporation of the Jackson-Lee amendment improves the bill to the point where it warrants the support of the members of this body. H.R. 2316 requires registered lobbyists to provide quarterly reports to the House clerk and secretary of the Senate regarding the ``bundled'' contributions totaling more than $5,000 in a quarter that they provide to a covered recipient. ``Bundled contributions'' are contributions that are received by a registered lobbyist and forwarded to a covered recipient, or contributions that are otherwise credited or attributed to a lobbyist through records, designations or other means of tracking, such as placing the lobbyist's name on a check's memo line or using another symbol. The bill's definition of ``covered recipients'' applies to federal candidates, federal officeholders, leadership political action committees or political party committees. The required reports would disclose the name of the lobbyist, the name of his or her employer, and the name of the covered recipient to whom the contributions were given, as well as the amount of the contributions made or a good-faith estimate thereof. The report would be due within 45 days of the end of the quarterly period. These reports would not include certain information that is included in other required disclosure reports. Within 25 days of the end of a quarterly reporting period, the registered lobbyist is to send a notification by certified mail to a covered recipient outlining the information that will be included in the lobbyists' report, and the source of each contribution. For all its good intentions, for many members these provisions are problematic. There is a legitimate concern that the information the lobbyist might report to the Clerk or Secretary of the Senate may be inaccurate or incomplete which may later be disclosed to the public causing untold problems or embarrassment to the covered recipient. The amendment that I offered, and which has been incorporated into the bill, assuages that concern. The Jackson-Lee amendment requires that the statement which a covered registered lobbyist must provide to the recipient also shall include a notification that the recipient has the right to respond to the statement to challenge and correct any information included before the registered lobbyist files the report with the Clerk of the House or Secretary of the Senate. The inclusion of this provision will reduce the likelihood that the recipient will be unduly prejudiced by the disclosure of inaccurate information by giving the recipient notice and opportunity to identify, and the lobbyist the opportunity to correct, inaccurate information regarding bundled contributions. In sum, H.R. 2317 now will help ensure that the salutary objectives of the legislation are achieved without reaping the unintended consequence of prejudicing a recipient--whether he or she be an office holder or candidate for federal office--by the disclosure of inaccurate or incomplete information. Madam Speaker, all of us favor open government. All of us favor honest leadership. And all of us are in favor of transparency of process. But we also believe in fundamental fairness. And that includes fairness to those who seek to exercise their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and of association, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances. That is why I offered, and the Judiciary Committee, approved my amendment during markup that provides a rule of construction that nothing in H.R. 2316 is intended or is to be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech, free exercise, or free association clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution. The Jackson-Lee amendment incorporated in H.R. 2317 is intended to ensure fair treatment to elected office holders and candidates for federal office. Again, let me thank Mr. Van Hollen for his fine work in crafting this legislation. Let me also thank the members of the Rules Committee incorporating my amendment into H.R. 2317. I urge all members to support this legislation. It will be another step in the right direction toward fulfilling our promise to the American people to drain the swamp and return open government, honest leadership, and transparency to the legislative process. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2316, the ``Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.'' With the adoption of this legislation, we begin to make good on our pledge to ``drain the swamp'' and end the ``culture of corruption'' that pervaded the 109th Congress. It is critically important that we adopt the reforms contained in H.R. 2316 because Americans are paying for the cost of corruption in Washington with skyrocketing prices at the pump, spiraling drug costs, and the waste, fraud and no-bid contracts in the Gulf Coast and Iraq for administration cronies. The cozy relationship between Congress and special interests we saw during the 109th resulted in serious lobbying scandals, such as those involving Republican super lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In this scandal, a former congressman pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit fraud-- accepting all-expense-paid trips to play golf in Scotland and accepting meals, sports and concert tickets, while providing legislative favors for Abramoff's clients. But that is not all. Under the previous Republican leadership of the House, lobbyists were permitted to write legislation, 15-minute votes were held open for hours, and entirely new legislation was sneaked into signed conference reports in the dead of night. The American people registered their disgust at this sordid way of running the Congress last November and voted for reform. Democrats picked up 30 seats held by Republicans and exit polls indicated that 74 percent of voters cited corruption as an extremely important or a very important issue in their choice at the polls. Ending the culture of corruption and delivering ethics reform is one of the top priorities of the new majority of House Democrats. That is why as our first responsibility in fulfilling the mandate given the new majority by the voters, Democrats are offering an aggressive ethics reform package. We seek to end the excesses we witnessed under the Republican leadership and to restore the public's trust in the Congress of the United States. Madam Speaker, federal lobbying is a multi-billion dollar industry, and spending to influence members of Congress and executive branch officials has increased greatly in the last decade. While the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA) is one of the main laws to promote transparency and accountability in the federal lobbying industry and represents the most comprehensive overhaul of the laws regulating lobbying practices in 50 years prior to 1995, it falls far short of a complete solution, as even recognized by its staunchest supporters, during congressional hearings on the issue. The need for further reform was highlighted by a major study of the federal lobbying industry published in April 2006 by the Center for Public Integrity, which found that since 1998, lobbyists have spent nearly $13 billion to influence members of Congress and other federal officials on legislation and regulations. The same study found that in 2003 alone, lobbyists spent $2.4 billion, with expenditures for 2004 estimated to grow to at least $3 billion. This is roughly twice as much as the already vast amount that was spent on federal political campaigns in the same time period. The LDA contains a number of measures to help prevent inappropriate influence in the lobbying arena and promote sunshine on lobbying activities. However, according to the Center's study, compliance with these requirements has been less than exemplary. For example, the report found: during the last 6 years, 49 out of the top 50 lobbying firms have failed to file one or more of the required forms; nearly 14,000 documents that should have been filed are missing; almost 300 individuals, companies, or associates have lobbied without ng registered; more than 2,000 initial registrations were filed after the legal deadline; and in more than 2,000 instances, lobbyists never filed the required termination documents at all. Under the LDA, the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House must notify in writing any lobbyist or lobbying firm of noncompliance with registration and reporting requirements, and they must also notify the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia of the noncompliance if the lobbyist or lobbying firm fails to respond within 60 days of its notification. It appears that until very recently, however, these cases of noncompliance were not being referred to the Department of Justice for enforcement. It is also clear that the infractions that are actually being investigated by the Secretary or the Clerk do not coincide with the extent of noncompliance, and it is entirely unknown whether enforcement actions are being effectively pursued by the Department of Justice. Clearly, further reform is needed. Madam Speaker, I commend Chairman Conyers and the members of the Judiciary Committee for their excellent work in preparing this lobbying reform package. The reforms contained in the package are tough but not nearly too tough for persons elected to represent the interests of the 600,000 constituents in their congressional districts. Indeed, similar bipartisan lobbying and government reform proposals were debated and passed by the House and Senate in 2006 but the Congress failed to reconcile the two versions. Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 2316 because it closes the ``Revolving Door,'' requires full public disclosure of lobbying activities, provides tougher enforcement of lobbying restrictions, and requires increased disclosure. H.R. 2316 closes the ``Revolving Door'' by retaining the current 1- year ban on lobbying by former members and senior staff and requires them to notify the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct within 3 days of engaging in any negotiations or reaching any agreements regarding future employment or salary. The members' notification will be publicly disclosed. The bill also requires members and senior staff to recuse themselves during negotiations regarding future employment from any matter in which there is a conflict of interest or an appearance of a conflict. Madam Speaker, this legislation also ends the ``K Street Project,'' made notorious during the 12 years of Republican control of Congress. Members and senior staff are prohibited from influencing employment decisions or practices of private entities for partisan political gain. Violators of this provision will be fined or imprisoned for a term of up to 15 years. Second, H.R. 2316 requires full public disclosure of lobbying activities by strengthening lobbying disclosure requirements. It does this by mandating quarterly, rather than semiannual, disclosure of lobbying reports. It covers more lobbyists by reducing the contribution thresholds from $5,000 to $2,500 in income from lobbying activities and from $20,000 to $10,000 in total lobbying expenses. It also reduces the contribution threshold of any organization other than client that contributes to lobbying activities to $5,000 ($10,000 under current law). Third, the legislation increases disclosure of lobbyists' contributions to lawmakers and entities controlled by lawmakers, including contributions to members' charities, to pay the cost of events or entities honoring members, contributions intended to pay the cost of a meeting or a retreat, and contributions disclosed under FECA relating to reports by conduits. Fourth, the bill requires the House Clerk to provide public Internet access to lobbying reports within 48 hours of electronic filing and requires that the lobbyist/employing firm provide a certification or disclosure report attesting that it did not violate House/Senate gift ban rules. And it makes it a violation of the LDA for a lobbyist to provide a gift or travel to a member/officer or employee of Congress with knowledge that the gift or travel is in violation of House/Senate rules. Transparency is increased by the requirements in the bill that lobbyists disclose past Executive and Congressional employment and that lobbying reports be filed electronically and maintained in a searchable, downloadable database. For good reason, the bill also requires disclosure of lobbying activities by certain coalitions but expressly exempts 501(c) and 527 organizations. Finally, Madam Speaker, H.R. 2316 increases civil penalties for violation of the Lobby Disclosure Act from $50,000 to $100,000 and adds a criminal penalty of up to 5 years for knowing and corrupt failure to comply. Finally, the bill requires members to prohibit their staff from having any official contact with the member's spouse who is a registered lobbyist or is employed or retained by such an individual and establishes a public database of member Travel and Personal Financial Disclosure Forms. Madam Speaker, it is wholly fitting and proper that at the beginning of this new 110th Congress, the Members of this House, along with all of the American people, paid fitting tribute to the late President Gerald R. ``Jerry'' Ford, a former leader in this House, who did so much to heal our Nation in the aftermath of Watergate. Upon assuming the presidency, President Ford assured the Nation: ``My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.'' By his words and deeds, President Ford helped turn the country back on the right track. He will be forever remembered for his integrity, good character, and commitment to the national interest. This House today faces a similar challenge. To restore public confidence in this institution we must commit ourselves to being the most honest, most ethical, most responsive, most transparent Congress in history. We can end the nightmare of the last 6 years by putting the needs of the American people before those of the lobbyists and special interests. To do that, we can start by adopting H.R. 2316.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I'm very proud that the actions on the House floor today reflect the attitude of a caring Nation, and so I'm very proud that we have had the opportunity now to pass out of this House for the President's signature an increase in the minimum wage; relief for small businesses; a fix for the Walter Reed debacle, and the health care for the many families and soldiers, soldiers that are returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan; and the crisis in the gulf region has been responded to by hopefully providing dollars for education and a construction of homes. As we enter upon this weekend to memorialize the dead, I could not continue a disastrous war, and so I proudly stand as a caring American to have voted against the continuation of this war. But I say to those who are fallen and to their families, we mourn you, we respect you, and we admire your service. Together we will continue to press forward so that this war, this misdirected mission, will end. But to our soldiers that we will honor, as we return home to our districts, we say to their families, they were victorious, they were successful, they were honorable, they are patriots, they are loved by America. May I salute you, and God bless the United States of America.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support S. 214, which is the Senate version of H.R. 580, which the Judiciary Committee favorably reported on March 15, 2007. This much needed and timely legislation amends chapter 35 of title 28 of the United States Code to restore the 120-day limit on the term of a United States Attorney appointed on an interim basis by the Attorney General. The shocking revelations regarding the unprecedented firings of several United States Attorneys provide all the justification needed to adopt this salutary measure promptly and by an overwhelming margin. United States Attorneys are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Each United States Attorney so appointed is authorized to serve a 4-year term but is subject to removal by the President without cause. The Senate's advise and consent process formally checks the power of the President by requiring the United States Attorney nominee to go through a confirmation process. In addition, Senators also play a particularly influential informal role in the nomination of United States Attorneys. Typically, a President, prior to appointing a new United States Attorney, consults with the Senators from the State where the vacancy exists if they are members of the President's political party. The President usually accepts the nominee recommended by the Senator or other official. This tradition, called ``Senatorial courtesy,'' serves as an informal check on the President's appointment power. Since the Civil War, the judiciary has been empowered to fill vacancies in the office of the United States Attorney. In 1966, that authority was codified at 28 U.S.C. Sec. 546. When a United States Attorney position became vacant, the district court in the district where the vacancy occurred named a temporary replacement to serve until the vacancy was filled. In 1986, in response to a request by the Attorney General that its office be vested with authority to appoint interim United States Attorneys, Congress amended the statute to add former section 546(d). Pursuant to this authority, the Attorney General was authorized to appoint an interim United States Attorney for 120 days and, if the Senate did not confirm a new United States Attorney within such period, the district court was then authorized to appoint an interim United States Attorney to serve until a permanent replacement was confirmed. By having the district court play a role in the selection of an interim United States Attorney, former section 546(d) allowed the judicial branch to act as a check on executive power. In practice, if a vacancy was expected, the Attorney General would solicit the opinion of the chief judge of the relevant district regarding possible temporary appointments. Twenty years later, section 546 was amended again in the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005. This legislation amended section 546(c) to provide that ``[a] person appointed as United States attorney under this section may serve until the qualification of a United States Attorney for such district appointed by the President'' under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 541. The extent of the legislative history of this provision is one sentence appearing in the conference report accompanying the Act: ``Section 502 [effecting the amendments to section 546] is a new section and addresses an inconsistency in the appointment process of United States Attorneys.'' Although the legislative purpose is unclear, the practical effect is not. The Act amended section 546 in two critical respects. First, it effectively removed district court judges from the interim appointment process and vested the Attorney General with the sole power to appoint interim United States Attorneys. Second, the Act eliminated the 120-day limit on the term of an interim United States Attorney appointed by the Attorney General. As a result, judicial input in the interim appointment process was eliminated. Even more problematic, it created a possible loophole that permit United States Attorneys appointed on an interim basis to serve indefinitely without ever being subjected to Senate confirmation process, which is plainly a result not contemplated by the Framers. Mr. Speaker, excluding changes in administration, it is rare for a United States Attorney to not complete his or her 4-year term of appointment. According to the Congressional Research Service, only 54 United States Attorneys between 1981 and 2006 did not complete their 4- year terms. Of these, 30 obtained other public sector positions or sought elective office, 15 entered or returned to private practice, and one died. Of the remaining eight United States Attorneys, two were apparently dismissed by the President, and three apparently resigned after news reports indicated they had engaged in questionable personal actions. Mr. Speaker, in the past few months disturbing stories appeared in the news media reporting that several United States Attorneys had been asked to resign by the Justice Department. It has now been confirmed that at least seven United States Attorneys were asked to resign on December 7, 2006. An eighth United States Attorney was subsequently asked to resign. And we learned on May 10, the day the Attorney General testified before the House Judiciary Committee, we learned that a ninth United States Attorney had been asked to resign as part of the purge. The names of the fired United States Attorneys are as follows: H.E. (``Bud'') Cummins, III, U.S. Attorney (E.D. Ark.); John McKay, U.S. Attorney (W.D. Wash.); David Iglesias, U.S. Attorney (D. N.M.); Paul K. Charlton, U.S. Attorney (D. Ariz.); Carol Lam, U.S. Attorney (S.D. Calif.); Daniel Bogden, U.S. Attorney (D. Nev.); Kevin Ryan, U.S. Attorney (N.D. Calif.); Margaret Chiara, U.S. Attorney (W.D. Mich.); and Todd P. Graves, U.S. Attorney (W.D. Mo.). Mr. Speaker, on March 6, 2007, the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held a hearing entitled, ``Restoring Checks and Balances in the Confirmation Process of United States Attorneys.'' Witnesses at the hearing included six of the eight former United States Attorneys and William Moschella, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, among other witnesses. Six of the eight former United States Attorneys testified at the hearing and each testified that he or she was not told in advance why he or she was being asked to resign. Upon further inquiry, however, Messrs. Charlton and Bogden were advised by the then Acting Assistant Attorney General William Mercer that they were terminated essentially to make way for other Republicans to enhance their credential and pad their resumes. In addition, Messrs. Iglesias and McKay testified about inappropriate inquiries they received from Members of Congress concerning pending investigation, which they surmised may have led to their forced resignations. Mr. Speaker, the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization provision on interim United States Attorneys should be repealed for two reasons. First, Members of Congress did not get an opportunity to vet or debate the provision that is current law. Rather, the Republican leadership of the 109th Congress slipped the provision into the Conference Report at the request of the Department of Justice. Not even Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, whose chief of staff was responsible for inserting the provision, knew about its existence. Second, it is now clear that the manifest intention of the provision was to allow interim appointees to serve indefinitely and to circumvent Senate confirmation. We know now, for example, that in a September 13, 2006 e-mail to former White House Counsel, Harriet Miers, Attorney General Chief of Staff, Kyle Sampson wrote: I strongly recommend that, as a matter of Administration policy, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the Attorney General to make U.S. Attorney appointments. Mr. Sampson further said that by using the new provision, DOJ could ``give far less deference to home-State Senators and thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it far faster and more efficiently, at less political cost to the White House.'' Regarding the interim appointment of Tim Griffin at the request of Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, Mr. Sampson wrote to Monica Goodling, Senior Counsel to the White House and Liaison to the White House on December 19, 2006 the following: I think we should gum this to death: ask the Senators to give Tim a chance, meet with him, give him some time in office to see how he performs, etc. If they ultimately say, `no never' (and the longer we can forestall that, the better), then we can tell them we'll look for other candidates, and otherwise run out the clock. All of this should be done in `good faith,' of course. Finally, we now know that after gaining this increased authority to appoint interim United States Attorneys indefinitely, the administration has exploited the provision to fire United States Attorneys for political reasons. A mass purge of this sort is unprecedented in recent history. The Department of Justice and the White House coordinated this purge. According to an administration ``hit list'' released in March of this year, United States Attorneys were targets for the purge based on their rankings. The ranking relied in large part on whether the United States Attorneys ``exhibit[ed] loyalty to the President and Attorney General.'' Mr. Speaker, until exposed by this unfortunate episode, United States Attorneys were expected to, and in fact did exercise, wide discretion in the use of resources to further the priorities of their districts. Largely a result of its origins as a distinct prosecutorial branch of the Federal Government, the office of the United States Attorney traditionally operated with an unusual level of independence from the Justice Department in a broad range of daily activities. That practice served the Nation well for more than 200 years. The practice that has been in place for less than 2 years has served the Nation poorly. It needs to end. That is why I vote to report H.R. 580 favorably to the House. That is why I will vote for S. 214. I urge all Members to do likewise.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 1615, the ``Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2007.'' While the goal of this legislation--to keep our air passengers safe and to effect better ``homeland security''--I must point out that initially I was very concerned that this penal legislation was not tailored narrowly enough to exclude only the evil sought to be prohibited. That is why I offered an amendment during markup of this bill. My amendment was designed to limit the scope of the bill so that it fulfills its intended purposes, which is to protect aircraft crew, and through them passengers, by prohibiting the aiming of the beam of a laser pointer at an aircraft, or the flight path of such an aircraft. My amendment clarified that the significant penal provisions in the bill are directed at conduct that is harmful to the aircraft or crew. Specifically, my amendment adds an important and useful qualification to the bill's definition of a ``laser pointer'' to mean: 1. Any device designed or used to amplify electromagnetic radiation by stimulated emission that emits a beam designed to be used by the operator as a pointer or highlighter to indicate, mark, or identify a specific position, place, item, or object; and 2. Is capable of inflicting serious bodily injury if aimed at an airplane cockpit from a minimum distance of 500 yards. But after consulting with the bill's managers, I am satisfied that it is not necessary to require that the offending laser pointer be capable of inflicting ``serious bodily harm'' from a minimum distance of 500 yards. I am persuaded that the language used in the bill implies a standard of at least ``significant risk'' to airplane pilots, crew, and passengers. I agree, for example, that using a laser pointing device capable of temporarily blinding or causing a pilot to become disoriented is clearly a ``significant risk.'' My major concern with the definition of laser pointers was that it did not distinguish between the kind you can buy at a dollar store that runs on a couple of AAA batteries and has a range of about 25 feet and a high powered laser scope that has a range 100 times as far. But based on my discussions with the bill's managers, Mr. Scott and Mr. Keller, I am satisfied that the legislation anticipates that investigative and prosecutorial resources will not be used to prosecute and punish the use of laser pointers that do not pose any safety risk to airplane pilots, their crew, or airline passengers. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I have determined that I can and will support the bill and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as a proud original co-sponsor of the legislation before us, I speak in strong support of H.R. 1525, the ``Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act of 2007.'' H.R. 1525 amends the federal computer fraud and abuse statute to make it unlawful to access a computer without authorization or to intentionally exceed authorized access by causing a computer program or code to be copied onto the computer and using that program or code to transmit or obtain personal information (for example, first and last names, addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, Social Security numbers, drivers license numbers, or bank or credit account numbers). Further, H.R. 1525 discourages the practice of phishing, another scourge of the Internet. ``Phishing'' is a general term for using what appears to be either the Web sites of, or e-mails that appear to be sent from, readily identifiable and legitimate businesses. These fraudulent Web sites and e-mails are designed to deceive Internet users into revealing personal information that can then be used to defraud those same users. The `phishers' take that information and use it for criminal purposes, like identity theft and fraud. Phishing is adequately covered by the criminal code, but additional funds are needed to prosecute the crime. This bill would authorize 10 million dollars for each of the fiscal years 2008 to 2011 to combat phishing and spyware. Mr. Speaker, as we all know too well, spyware is quickly becoming one of the biggest threats to consumers on the information superhighway. Spyware encompasses several potential risks, including the promotion of identity theft by harvesting personal information from consumer's computers. Additionally, it can adversely affect businesses, as they are forced to sustain costs to block and remove spyware from employees' computers, in addition to the potential impact on productivity. Spyware has been defined as ``software that aids in gathering information about a person or organization without their knowledge and which may send such information to another entity with the consumer's consent, or asserts control over a computer with the consumer's knowledge.'' Among other things, criminals can use spyware to track every keystroke an individual makes, including credit card and social security numbers. Some estimates suggest 25 percent of all personal computers contain some kind of spyware while other estimates show that spyware afflicts as many as 80-90 percent of all personal computers. Businesses are reporting several negative effects of spyware. Microsoft says evidence shows that spyware is ``at least partially responsible for approximately one-half of all application crashes'' reported to them, resulting in millions of dollars of unnecessary support calls. The last point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is that H.R. 1525 is substantially similar to the bipartisan H.R. 744, introduced in the 109th Congress, which passed the House by a vote of 395-1 and H.R. 4661, which passed the House during the 108th Congress by a vote of 415-0. H.R. 1525 is supported by numerous industry groups and privacy coalitions, including the Business Software Alliance, the Software & Information Industry Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Center for Democracy and Technology. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1525 and urge all my colleagues to do likewise. General Leave

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 171, honoring Marquis de Lafayette on the occasion of the 250th anniversary of his birth. Marquis de Lafayette certainly holds a special place in the history of our country. It was his support for the ideals of our Revolutionary warriors that helped give birth to the greatest nation in the world. In fact, due to his support for the revolution, and the aid he provided to the colonist in their struggle for independence, Marquis de Lafayette was voted by Congress the rank and commission of major general in the Continental Army. Lafayette offered his services as an unpaid volunteer. On July 31, 1777 Congress passed a resolution, ``that his services be accepted, and that, in consideration of his zeal, illustrious family, and connections, he have the rank and commission of major-general of the United States.'' He was a man that was admired by our first President George Washington and that affection was mutual. In fact Marquis de Lafayette even named his son after our first President, and Washington was the godfather to Lafayette's child. This is a gentleman that is so revered in American history that in 2002, he was posthumously made an honorary citizen of the United States; one of only six persons so honored. Likewise, a portrait of Lafayette hangs in the House Chamber. Marquis de Lafayette, held a strong belief in freedom, he advocated the abolition of slavery in the Americas, he favored equal legal rights for religious minorities in France, and he was a prominent figure in the French Revolution. Now some will cite the fact that Lafayette himself owned slaves as a sign of hypocrisy, but he encouraged George Washington to free his own slaves as an example to others. Lafayette would subsequently purchase an estate in French Guinea and settle his slaves there and offered a place for Washington's slaves to live also. Lafayette was famously quoted as saying, ``I would never have drawn my sword in the cause of America if I could have conceived thereby that I was founding a land of slavery.'' The fact that Lafayette was the first foreign dignitary to address the House of Representatives symbolizes the wonderful relationsbip between France and the United States. In light of the recent elections' in France, I hope that our leaders in Congress, the Senate, and the White House will maintain our strong ties with the newly elected leader of France, Nicolas Sarkozy. France is a nation that the United States has shared the same values with since its inception. Lafayette symbolized the assistance America received from Europe in the struggle for independence, just like United States aid to France during World Wars I and II stemmed in part from shared values of democracy and freedom, values that Lafayette held. I am confident that the administration of President Sarkozy will work earnestly with our leaders and continue in the great tradition of not only a French hero, but a true American hero, Marquis de Lafayette.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 400, which expresses the sympathy of the House of Representatives to the citizens of Greensburg, KS, over the devastating tornado of May 4, 2007. Just over 2 weeks ago, a devastating weekend of storms left at least 9 people dead and much of the farm town of Greensburg, KS, destroyed. Mile-wide tornadoes with winds of up to 205 miles per hour were recorded, leveling the town and destroying much of the equipment used by first-responders, including city and county trucks. By the time the winds finally settled, approximately 95 percent had been destroyed, displacing over 1,500 residents from their homes. The tragedy of this storm was compounded by the lack of available responders and equipment. Governor Kathleen Sebelius has lamented the deployment of much needed troops and resources to Iraq, stating ``When the troops get deployed, the equipment goes with them. So here in Kansas about 50 percent of our trucks are gone. We need trucks. We are missing Humvees, we're missing all kinds of equipment that could help us respond in this kind of emergency.'' This storm illustrated precisely how rescue and recovery efforts here at home are being severely hampered by our ongoing involvement in Iraq. National Guard representatives have echoed this statement, with MG. Tod Bunting of the Kansas National Guard noting that first-responders lacked resources even before the war, which has subsequently ``further depleted us.'' Despite these shortages, Guard troops are to be commended for their efforts at providing much needed security and supplies. Here in Congress, as hurricane season rapidly approaches, we are actively examining our Nation's response to natural disasters. Two years ago we learned, from Hurricane Katrina, the extent to which we were unprepared for, and unable to adequately respond to, a disaster of this magnitude. I urge this Congress to continue to pursue this important issue; the tornadoes in Kansas serve to remind us all that nature's furies are varied and unpredictable. Mr. Speaker, Greensburg, KS, remains in shambles. Homes are demolished, livelihoods lost, lives interrupted. I would like to join my colleague, Mr. Moran of Kansas, the sponsor of this bill, in expressing my deep personal sympathy to the victims of this natural disaster. Similarly, I would like to express my strong support for this resolution, and I would urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank Chairman Conyers for doing something and looking at this from a perspective that is thoughtful, that is embracing and that recognizes the largeness of this issue. Might I just recount for my colleagues that this is a bipartisan bill. Many people have come to the floor of the House or in the Judiciary Committee, some are on Science, some are on Energy and Commerce, but all of them have faced what I face, being stopped in the airport by airport workers, individuals who are hourly wages, and they simply say, we can't take it anymore. As I got on the plane, their last word was, can you do something about the gasoline prices? Today in America, gasoline prices are over $3.20 a gallon--enough is enough! As we enter into the summer, we are being told that it's going to get worse, higher and higher and higher. The distinguished Speaker said the gentlewoman from Texas. I represent what is known as the energy capital of the world, and what I would encourage the particular companies that I have the privilege of representing, and I have in essence probably voted differently from many in this House in supporting the Energy Policy Act and a number of initiatives that were supposed to help us diversify or help enhance the capacity of our particular companies. They were supposed to help build refinery capacity, which I will tell you is an issue. I was supposed to applaud offshore development in certain areas if it was environmentally safe. We've tried to do everything in order to ensure that we have a strong industry, but that we provide for those who are in need. This legislation simply gives the Attorney General the authority to find out about an organization. Many of us have friends that happen to be from these particular nations. We are supportive of the engagement of these particular nations in the Mideast. We work with them. We've traveled there. We encourage engagement on the State Department level. We want to be friends, but there has to be a question of whether or not OPEC provides itself insulated against antitrust violations such that they can gouge or raise prices without any recrimination. This is a thoughtful legislative initiative that gives the Attorney General of the United States the ability to review whether or not this entity violates the antitrust laws. You must understand that when the oil comes to the United States, even though we may be operators in those foreign countries, some of the named companies that you know, some of the ones that you pull up to the station, the OPEC sets the prices, and therefore, they look at the marketplace to determine how much money they can get out of a suffering Nation or suffering world. As you well know, one of our trade deficit partners, China, is consuming more oil than one might imagine. That bumps the price up. And who is the victim? The hardworking citizens in this country, whether they live in Houston, Detroit or New York, or whether they are simply trying to get little ones to soccer teams, to after-school programs or to their religious institution. Nobody can get anywhere because of the price. So I simply, as I draw to a close, want to be able to cite from the report language of this bill: ``With control of 40 percent of the world's production, OPEC has substantial influences over the price of oil. OPEC member nations have extensive oil reserves and therefore can readily increase supply and lower prices.'' That means the OPEC can act for the greater good if they desire to do so. I think that's simple enough to understand. They can increase supply, they can lower prices, but they're not doing it. So I would ask my colleagues from all parts of the country to be sympathetic to vacationers, people trying to get to hospitals, mothers and fathers taking children to various places, elderly trying to get to the places of worship, where they go. Just the sheer operation of America is dependent on what we do here today. I can't go home, and I imagine none of you can, without saying we tried to do something. I close simply by an oral letter to my constituents. You might think that you can ride this out, those of you who are the named and successful operators of our energy industry in the United States. We encourage you, you are American, you have jobs, you are the engine of the economy. We're not your enemy. We are your supporters, but we have to work for the consumers. Come out in the open. Encourage a roundtable of discussion. Let the CEOs of the major companies sit in a roundtable discussion and discuss with the American people why we have this increasing and burdensome cost of gasoline. Look closely at the legislation that is before us and recognize that it is a valuable piece of legislation that gives authority just for the thoughtful review of how we can do better. I ask my colleagues to support this particular legislation, H.R. 2264, that, in fact, is an answer to this constant question, what are we going to do about gasoline prices? As Members of the United States Congress, it is imperative that we act. We have to do more. This is a thoughtful piece of legislation that frames the question whether or not a sovereign nation is protected against antitrust violations that impact negatively on the consumer in the United States of America. We have to do this, and we have to do more. I thank the gentleman from Detroit, from Michigan, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for yielding to this grounded representative of the energy industry in Houston, Texas, who wants to work collectively to get something done for the people of the United States.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 402, which puts this House on record in strong support of the goals and ideals of National Hurricane Preparedness Week. As we near the 2-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, one of the most devastating natural disasters that our country has ever known, we still have a great deal of work to do to secure our Nation from further weather catastrophes. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which encourages increased public awareness about how to prepare for a hurricane. Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Katrina was one of the worst storms in American history, its magnitude rivaled only by the catastrophic failure of the Federal government to adequately respond to the resulting suffering in a manner befitting our great Nation. This year's hurricane season officially begins on June 1, and scientific predictions do not bode well. Forecasters anticipate a ``very active'' year for storms along the Atlantic coastline, with researchers at Colorado State University anticipating 17 named storms, including 9 hurricanes. According to these predictions, there is a 74 percent chance that at least one major hurricane will strike the U.S. coastline. This time we have fair warning. We know how devastating a hurricane can be, and we know we are likely to see another storm of the magnitude of Hurricane Katrina. We know that our disaster prevention, preparedness, and relief mechanisms and agencies are woefully inadequate. We can no longer use ignorance as an excuse, and we cannot allow ourselves to be caught unprepared once again. This legislation recognizes the extreme destructive power of hurricanes; their potential to destroy homes and livelihoods as well as essential infrastructure. We may not be able to predict exactly how, when, or where a hurricane will make landfall, but we do know what areas of the country are particularly vulnerable to hurricanes. We know what basic steps, such as developing a written family disaster plan or establishing evacuation routes, residents of these areas can and should take to prepare themselves. And most of all, we know that hurricanes will continue to pose a threat in the years to come, a threat which we cannot ignore. In recognition of this knowledge, this bill acknowledges this week, May 20-26, as National Hurricane Preparedness Week. It encourages the staff of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, especially at the National Weather Service and the National Hurricane Center, and other appropriate Federal agencies, to continue to educate people in the United States about hurricane preparedness. Additionally, this legislation urges the people of the United States to recognize such a week as an opportunity to learn more about the work of the National Hurricane Center in forecasting hurricanes and in educating citizens about the potential risks associated with hurricanes. Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Katrina was responsible for $81.2 billion in damage, as well as for the deaths of 1,836 persons. We have a responsibility to provide the American people with a disaster preparedness system that works. We must ensure that, should another storm of Katrina's magnitude make landfall on America's coastline, we will not have to witness the atrocious suffering that we saw in the summer of 2005. I strongly support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as many of us have been doing over the past couple of years and months, I paid tribute to a fallen soldier in my district this past weekend. Private First Class Jones was young and vibrant and loved by his family. Those who loved him had to bury him, for he is another of those now fallen from the violence in Iraq. We pay tribute to him for his great service and his love of country. It is time now for America to love her own even more. It is time for our soldiers to come home. As we prepare for the honoring of those fallen in many wars, it becomes more than a disservice to those brave men and women for the President not to join this Congress in the resolution of this misdirected mission, in order to ensure that our troops come home with accolades and recognition because their mission has been successful. The political mission is a failure, and it's time now for us to vote on a supplemental that has benchmarks and, as well, timelines to redeploy our troops, whether to Kuwait or otherwise. Our troops must come home. I pay tribute to the fallen. I pay tribute to Private First Class Jones.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2272, the 21st Century Competitiveness Act of 2007. Innovation has been a priority of the new Democratic majority in the 110th Congress; we have worked to ensure that the United States continues to be the global leader in technological innovation and progress. I strongly support this legislation, which encourages our Nation to invest in research and development, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well. According to a 2005 report by The National Academies, the United States is in danger of losing the competitive edge it currently enjoys in the global economy. Despite our proud tradition of innovation, this report warns that immediate action is necessary to ensure that the United States continues to be a leader in technological progress into the 21st century. This Congress is fully committed to answering that challenge. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2272 contains many important provisions to strengthen America's prospects for global competitiveness. It improves and strengthens a number of scholarship programs at all levels of study, encouraging students and young people to pursue further education in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and computing. Additionally, the bill establishes programs to provide support for researchers in science and engineering fields. H.R. 2272 also reaffirms our commitment to scientific excellence by reauthorizing the National Science Foundation, NSF, for 3 years. The NSF ensures a continued national supply of scientific and engineering personnel, while promoting basic research and education across a wide array of scientific and technological disciplines. By authorizing continued funding for this institution, H.R. 2272 is an important step towards ensuring continued American scientific progress. In the interest of both economic prosperity and military capability, the United States must continue producing a workforce knowledgeable to maintain technological competitiveness. If we are to do this, this Congress must continue funding and strengthening needed investments in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education and research. Supporting this bill is an important step, and I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 53, to recognize the life of Lamar Hunt and his outstanding contributions to the Kansas City Chiefs, the National Football League, and the United States. The National Football League and the American sports community lost a true treasure on December 13, 2006 when Chiefs Founder Lamar Hunt passed away in Dallas, Texas at the age of 74. Lamar Hunt was an independent thinker, a trailblazer who refused to be denied his dream. Recognized as one of the greatest sportsmen in American history, Hunt served as the guiding force behind the formation of both the American Football League and the Kansas City Chiefs franchise. Hunt served as a positive influence on the game for 47 years dating back to his conception of the American Football League in 1959. He was the first AFL figure to be enshrined into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1972, a remarkable feat considering he became involved in the game just 13 years earlier. Hunt served as the catalyst who brought together the ``Foolish Club'' comprised of the 8 original AFL owners. His ``impossible dream'' became a reality when his fledgling league took foot on the field for the 1960 season. On June 8, 1966, the AFL-NFL merger was announced by NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle and on January 15, 1967, Hunt's Kansas City Chiefs were participating in the inaugural Super Bowl. Lamar Hunt's Kansas City Chiefs returned to the Super Bowl in 1970 and defeated the Minnesota Vikings by a score of 23-7 in Super Bowl IV. Despite his many accomplishments, Hunt's humility was one of his most unwavering and most endearing traits. While he modestly declined to take credit for his efforts, Hunt truly played an important role in the design, ongoing development and direction of the modern-day National Football League. Lamar Hunt was also a risk taker. He signed a great number of African-American players onto the Kansas City Chiefs football team at a time when few other football teams took that chance. So, Lamar Hunt rose above the crowd and nestled on top of the football and sports apex where few others sat. Whether it was employing more African-Americans, serving as the driving force behind the formation of the AFL, serving as a key player in the AFL-NFL merger talks in the '60s, or overseeing many crucial issues concerning pro football and the Chiefs franchise during the past 4 decades, few individuals helped change the face of America's favorite game for the better than this quiet Texan. In addition to being a principal negotiator in the merger of the AFL and NFL in the late '60s, he was a contributor to the design of the NFL playoff format. He is also credited with accidentally putting the name ``Super Bowl'' on the NFL's championship game--the name coming from his children's toy ``Super Ball.'' As the founder of the AFL, he helped pave the way for much of the modern growth of pro football. Possibly the greatest tribute to his contributions to the sport was the naming by the league of the Lamar Hunt Trophy, which is presented annually to the champion of the American Football Conference. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing the enormous contributions Lamar Hunt has made the sports world and beyond.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I move to strike the requisite number of words. I want, first of all, to start with a loud applause for the Financial Services Committee. As I said in my office, to see this story unfold, something that has never happened in this Congress during the tenure that I have had, is a real legislative initiative that addresses the question of the deficit in housing in America. This bill, for the first time, will provide a stable and well- regulated mortgage market. And my good friend from Texas, the spirit that he has offered this amendment, I assume that he is both serious, and, of course, concerned. But coming from Texas as well, I don't know how many Texans my good friend speaks for because this particular Affordable Housing Fund does start off the first year in funding the devastation of Louisiana and Mississippi, but what it continues to do is provide a $500, $600 million affordable Housing Trust Fund that the people of Texas will benefit from. Maybe my good friend has not been to East Texas and seen the devastation of Hurricane Rita. Those people, just a few miles down from Houston, are still living without housing. This is a very measured legislative initiative, for the fund prohibits any hanky-panky. It has nothing to do with administrative costs, political activities, advocacy, lobbying, counseling, travel expense, preparation or advice on tax returns. It is all about housing. It even limits administrative costs. And it is sunsetted after 5 years. We in Houston are still suffering from Storm Allison, and an affordable housing plan will allow housing to be restored to those who are unable to find housing. In fact, what this particular legislation will do is to answer the question why 71 percent of extremely low income renters pay more than half of their income for housing and 64 percent of homeowners who are low income pay more than half. There is a housing crisis. Right now there is an epidemic of foreclosures because of a broken mortgage system that has preyed upon eager Americans to be able to buy a home. The capping of this strategic and innovative formula for affordable housing will only dumb-down the opportunities for people to gain housing. I can assure you that the throngs of Americans are begging for the passage of this legislation tonight, because all an American wants to do when you hear them talk about we all are created equal with certain inalienable rights, it is all about the quality of life, the ability to send a child to school for a good education, a good home and good healthcare. My friend talks about money, $520 million, it may go up a bit, for one year. We are spending $1 billion a day almost in Iraq and certainly we have a difference of opinion on that use of money. But the real question is, what can we do to fix the broken predatory lending system, the broken mortgage system, the lack of housing for people who want housing? We can pass H.R. 1427. It is interesting that I am looking at a letter to our colleagues, and it says signed by Barney Frank, Mel Watt, Richard Baker and Gary Miller. To me, that seems like a bipartisan commitment to this reform. So I am confused by the gentleman's amendment to cap and to dumb down this affordable housing trust fund that would in fact provide money for Texas. Those of us in Houston in districts like mine and districts that are surrounding all know of the many hard-working survivors who are in our community trying to make it from Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. We have ceased calling anyone a deadbeat or someone who doesn't want to work or doesn't want housing. I would venture to say if you walked along any block, inner-city block, you would find people saying give me an opportunity. Chairman Frank, all I see in this bill is an opportunity; a regulated, precise opportunity for affordable housing, and I ask my colleagues to defeat the Neugebauer amendment and vote for H.R. 1427.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me take the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to acknowledge the crisis that many of us see occurring with the brave men and women that return from fighting in Iraq and fighting in Afghanistan. We have just finished a very thoughtful and collaborative effort to address the serious questions of our military and the Department of Defense, and the good news is that this bill has impacted or emphasized more on the needs of families. I look forward to working with this body to develop more post- traumatic stress centers in underserved areas where military personnel will be returning to their homes. We already know the dastardly conditions that our military face in Iraq and Afghanistan, the long hours and tediousness of the DMZ and many other places around the world. Our military personnel are suffering, and I look forward to working with this committee, the Veterans Affairs Committee, to ensure that centers like the Riverside Medical Center in Houston, Texas, can be a site for post-traumatic stress for our soldiers returning home so that their physical needs and their mental needs can be serviced. I look forward to this. I believe we can do better by our soldiers as we move forward on helping them improve their mental health.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished speaker, chairman, and gentlelady from California. I rise to offer and to support the en bloc amendments, and to speak particularly to amendment No. 23 which regards the emotional and financial impact of multiple deployments. This amendment is simple. It requires the Secretary of Defense to study and report back to Congress the financial and emotional impact of multiple deployments on the families of those soldiers who serve multiple tours. We all are concerned about our soldiers and, likewise, their families. In a report by Dr. Hoge, a study indicated that 94 percent of soldiers in Iraq reported receiving small arms fire, 86 percent of soldiers in Iraq reported knowing someone who has been seriously injured or killed, and 68 percent reported seeing dead or seriously injured Americans; 51 percent reported handling or uncovering human remains; and the majority, 77 percent of soldiers deployed to Iraq, reported shooting or directing fire at the enemy. All of this impacts their families, and we found anxiety, fatigue, stress, and other aspects that impact the wives and children as well. The National Military Families have indicated a series of recommendations for the Department of Defense. I believe this study will help the entire entity of the military make us stronger and certainly respond to the needs of our military and their families. My amendment No. 24 recognizes that in 1948 the military was desegregated; integration had increased the percentage of African Americans in the enlisted ranks. We see high numbers of Hispanics and Asians and others. This amendment simply acknowledges the existence of the ROTC scholarship and asks that there be an outreach to ensure that this information be given to Hispanic-serving institutions and African American-serving institutions, historically black colleges. The importance of this amendment is to ensure the outreach and the opportunities for our young people who are placed around the Nation. Patriotism is certainly not guided by region or colleges to which you go. I ask my colleagues to support these amendments, one to take a holistic view of the redeployment and the impact on our families, and, two, to outreach to our young people no matter where they attend college and where they live for the established ROTC and other military scholarships. I thank the chairman and ranking member for allowing me to explain my amendments to H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. There is no greater champion of our men and women in uniform than my good friend Mr. Skelton, the gentleman from Missouri, and distinguished chair of the Armed Services Committee. That is why I appreciate the chairman's support for my amendments. Mr. Chairman, in light of the fact that our Nation is in the midst of an ugly war, and in the context of the ongoing fight against terrorism, this piece of legislation is probably the most important piece of legislation that the 110th Congress will pass. It is in that spirit that I offer my amendments today. Each of my amendments plays a vital role in ensuring that our courageous troops maintain their status as the best in the world. Accordingly my amendments also reinforce the message to our troops that they are our most precious resource, and we do not take their efforts for granted. Amendment No. 24--Scholarships for HBCU students This amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to take the necessary steps to ensure that Army National Guard and Reserve ROTC scholarships are available to students attending historically black colleges and universities, and Hispanic serving institutions. The military is the American institution that has done more than any other to recognize that it does not have a person to waste. It is therefore no surprise that the Armed Forces of the United States, which were completely segregated 60 years ago and riven by racial strife 30 years ago during the Vietnam war, is today the finest fighting force in the history of the world and enjoys more racial peace, harmony, and integration than any other major institution, including higher education and organized religion. After being desegregated in 1948, by the 1970s, integration had increased the percentage of African-Americans in the enlisted ranks, but the percentage of minorities comprised less than 3 percent of the officer corps and perceptions of discrimination were pervasive. The deficiency in the officer corps and the discrimination perceived to be its cause led to low morale and heightened racial tension. The danger this created was not theoretical. As the Vietnam war continued, the Armed Forces suffered racial polarization, severe disciplinary problems, and racially motivated incidents in Vietnam and on posts around the world. In Vietnam, racial tensions reached a point where there was an inability to fight and the lack of minority officers substantially exacerbated the problem. The absence of minority officers seriously threatened the military's ability to function effectively and fulfill its mission to defend the Nation. To eliminate that threat, the armed services moved aggressively to increase the number of minority officers and to train officers in diverse educational environments. The Pentagon set recruitment goals for the service academies and the ROTC programs and worked hard to expand the pool of highly qualified minority candidates in a variety of explicitly race-conscious ways. They also employ race as a factor in recruiting and admissions policies and decisions. These efforts have substantially increased the percentage of minority officers. Today, among active duty officers, 81 percent are white, and the remaining 19 percent are minority, including 8.8 percent African- American, 4 percent Hispanic, 3.2 percent Asian-American, and .6 percent Native American. The military recognizes that its officer corps must continue to be diverse or the cohesiveness essential to the military mission will be critically undermined. After all, for people who fight wars to preserve the peace, it can be a matter of life and death. Presently the military, unlike any other industry including corporate America and the entertainment industry, offers a realistic opportunity for young people of color and women to make career advancements. In an industry that truly judges you on merit and not the color of your skin, the military is a leader in the practice of diversity. This amendment ensures that people of color and women continue their great legacy in the greatest military in the world. Amendment No. 23--Emotional and Financial Impact of Multiple Deployments This amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to study and report back to Congress the financial and emotional impact of multiple deployments on the families of those soldiers who serve multiple tours overseas. Words cannot explain the pain and the sense of pride that some families feel when they say good-bye to a loved one. Behind those brave smiles, hugs, and kisses is an undying and unnerving uncertainty about what can happen to a spouse, child, father, or mother. Depending on the extent of that soldier's injury, a family can suffer serious economic consequences as a result, not to mention the emotional impact of seeing a loved one in that state. Even under the best of circumstances, where a soldier serves multiple terms and returns with no major injuries, valuable time is lost between a parent and child and between spouses that can never be returned. The mental health of our soldiers will have a lasting effect on not only these soldiers but their families as well. The current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are the most continuous combat operations since Vietnam. Only one comprehensive study has examined the mental health impact of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that was performed by Charles W. Hoge, MD. This study looked at the experience of soldiers in the war zone and symptoms of psychological distress. Soldiers in Iraq are at risk for being killed or wounded themselves, are likely to have witnessed the suffering of others, and may have participated in killing or wounding others as part of combat operations. All of these activities have a demonstrated association with the development of PTSD. Dr. Hoge's study indicated that 94 percent of soldiers in Iraq reported receiving small-arms fire. In addition, 86 percent of soldiers in Iraq reported knowing someone who was seriously injured or killed, 68 percent reported seeing dead or seriously injured Americans, and 51 percent reported handling or uncovering human remains. The majority, 77 percent, of soldiers deployed to Iraq reported shooting or directing fire at the enemy, 48 percent reported being responsible for the death of an enemy combatant, and 28 percent reported being responsible for the death of a noncombatant. Despite the extensive training and resilience that our soldiers are known for they are still human, and these traumatic events will have an impact on their lives. As my colleague from Arizona, Gabrielle Giffords, mentioned this morning, one in five soldiers is suffering from depression, anxiety or stress. Likewise 20 percent face marital problems including divorce or legal separation from their spouse. Military families need greater psychological, emotional, and organizational assistance according to the results of a new survey released March 28 of this year by the National Military Family Association, NMFA. The study, ``Cycles of Deployment Report,'' which focused on the needs of military families, shows service members and military families are experiencing increased levels of anxiety, fatigue, and stress. In response, NMFA outlined recommendations for meeting these challenges amid multiple and extended deployments, increased rates at which service members are called upon for service, and the heavy reliance on National Guard and Reserve forces. This report clearly shows the range of support programs for families has expanded since the start of the war on terror. However, multiple deployments and a high operations tempo mean different types of support are needed for families' continued success before, during, and after deployment. The survey results provide the Department of Defense a detailed roadmap for making sure families are taken care of during this important time. Let me share with you some of the key findings from this study about the impact of deployment includes. Almost half of respondents reported they have used or would use counseling services such as anger management classes and family counseling. Three quarters of those who stated they were better able to deal with subsequent deployments found counseling services to be helpful. Two-thirds of military families surveyed did not have contact with their unit or unit network volunteer during the critical pre-deployment stage. Less than one-half reported a consistent level of family support through the pre-deployment, deployment, and post-deployment phases. Seventeen percent reported no support was available. Many respondents are concerned that volunteers who help families adjust to life during deployment and what to expect after the reunion are becoming fatigued and subject to ``burn-out.'' They stated that the leaders of unit family groups should be paid or have paid professional support personnel assigned. Military family members with civilian jobs face pressure to avoid taking time off before, during, or after deployment. Sixty percent of military spouses are employed outside the home and many have either quit their jobs or are considering it. Military families are worried about how the reunion will go with their deployed family member even as they are worrying about their service member's safety in the field. Unfortunately, many families are not taking advantage of specific return and reunion briefings and activities. Many respondents expressed that when entering a second or third deployment, they carry unresolved anxieties and expectations from the last deployments. While they may have gained knowledge of resources available to them, respondents whose service member deployed multiple times reported being more fatigued and increasingly concerned about their family relationships. Although challenged by the demands of deployment, families noted they are proud of their service member and their service to our country. They understand that family support is primarily their personal responsibility, but they expect ``The Military'' to provide support as well.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) for yielding and thank you for the leadership given. We join you and we thank Congresswoman Barbara Lee as well. We have been working, Congressman Payne, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and this entire caucus have been working on this issue, and want to thank you for, I think, what is a holistic, bipartisan approach. I would call it an undiscovered airfield, but it is not. Obviously, it is an airfield that represents a strategic location for the goals of your amendment. I think it's important to note that the slaughter still continues in Darfur; the slaughter still continues in Sudan. And I was told just recently, and I appreciate the Save Darfur Coalition that we have all worked with that repeatedly come to your offices and tell you that the slaughter still goes on, that humanitarian workers have also been put in jeopardy. Women who are trying to get firewood, and isn't it a simple task? And many of us don't understand, they are still getting firewood, and that is, women who are leaving villages, even in Chad, where I have gone to the refugee camps, women will leave those refugee camps to get, if you will, the firewood for their income, for their survival, and will be raped and sometimes beaten as they go to do that. To have a place for the humanitarian workers and the airlift that is necessary, both in Darfur and also in other regions of Sudan, can be lifesaving. I hope, as the ranking member of the full committee indicated his interest of collaboration, that we too can collaborate and work with you and work with this final solution. I like to call it final, because, as you well know, the deaths are peaking. I want to say to the ranking member, Mr. Hunter, as I also thank the chairman of the full committee, because this is a unique amendment. Both of you, of course, had to agree on the uniqueness of this amendment. But the idea of it is that humanitarian workers are not safe. Therefore, it is important for those humanitarian workers to be safe. I simply say this is an excellent amendment. I thank you, and I encourage everyone to support and vote for this amendment in order to save lives in the Sudan.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 692, which authorizes Governors of the several States to order the National Flag to be flown at half-staff in the event of the death of a member of the Armed Forces. Section 2(a) would add ``or the death of a member of the Armed Forces from any State, territory, or possession who dies while serving on active duty'' to the list of persons under 4 D.S.C. Sec. 7(m) for whom the Flag should be flown at half-staff for a period of ten days from the date of death. Under section 2(b), the bill authorizes the Governor of a State, territory, or possession to issue a proclamation under section 7(m), as amended by the Act, ordering the Flag to be flown at half-staff in honor of a member of Armed Forces who dies while on active duty. Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to support a bill that honors the service of our fallen members of the Armed Forces who die while serving on active duty. These brave men and women have given great contributions and have made incredible personal sacrifices so that all of us in this country might live in a safe and secure Nation and world. In my State of Texas, 287 service members have already given the last full measure of devotion in Operation Iraqi Freedom. I think everyone of these fallen heroes deserve recognition for their supreme sacrifice. Flying the Federal Flag at half staff to honor the service of fallen members of the Armed Forces is only a small step towards repaying the insurmountable debt that all of us owe to all veterans. For, what is the price of freedom? As President Kennedy once said, ``The price of freedom is high, but Americans have always paid it.'' And no one has paid a higher price than the brave men and women through the years who gave the last full measure of devotion to their country. Whether it is the ultimate sacrifice of life or the loss of limb or the loss of time with family and friends, we owe our veterans and in this case, those who have died during their service, an enormous outstanding debt of gratitude. From Bunker Hill to Yorktown, from Washington, DC to the Battle of New Orleans, from Bull Run to Gettysburg and Antietam to Appomattox, brave Americans gave their lives so that the Nation might live. And from Alsace Lorain to Verdun, and Normandy to Berlin and Pearl Harbor to Okinawa, from Inchon and Correigidor to Vietnam, Lebanon, Grenada, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Americans have nobly sacrificed their lives so that the world may live in freedom. The debt of gratitude we owe to all of the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen who answered their Nation's call and made the supreme sacrifice can never be repaid. But we can give these fallen service men and women the recognition and honor they deserve by flying the National Flag at half-staff. Madam Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in honoring our fallen heroes by supporting H.R. 692.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 916, the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for their effort and time in holding this very important markup hearing. Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 916 because it amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to direct the Attorney General to assume the obligation to repay student loans for borrowers who agree to remain employed, for at least three years, as: (1) State or local criminal prosecutors; or (2) State, local, or Federal public defenders in criminal cases. H.R. 916 also will allow a borrower and the Attorney General to enter into an additional loan repayment agreement, after the required three-year period, for a successive period of service which may be less than three years. The bill also limits the amount paid under such program on behalf of any borrower to $10,000 per calendar year and $60,000 total. Madam Speaker, this bipartisan legislation will benefit our criminal justice system and our communities by creating a student loan repayment program for law school graduates who agree to serve for at least 3 years as criminal prosecutors or public defenders. Madam Speaker, over recent years we have witnessed the difficulty prosecutor and public defender offices across the country have had attracting and retaining qualified attorneys. We have also seen that our communities suffer when the criminal justice system fails to obtain and retain a sufficient supply of experienced prosecutors and defenders. Under those trying circumstances, the resulting effect is that criminal caseloads become unmanageable, cases can be delayed or mishandled, serious crimes may go unprosecuted, and innocent defendants may be sent to jail. H.R. 916 will improve the administration of the criminal justice system to recruit and retain talented attorneys and help that system function more effectively. Although I support H.R. 916, it needs to go a step further in ensuring that bright lawyers will lend their services to civil public service legal careers that include legal aid to this country's most disadvantaged and vulnerable populations. That is why during the markup of H.R. 916 I strongly supported the Nadler Amendment, which included civil legal aid attorneys in the category of lawyers eligible for loan forgiveness. Indeed, the Nadler Amendment is comparable to more extensive legislation that I plan to introduce. Including civil legal aid attorneys in the group who may qualify for loan forgiveness when committing to work in public service will help to recruit and retain legal aid lawyers so that low-income Americans receive the legal assistance they need. Specifically, the Amendment would provide a loan repayment program for new law graduates who work for legal aid. Providing loan relief for legal aid attorneys is crucial. Legal Aid attorneys protect the safety, security, and health of low-income citizens nationwide. Support for such programs not only provides relief for prospective legal aid attorneys but also for the most vulnerable members of our population. Such programs are available for Federal prosecutors and other Federal employees. But, for the legal aid attorneys--who have the lowest incomes--there currently is not enough access to loan repayment programs. We must ensure that legal aid attorneys receive the financial incentives they need to commit to a career in legal aid. Without such incentive as loan relief, the legal aid field will continue to fall far short of the mark to meet the needs and demands of requests for legal assistance. Despite the importance of the services legal aid lawyers provide, almost half of the eligible people seeking assistance from Legal Aid are being turned away because of a lack of resources. As law school tuition has skyrocketed, so has a young lawyer's debt. A recent survey found that with median law school debt at $70,000 with an additional $16,000 in undergraduate debt, over 65 percent of new law school graduates were prevented from even considering a public service career. Given the financial realities, individuals who take positions with legal aid often leave after two or three years. One Midwestern program cited a turnover rate of 60 percent over a two year period, with an average tenure for new attorneys of 17 months. Many of these young attorneys leave at a time when they have just develop necessary experience, creating a revolving door of inexperienced lawyers. This turnover dramatically decreases the efficiency of the program and the vital services it provides. Such a bill would allow young lawyers to choose a career in public service without having to bear the heavy burden of law school debt on their own. Madam Speaker, whether legal aid attorneys, prosecutors or public defenders, public service attorneys must be given some comparable incentive to choose a career in public service instead of a career in the higher-paying private sector arena. One of the primary reasons for the recruiting difficulty of the administration of the criminal justice system is that huge amounts of student debt have pulled students in the opposite direction of public service careers such as those of prosecutors and defenders. Why? We all know that no one is going to get rich going into service careers such as teachers, social workers, and prosecutors and public defenders especially when they are starting out with enormous student loan obligations. That is why we must give those who wish to serve in public service careers incentive such as loan forgiveness so that they will not forgo service careers simply because they are buried in mounds of student loans. H.R. 916, which authorizes $25 million in appropriations for FY08, establishes a program of student loan repayment for borrowers who agree to remain employed, for at least 3 years, as State or local criminal prosecutors or as State, local or Federal public defenders in criminal cases (note that Federal prosecutors are already eligible for loan relief through existing Federal programs). The 3 year period is comparable to other loan forgiveness programs. Other important aspects of the bill include: allowing eligible attorneys to receive student loan debt repayments of up to $10,000 per year, with a maximum aggregate over time of $60,000; covering student loans made, insured or guaranteed under the Higher Education Act of 1965, including consolidation loans; providing that repayments benefits be made available to eligible attorneys on a first-come, first served basis, subject to the availability of appropriations; and permitting attorneys to enter into additional loan repayment agreements, after the required 3-year period, for additional periods of service. The bill also sets safeguards to ensure loan forgiveness participants satisfy their commitments by requiring attorneys to repay the Government if they do not complete their required period of service. Madam Speaker, this bill has bipartisan support as well as wide support in the legal community. H.R. 916 is supported by the American Bar Association, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Association of Prosecutor Coordinators, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Madam Speaker, I strongly support this bill and urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as a proud co-sponsor I rise in strong support of H.R. 1700, the COPS Improvement Act of 2007, introduced by my colleague Mr. Weiner. This act would amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, expanding the ability of the Attorney General to make grants for the COPS ON THE BEAT program. This important program provides for public safety and community policing activities, and it very simply puts more cops on the streets. This legislation would bring much needed relief to our brave and overworked law enforcement officers, who are on the front line of the war against crime. At a minimum, the passage of this legislation would bring 374 additional police officers to reinforce the streets of the 18th congressional district of Texas, which I proudly represent. These 374 cops would be supported by a much needed funding increase of $17,346,456, as well as an additional $2,753,784 in technology grants to law enforcement agencies in my district. The 18th congressional district is only one of hundreds of communities across the nation that will enjoy greater security, safety, and stability as a result of this important legislation. During the 1990s, the crime rates for all categories of crime in the United States fell dramatically and almost continuously, with homicide rates plunging 43 percent to reach their lowest level in 35 years in 2001. Unfortunately, after this sustained drop across all geographic areas and population groups, crime rates have once again begun to rise. In particular, 2005 marked the greatest increase in violent crime in 14 years. This increase in crime, not coincidentally, corresponds with cuts to the funding of the COPS program by the GOP-led Congress. This is not acceptable. As part of the New Direction for America ushered in by this Democratic Congress, we are committed to ensuring that Americans can enjoy real security within our Nation's borders. We are committed to guaranteeing that our country's communities, like my own 18th district, have police forces that are adequately staffed, equipped, and funded. We are committed to reinvigorating programs, like COPS, that have proven highly successful in the past. Mr. Speaker, an increase in crime mandates an increase in the number of police. Since 1995, the COPS office has awarded over $11.4 billion to over 13,000 state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. These funds allow agencies to hire and train law enforcement officers to participate in community policing, to purchase and deploy new crime-fighting technologies, and to develop and test new and innovative policing strategies. Despite the demonstrated success of the COPS program in reducing crime rates, the current administration has targeted its funding. This would jeopardize the marked headway this program has made into creating and maintaining safe communities nationwide. H.R. 1700 provides an opportunity to reverse this harmful process, and, as a result, enjoys the support of numerous law enforcement organizations, including Fraternal Order of Police, National Association of Police Organizations and the National Sheriffs' Association. This bill allows us to build upon a program that has already proven successful by expanding the mission and increasing the prospects for grants under the COPS program. It allows us to both protect America's communities from increasing violent crime, and to provide adequate resources for those whom we entrust with guarding our safety. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation because I believe the work of our State, local, and tribal law enforcement officials to be crucial to the security of our communities and our Nation. I believe that the program's record is clear, and the evidence shows that more cops equals less crime. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in support this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me express my deep concern for the three soldiers who are now missing in Iraq and applaud their brothers-in-arms for never giving up on their search, for we as Americans will never leave our comrades, our brothers and sisters, in battle or never leave them on the battlefield. That is why this Congress, with the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, believes that we can craft a resolution and a solution, and that is that we begin to redeploy our troops and focus on the Iraqi Government, to have them stand up and to have them ensure the safety of the Iraqi people and also Americans to ensure the safety of their soldiers. Our soldiers have been successful on the battlefield. They can claim victory. It is time now for the President, the White House, the leadership to get together and to be able to solve these untenable problems. Why are we allowing our young people to be on the battlefield without the support, the full support, of a reasoned White House? Let us work together.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 1157, and, in doing so, to honor my mother and all the women in my life. With Mother's Day approaching on Sunday, May 13, I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation, the Breast Cancer Environmental Research Act as a tribute to each of our mothers. This bill would invest in the research still necessary to determine the potential links between breast cancer and the environment, so that we can cure it and eventually eradicate this terrible disease. Currently, despite the efforts of numerous researchers, less than 30 percent of breast cancers are explained by known risk factors. Though studies have explored the effect of isolated environmental factors, including diet, pesticides, and electromagnetic fields, there is little conclusive evidence or consensus in the scientific community on how the environment impacts breast cancer. Scientists have also proposed a number of other potential factors which have yet to be formally studied. Though many experts accept that the environment plays some role in the development of breast cancer, the extent of that role has not been determined. More research is needed to determine the precise impact of the environment on this disease. This bill authorizes a research program at the National Institutes of Health to do just this. Madam Speaker, I am extremely proud to stand as one of well over 150 cosponsors of this bipartisan legislation. Because we don't know what causes breast cancer, or how to prevent it, as our Nation's leaders we have a duty to the American public to support legislation that will aid in the fight to understand and combat this devastating disease. I thank all of my colleagues who have already signed on to this bill, and I urge those who have not to, in honor of Mother's Day, join me in addressing this vital women's health concern.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I thank the sponsor of this legislation. Human resources and human intelligence are a key element to the security of this Nation. Air America employees represent the human resources aspect. This is a thoughtful amendment that suggests that we should study the question of whether or not these individuals in the service of their country should be given these kinds of benefits. From the perspective of the Department of Homeland Security and Homeland Security Committee, human intelligence is important. And I want to thank the Chairperson of the full committee for this very important bill that focuses on funding intelligence and also funding human intelligence. Might I also say in closing, as I support the gentlelady's amendment, I think it would also be important that we look closely at professionals as they leave the CIA, and question whether or not tell- all books are in the best interest of this Nation, whether language such as ``slam dunk'' should be investigated. And I hope, as we pursue the idea of oversight, that we'll look into the utilization of such information in tell-all books that provide such prosperity for people who've been in the service of this country. I hope we will investigate that. But when we have good employees like those of Air America, we should support them.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2007. H.R. 2082 authorizes the largest amount for intelligence ever considered in a single bill, which just goes to show you how important intelligence has become to our national security and how serious the new Democratic majority is about protecting the homeland and defending the nation. H.R. 2082 promotes responsible budgeting and oversight by shifting resources from the supplemental to the base budget--allowing officers in the field to plan their operations properly, particularly in the counterterrorism arena, and allowing Congress to review funding requests. The bill makes key investments to strengthen intelligence by adding funds to both CIA and military elements for Human Intelligence (HUMINT) training. We increase our investments in language training for collectors and analysts and in language translation capabilities. We also add funding for sending additional analysts overseas. The bill also strengthens counterintelligence field operations. Madam Chairman, H.R. 2082 promotes efficiency and effectiveness of intelligence programs by streamlining acquisition, trimming the fat from ineffective programs, eliminating redundant activities, requiring greater strategic focus in some key areas. Madam Chairman, this bill does not, as some claim, make deep cuts in any intelligence programs. In one area, related to supplemental funding for Iraq, the bill reflects bipartisan concerns about excessive spending on programs that lack a strategy or metrics for evaluating its effectiveness. These funds are shifted to enhance coverage of other global challenges, such as Iran, Russia, East Africa, and Asia. The bill promotes accountability by requiring quarterly intelligence updates to Congress on nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea. And it requires the CIA Inspector General to conduct an audit of each covert action program not less than once every three years. Finally, Madam, Chairman, H.R. 2082 requires reports to Congress on the use of contractors in the Intelligence Community. It requires a strategy for implementing a multi-level security clearance system--to allow patriotic Americans to serve as translators or linguists in the intelligence community. I think it important also that H.R. 2082 promotes diversity in the intelligence community by requiring a strategic plan for implementing the recommendations of a key diversity panel. Last, the H.R. 2082 follows the recommendations of several former military commanders in requesting that the National Intelligence Council produce a National Intelligence Estimate on national security impact of global climate change. Madam Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 2082 and the rule.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as a proud member of the Progressive and the Out of Iraq Caucuses, I rise to announce that I will proudly cast my vote in favor of H.R. 2206, the ``U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Act.'' By vetoing the bipartisan Iraq Accountability Act last week, the President vetoed the will of the American people. The President vetoed a responsible funding bill for the troops that would have provided more funding for our troops and military readiness than even the President requested. By vetoing the Iraq Accountability Act, the President rejected a bill that reflects the will of the American people to wind down this war. By vetoing the Iraq Accountability Act, the President turned a deaf ear to the loud message sent by the American people last November. The President demands a blank check to escalate the war in Iraq against the will of the Congress and the American people. The Constitution does not require it, he certainly has not earned it, and I am not prepared to give it to him. That is why I will proudly vote for H.R. 2206. The legislation crafted by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in consultation with the leadership and the members of the Democratic Caucus offers us a real chance to end the misguided invasion, war, and occupation of Iraq. It puts us on the glide path to the day when our troops come home in honor and triumph and where we can ``care for him who has borne the battle, and for his widow and orphan.'' This legislation helps to repair the damage to America's international reputation and prestige. It brings long overdue oversight, accountability, and transparency to defense and reconstruction contracting and procurement. Finally, it places the responsibility for bringing peace and security where it clearly belongs and that is squarely on the shoulders of the Iraqi government. Mr. Speaker, in threatening to veto this legislation, the President claims it will ``undermine our troops and threaten the safety of the American people here at home.'' Coming from an administration that has been wrong on every important question relating to the decision to launch the Iraq war as well the conduct of it, this claim is laughable. It is nearly as ridiculous as the President's often stated claim of ``progress'' in Iraq. The facts, of course, are otherwise. The U.S. death toll in Iraq reached 104 for April--making it the deadliest month of the year and one of the deadliest of the entire war. It is therefore little wonder that nearly 70 percent of Americans disapprove of the way the President is handling the war. But more important, the President's claim that the Iraq Accountability Act undermines our troops and threatens the safety of the American people here at home is simply not true. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel recently returned from Iraq and paints a bleak picture: ``This thing is coming undone quickly, and [Prime Minister] Maliki's government is weaker by the day. The police are corrupt top to bottom. The oil problem is a huge problem. They still can't get anything through the parliament--no hydrocarbon law, no de- Baathification law, no provincial elections.'' Mr. Speaker, many of the Nation's most highly respected generals and several leading Republicans have endorsed the House Democratic majority's approach; all of them oppose the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. Take, for example, MG John Batiste, U.S. Army, (Ret.): This important legislation sets a new direction for Iraq. It acknowledges that America went to war without mobilizing the nation, that our strategy in Iraq has been tragically flawed since the invasion in March 2003, that our Army and Marine Corps are at the breaking point with little to show for it, and that our military alone will never establish representative government in Iraq. The administration got it terribly wrong and I applaud our Congress for stepping up to their constitutional responsibilities. MG Paul Eaton, USA, Ret. supports this legislation because it ``gives General Petraeus great leverage for moving the Iraqi government down the more disciplined path laid out by the Iraq Study Group.'' According to General Eaton, the real audience for the timeline language is Prime Minister al-Maliki and the elected government of Iraq: The argument that this bill aides the enemy is simply not mature--nobody on the earth underestimates the United States' capacity for unpredictability. It may further create some sense of urgency in the rest of our government, beginning with the State Department. LTG William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), President Reagan's Director of the National Security Agency, supports the bill because it ``gives the president a chance to pull back from a disastrous course, re-orient U.S. strategy to achieve regional stability, and win help from many other countries--the only way peace will eventually be achieved.'' Mr. Speaker, to date, the war in Iraq has lasted longer than America's involvement in World War II, the greatest conflict in all of human history. But there is a difference. The Second World War ended in complete and total victory for the United States and its allies. But then again, in that conflict America was led by FDR, a great Commander- in-Chief, who had a plan to win the war and secure the peace, listened to his generals, and sent troops in sufficient numbers and sufficiently trained and equipped to do the job. As a result of the colossal miscalculation in deciding to invade Iraq, the loss of public trust resulting from the misrepresentation of the reasons for launching that invasion, and the breathtaking incompetence in mismanaging the occupation of Iraq, the Armed Forces and the people of the United States have suffered incalculable damage. The war in Iraq has claimed the lives of 3,381 brave service men and women, 64 in the first 30 days of this month. More than 24,912 Americans have been wounded, many suffering the most horrific injuries. American taxpayers have paid nearly $400 billion to sustain this misadventure. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 2206 because it holds President Bush and the Iraqi government accountable--by fencing $52.8 billion of the $95.5 billion provided to the Defense Department until released by subsequent legislation. This bill requires the President to confront the realities of the Iraq war and take account of the facts on the ground. First, the bill requires the President to submit a report to Congress by July 13 regarding the success of the Iraqi Government in meeting security and political benchmarks. The President must report progress by the Iraqi Government in meeting key security benchmarks, articulated by Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki himself in January, including eliminating militia control of local security, I disarming the militias, and giving Iraqi Security Forces the authority to pursue all extremists, including Shiite militias. The legislation also requires the President to report on whether key political benchmarks, announced by President Bush himself in January have actually been accomplished by the Iraqi Government, relating to such issues as enacting a bill to equitably share oil revenue among all Iraqis, reforming current laws governing the de-Baathircation process, providing for provincial elections, and amending the constitution. Second, within 7 legislative days after receiving the report in July, both the House and Senate would vote on whether to release the remaining defense funds. Thus, the bill guarantees two votes by Congress in July. The first guaranteed vote is a vote on an amendment to the measure releasing the remaining defense funding, which would provide that this funding could only be used for planning and executing the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq within 180 days of the bill's enactment, with only limited exceptions to this redeployment for troops for training and equipping Iraqi troops, targeted counterterrorism operations, and force protection. The second guaranteed vote is a vote on the underlying measure releasing the remaining defense funds. The bill contains expedited procedures to guarantee that the votes take place in both the House and Senate by the end of July. Mr. Speaker, it is time to hold the Bush administration and the Iraqi Government accountable. This bill's timetable and benchmarks finally hold the Iraqis accountable. As retired MG Paul Eaton has stated, ``This bill gives General Petraeus great leverage for moving the Iraqi government down the more disciplined path laid out by the Iraq Study Group. The real audience for the timeline language is Prime Minister al-Maliki and the elected government of Iraq. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates has noted that the timetable is helpful--and sends the message that ``the clock is ticking.'' Gates said ``The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably have had a positive impact . . . in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment.'' Mr. Speaker, in passing H.R. 2206, this House will be doing the business and expressing the will of the American people. In the latest CBS News/New York Times poll, 64 percent of Americans favor a timetable that provides for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq in 2008. In the same poll, 57 percent of Americans believe that Congress, not the President, should have the last say when it comes to setting troop levels in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, in passing H.R. 2206, Congress is fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities and exercising the first check on the President's power in 6 years. As Iraq Study Group Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton has pointed out, ``The founders of our nation never envisioned an unfettered president making unilateral decisions about American lives and military power. They did indeed make the president the commander in chief, but they gave to Congress the responsibility for declaring war, for making rules governing our land and naval forces, for overseeing policy, and of course the ability to fund war or to cease funding it.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 2206. This is the best way to ensure accountability to our soldiers who have been sent into battle without proper training or equipment or a clear mission. It is the best way to keep faith with our veterans who are not getting the best medical care when they come home. Passing this legislation is essential to restoring our military that is being stretched to the limits by the Bush policy. Last, it is absolutely necessary to regain the confidence of the American people who demand a new direction in Iraq.