Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment striking the bus security grant provided in this bill. The underlying jurisdiction of this particular subcommittee and Homeland Security includes responsibility of over-the-road buses. We plan to look even more extensively at the necessary security requirements of making sure that people who travel in bus transportation likewise deserve the coverage and security that we can provide. More people ride over-the-road buses and more communities and destinations are served by those buses than any other form of intercity passenger transportation. Jitney-type buses are not the only forms of buses, but they are part of the bus transportation of this country. Buses and bus terminals have been the targets of suicide bombers in countries like Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, and elsewhere in the world. The question for the Homeland Security Department and the Homeland Security Committee is to be preventative in front of the tragedy, not behind it. This legislation is to get us in front, to look at areas that we have not looked at before. Worldwide over the last 80 years, 47 percent of surface transportation terrorist attacks have involved buses. We have seen the horrific tragedy. We have seen the loss of lives, the loss of lives of children. We must invest the money needed to protect bus passengers; and I believe the gentleman's amendment may be well-intended but, frankly, underestimates the need of security measures for buses and undermines the bill. I would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished subcommittee Chair of the Transportation Committee, Mr. DeFazio.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me close, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Flake has one philosophy about security, and that is narrow and let us not move forward. The underlying bill makes a whole new statement to America, that we are planning on reviewing those areas that are failing in security and improve them. Has anyone heard of the eighth grade school bus trip, where children fill up a long-distance bus going somewhere that you hope your children will return from? That is what we are trying to improve, the tragedy that may occur when people are using over-the-road buses. This is what this program is. It is not a program of waste; it is based on risk. As well, we are holding TSA accountable in the utilization of funds. This is a bad amendment that undermines the new idea, which is to make sure that all aspects of America's security are both reviewed and provided resources so we can do the right thing and move forward with the right program that is fiscally responsible, but also provides the security necessary. This amendment undermines the underlying bill and certainly takes away the necessary security for over-the-road buses. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I strongly oppose this amendment striking the bus security grants provided in this bill. More people ride over-the-road buses, and more communities and destinations are served by those buses, than any other form of intercity passenger transportation. Buses and bus terminals have been the targets of suicide bombers in Iraq, Israel, Pakistan and elsewhere in the world. Worldwide, over the last 80 years, 47% of surface transportation terrorist attacks have involved buses. We must invest the money needed to protect bus passengers. I encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. Training is a critical component of my bill. We specifically added training language to the bill because I knew that our Nation's rail, public transportation and over-the-road bus employees were not receiving the necessary security training. Representative Lynch's amendment goes one step further--it mandates a survey of the satisfaction of workers regarding the effectiveness and adequacy of the training. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman, and I rise with sadness to support this legislation that clears up the obviously ongoing abuse and disrespect of the integrity of the three branches of government. We passed the PATRIOT Act that some of us did not support, but we did not intend for it to be used to avoid the constitutional Senate confirmation process. That is what has happened. We understand now that the Attorney General unfortunately may have been in meetings, may have been informed of issues dealing with the termination of U.S. Attorneys without providing that direct information to the United States Congress. This legislation again sets the Constitution back on its feet. It allows for Senate confirmation for U.S. Attorneys, and it puts back on track the integrity in terms of the respect and integrity that is necessary for the judiciary and legal system that the American people have come to understand and believe. I believe we should support this bill, and I hope we will get back on track with the relationship between Congress, the executive, and the judiciary. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 580, which 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 disclosures of the last few weeks provide all the justification needed to adopt this salutary measure promptly and by an overwhelming margin. Our friends in the other body passed companion legislation last week by a vote of 94-2. Mr. Speaker, 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 permits United States Attorneys appointed on an interim basis to serve indefinitely without ever being subjected to a 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 1 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. They include the following: H.E. 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, N.D. Calif.; and Margaret Chiara, W.D. Mich. On March 6, 2007, the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held a hearing entitled, ``H.R. 580, 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 six 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 U.S. 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 proponents 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 U.S. Attorneys indefinitely, the administration has exploited the provision to fire U.S. 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 on Tuesday, U.S. Attorneys were targets for the purge based on their rankings. The ranking relied in large part on whether the U.S. Attorney ``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. Mr. Speaker, during the full committee markup of H.R. 580, I brought to my colleagues' attention the value of including in the bill or committee report the core congressional findings that forms the justification for this legislation. Briefly stated, those findings are as follows: The Congress finds as follows: (1) That United States Attorneys are ``inferior officers'' and therefore are subject to the Constitution's discretionary appointment provisions authorizing the Congress to vest the appointment power in the President alone or the judiciary. (2) Vesting the authority in the United States Attorney General to appoint an interim United States Attorney to serve an indefinite term undermines the confirmation process of the United States Senate and removes a legislative check on executive power. (3) Vesting residual power to appoint an interim United States Attorney in the Federal district court in which the vacancy occurs constitutes an important judicial check on executive power. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 580 is a thoughtful and well crafted legislative measure which will restore public confidence in the process by which interim United States Attorneys are appointed. I strongly support the bill and urge all Members to do likewise.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the author of the bill and certainly the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, the chairman of the full committee and ranking members as well. I rise to enthusiastically support H.R. 137 and announce that it is impacting so many different communities that it is imperative that there be a Federal prohibition on transporting animals interstate. There is a question of disease, there is a question of violence, and certainly with the increasing numbers of dangerous animals that attack human beings, fighting animals certainly pose a severe threat to the community. This is a good bill. I am delighted to be a co-sponsor. The good news is that we are getting it through the House today. This bill has been around since the last session. I congratulate all of the authors. It is time now to spell relief by passing this bill and protecting the lives of our children and saving the lives of those who would be endangered by cockfighting and other dangerous activities with animals. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 137, the ``Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007.'' I was a co-sponsor of this legislation when it was considered in the 109th Congress and a strong supporter and co-sponsor when the bill was re-introduced in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 137 establishes felony-level jail time (up to 3 years) for violators of the Federal animal fighting law. The bill amends Title 18 of the U.S. Code to strengthen the maximum jail time from the 1-year misdemeanor level in current law. The bill also prohibits interstate and foreign commerce in cockfighting weapons. 1. DOGFIGHTING AND COCKFIGHTING ARE INHUMANE AND BARBARIC ACTIVITIES In a typical fight, animals are drugged to heighten their aggression and forced to keep fighting even after injuries such as pierced lungs and gouged eyes--all for the amusement and illegal wagering of handlers and spectators. Dogfighting and cockfighting are also associated with other criminal conduct, such as drug traffic, illegal firearms use, and violence toward people. Children are often present at these spectacles. Some dogfighters steal pets to use as bait for training their dogs; some allow trained fighting dogs to roam neighborhoods and endanger the public. 2. FELONY PENALTIES ARE NEEDED Misdemeanor penalties don't provide a meaningful deterrent; they're considered a ``slap on the wrist'' or a ``cost of doing business.'' And prosecutors are reluctant to pursue animal fighting cases carrying only a misdemeanor penalty. Since the Federal animal fighting law was first enacted in 1976, authorities have pursued only a handful of cases, despite receiving innumerable informant tips about illegal interstate activity and requests to assist with state and local busts and prosecutions. 3. THE ANIMAL FIGHTING PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT ACT BRINGS FEDERAL LAW

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a Houston cultural treasure, the Kuumba House Dance Theatre. For 25 years of artistic excellence, the Kuumba House has been dedicated to ensuring that African dance forms thrive and grow both artistically and professionally in the city of Houston as well as throughout Texas and the United States. It has been said that the mind may know the steps, but only the spirit can dance. Dance is a transcendent expression of mind, body, and soul intertwined that when executed, captivates its audience and pulls them into its resplendent world of free flowing and creative aesthetics. The Kuumba House Dance Theatre has been enthralling its audiences with its high-energy, high-octane performances for the past 25 years in Houston, Texas. The Kuumba Dance Theatre reflects its name well, which means ``creativity'' in Swahili. Through the art form of African dance, the body is allowed to creatively express and reflect the mood of its dancer while bending, jumping, and undulating gracefully to the rhythm and beat of the African drum. African dance reflects the rich culture and joy of the African people, and I applaud Kuumba House for having achieved international recognition by bringing African dance to Houston and the world. Madam Speaker, we need to encourage creativity in this day and age, especially in our youth. For over two decades, the Kuumba House Dance Theatre has worked diligently in Houston and all over the U.S. to facilitate quality dance education and performances as well as promoting understanding of African cultural art forms and creative expression. I commend Kuumba House for not only teaching this beautiful cultural art form to our youth, but for also hosting educational activities, concerts, and community outreach events to all audiences that support and appreciate the beautiful art form of dance. On behalf of the constituents of the 18th Congressional district of Texas, I commend this group on their faithful service to the Houston community and join them in the celebration of their 25th Anniversary. I am honored and humbled to be Co-Chairing Kuumba House's March 23rd, 25th Anniversary Gala Dinner with Global Energy Limited CEO Mr. Kenneth Yellowe. The gala will feature such dignitaries as featured speaker Dr. Barbara Masekela, who has been a devoted member of the African National Congress for over three decades and is currently the South African Ambassador to the United States. An African luminary and personal friend who will be presented with the ``Legend of Africa'' award is NBA superstar and humanitarian Dikembe Mutombo. I am proud to say that I was more than glad to assist Dikembe who through his foundation has donated $15 million to construct and open the Biamba Marie Mutombo Hospital and Research Center, a $29 million, 300-bed hospital in Kinshasa, the capital of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In conclusion, the Kuumba House Dance Theatre would not be where it is today without the steadfast dedication of its Founder and Artistic Director, Lindi Yeni. I thank Lindi for her vision, hard work, and wholehearted commitment to Kuumba House and in this evening's auspicious gala. Once again, I pay tribute to the Kuumba House Dance Theatre and look forward to many more decades of thrilling and creative dance performances, which contribute to the rich diversity of our community.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 545 because it corrects an inadvertent oversight in the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 and strengthens the arsenal available to Native American tribes as they combat the scourge of methamphetamine. I thank the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his work in expediting this legislation, the ``Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement Act of 2007.'' Mr. Speaker, last year Congress enacted the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 as Title VII of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005. Included in the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act were provisions that authorized funding for three important grant programs within the Department of Justice: (1) The COPS Hot Spots Program; (2) the Drug- Endangered Children program; and (3) the Pregnant and Parenting Women Offenders program. Although Indian tribes and territories were included as eligible grant recipients under the Pregnant and Parenting Women Offenders program, they were unintentionally left out as possible grant recipients under the COPS Hot Spots Program and the Drug-Endangered Children Program. H.R. 545 allows Indian tribes and territories to combat the methamphetamine epidemic by applying for and receiving funding under all three of these grant programs. Mr. Speaker, as great a threat as it is to the Nation at large, the methamphetamine threat is even greater in Native American communities. Studies of past year methamphetamine use have shown that Native American communities have more than double the methamphetamine use rate of other ethnicities. According to surveys performed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Office of Law Enforcement Services, over 70 percent of Indian tribes identified methamphetamine as the drug that posed the greatest threat to their reservation and also estimated that at least 40 percent of violent crime cases investigated in Indian Country involve methamphetamine in some capacity. That is why we must act to ensure that Native American tribes are eligible to apply for and receive funding to protect their communities from methamphetamines. The COPS Hot Spots Program authorized $99 million in funding to the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) to assist State and local law enforcement agencies in combating methamphetamine production, distribution, and use, and to reimburse the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) for properly removing and disposing of hazardous materials from clandestine methamphetamine laboratories. This funding may also be used to clean up methamphetamine laboratories, support health and environmental agencies, and to purchase equipment and support systems. The Drug-Endangered Children Program authorized $20 million in funding to provide comprehensive services and training to law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, child protective services, and health care services to assist children who live in a home in which methamphetamine has been used, manufactured, or sold. The specific dangers faced by children who live at or visit drug-production sites or are present during drug production include: Inhalation, absorption or ingestion of toxic chemicals, drugs or contaminated foods or drink that may result in respiratory difficulties, nausea, chest pain, eye and tissue irritation, chemical burns and death; Fires and explosions resulting from dangerous methamphetamine production processes; Abuse and neglect by parents who often binge on methamphetamine and traumatic consequences that result; and Hazardous living conditions (firearms, code violations, poor ventilation and sanitation). The Pregnant and Parenting Women Offenders Program authorized as much funding as may be allocated to facilitate collaboration between the criminal justice, child welfare, and substance abuse systems in order to reduce the use of drugs by pregnant women and those with dependent children. While Indian tribes and territories were included as eligible applicants, clarifying language is needed to ensure that there is adequate coordination with Tribal service providers. Mr. Speaker, surveys conducted by the BIA also revealed that too often Tribal police forces that are underfunded and understaffed. According to the same survey, 90 percent of Tribal police forces indicated that they needed additional drug investigation training, while 69 percent of Tribal respondents indicated that they had no access to, or funding for, methamphetamine treatment resources or facilities. The Native American Methamphetamine Enforcement and Treatment Act of 2007 seeks to ensure that, consistent with tribal sovereignty, Indian tribes and territories can apply for the COPS Hot Spots and Drug- Endangered Children grant programs, just as states can, and also ensures adequate coordination with tribal service providers for tribes receiving funds under the Pregnant and Parenting Women Offenders Program. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 545 corrects an inadvertent oversight in the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 and strengthens the arsenal available to Native American tribes as they combat the scourge of methamphetamine. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1130, the ``Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act,'' because it extends until December 31, 2009, the authority conferred by the Congress on the Judicial Conference to redact personal and sensitive information from the published financial disclosure reports of judges and judiciary employees who have been threatened or otherwise have particular security risks. Mr. Speaker, as I stated, H.R. 1130 would temporarily extend the authority of the Judicial Conference to withhold from disclosure certain personal and sensitive information of judges and judicial employees. In addition, the bill expressly provides that concern for the safety of a judge's family as well as that of the judge is sufficient grounds to exercise the authority given. The bill, however, requires the Judicial Conference to provide detailed reports regarding such redactions to Congress. Mr. Speaker, the financial disclosure requirements were imposed by Congress in 1978 in response to the constitutional issues surrounding the Watergate crisis and the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon. The Ethics in Government Act was passed in 1978 and promotes ethics and openness in government by establishing rules of conduct for federal employees to reduce corruption and prevent the improper use of knowledge gained while employed by the government, and more broadly to prevent the appearance of impropriety. The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (``Act'') applies to all branches of government, including the federal judiciary. Persons covered by the Act are required to disclose personal and financial information each year, including the source and amount of income, other than that earned as employees of the United States government received during the preceding calendar year. They must also disclose the source, description, and value of gifts for which the aggregate value is more than a certain minimal amount received from any source other than a relative; the source and description of reimbursements; the identity and category of value of property interests; the identity and category value of liabilities owed to creditors other than certain immediate family members; and other financial information. Under the Act, these reports are made public. Among the types of sensitive personal information that might be disclosed in these reports are personal residences, the workplace of spouses, the name and location of a child's school; and an employee's vacation home. In 1998, 20 years after the enactment of the Ethics in Government Act, the potential of these types of disclosures to place individual judges at serious risk of personal harm had become manifest. In 1979, U.S. District Court Judge John Wood, Jr., was fatally shot outside of his home by assassin Charles Harrelson. The murder contract had been placed by Texas drug lord Jamiel Chagra, who was awaiting trial before the judge. In 1988, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Daronco was murdered at his house by Charles Koster, the father of the unsuccessful plaintiff in a discrimination case. The following year, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Richard Vance was killed by a letter bomb sent to his home. The letter bomb was attributed to racist animus against Judge Vance for writing an opinion reversing a lower-court ruling to lift an 18-year desegregation order from the Duval County, Florida schools. In light of these and other tragedies, Congress responded by adding a new subsection to the Ethics in Government Act temporarily authorizing the Judicial Conference to redact information from judges' financial disclosure reports under certain circumstances. Under that subsection, a report may be redacted ``(i) to the extent necessary to protect the individual who filed the report; and (ii) for as long as the danger to such individual exists.'' The Act further charged the U.S. Judicial Conference, in consultation which the Department of Justice, with the task of submitting to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary an annual report documenting redactions. In 2001, the House of Representatives approved a bill striking the sunset clause and making the redaction authority permanent but the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee did not concur. The Senate was concerned that such authority could hamper the effectiveness of the judicial confirmation and oversight process by unwarranted reliance on the redaction authority to avoid revealing stock holdings and other financial assets, and in some cases, the complete withholding of all financial information contrary to the intent of the statute. Ultimately, Senate recommended extending the redaction authority for 4 more years, until December 31, 2005. This authority has now expired and necessitates the extension provided by H.R. 1130. Mr. Speaker, the Judiciary Committee considered and properly rejected permanently granting this authority to the Judicial Conference because of the legitimate concern that such authority could be abused in such a way as to withhold information that properly should be disclosed. A temporary 4-year extension, on the other hand, would effectively allow for a more in-depth investigation of areas of concern before Congress must decide whether to make the authority permanent. I believe this is the most prudent way to proceed. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1130 because it preserves an important means of protecting the safety of those who work in the federal judiciary. Particularly in this age of the global war on terror, the danger faced by federal judges, judicial officers, and court personnel is real, as illustrated by the three murders noted above. The recent and tragic murder of U.S. District Court Judge Joan Humphrey Letkow's husband and mother reminds us that the danger has not abated. For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1130 and urge by colleagues to do likewise.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 66, which authorizes the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust. The Holocaust was not a random act of mass murder but a systematic campaign of genocide carried out by the Nazis against the Jews. The world must never forget the more than six million Jews who perished in the Holocaust. In total, the victims accounted for more than 60 percent of the pre-World War II Jewish population of Europe. We must never forget the evil acts that happened during that era and continue the fight against racism, intolerance, bigotry, prejudice, discrimination and anti-Semitism in every form today. More than 60 years later, the Holocaust is still a presence, and there are living memorials all over the world dedicated to the memory of those who lost their lives in one of history's darkest hour and to the continuing education to conquer prejudice, hatred, and injustice. As we authorize the rotunda of the Capitol to be used on April 19, 2007 for a ceremony as part of the commemoration for the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust, let us also be careful not to repeat history. We remember the atrocities that surround us today in the Darfur region of Sudan. It is right that we should gather at the rotunda to remember a period of such unspeakable horror that it will never be forgotten and which we must never again allow to happen. I strongly urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 66 and authorize the use of the rotunda of the Capitol to commemorate those who perished in the Holocaust.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 797, to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve compensation benefits for veterans in certain cases of impairment of vision involving both eyes. I strongly support veterans and more specifically blind veterans. I am a co-sponsor of this legislation. A few weeks ago I introduced H.R. 1240, the ``Vision Impairment Specialist Training Act'' to help our Nation's blind veterans. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 797 modifies the standard of awarding disability compensation to veterans for loss of vision to require payment of compensation for impairment of vision involving both eyes due to a service-connected and non-service connected disability. There are 160,000 legally blind veterans in the United States, but only 44,000 are currently enrolled in Veterans Health Administration services. In addition, it is estimated that there are over 1 million low-vision veterans in the United States, and incidences of blindness among the total veteran population of 26 million are expected to increase by about 40% over the next few years. This is because the most prevalent causes of legal blindness and low vision are age-related, and the average age of the veteran population is increasing; the current average age is about 80 years old. Members of the armed forces are important to our Nation and we show them our appreciation by taking care of them after they no longer serve. It is important to amend title 38 to ensure that our veterans are taken care of and that they receive the compensation that they deserve. Their service to this nation could never be repaid my monetary means, but we can ensure that the veterans that faithfully served our country are taken care of and amending this legislation sends a message to our veterans that we care about their health and well being long after their duty has expired. In addition to enhancing compensation benefits for veterans, H.R. 797 requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with information for comparison with the National Directory of New Hires to determine eligibility for certain benefits and services. This process ensures that the proper protocol is followed in issuance of these benefits and that the benefits are distributed to the proper recipients. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 797 and I urge all members to do likewise.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 740, because it is important that we broaden the scope of current law to prohibit a person from engaging in ``spoofing,'' which is the use of incorrect, fake or fraudulent caller identification--caller ID--to hide their identity in order to facilitate a fraudulent telephone call to the recipient. In addition, the bill provides the tools needed for the Department of Justice to prosecute and protect against criminals who engage in spoofing. H.R. 740, the Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement--PHONE--Act of 2007, is intended to help protect consumers from harassment, identity theft, and other crimes. The legislation creates a new Federal crime to prohibit using or providing, in interstate or foreign commerce, false caller ID information with the intent to defraud. Recently, the technology needed to spoof has become readily available, either through the purchase of Internet telephone equipment or through Web sites specifically set up to spoof. For example, Voice- over-Internet-Protocol--VOIP--equipment can easily be configured to populate the caller ID field with information of the user's choosing. Some of the technology can block any back technology such as the star symbol or dash 69. Caller ID spoofing is a form of identity theft that can cause damaged credit and financial ruin. Call recipients sometimes divulge personal and private information to the spoofer, under the mistaken belief that the caller is a legitimate caller. For example, the AARP--formerly the American Association of Retired Persons--has reported cases in which people received calls that made false claims that they missed jury duty. To avoid prosecution, these individuals were told they needed to provide their Social Security number and other personal information. The phone number that appeared on their caller ID was from the local courthouse, so people assumed the caller was telling the truth. In addition to identity theft, spoofing invades the privacy of those individuals whose caller ID is used to mask fraudulent calls and can be used as a form of aggressive harassment. The use of this technology has been linked to fraud, prank telephone calls, political attacks, and telemarketers who attempt to avoid the current ``do not call'' limits. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 740 and urge my colleagues to join me in voting for its passage.

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 in support of H.R. 1591, the ``U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act.'' I commend the leadership of the Speaker and her team and Chairman Obey and Defense Subcommittee Chairman Murtha for their patient and careful crafting of the bill. I stand in strong support of our troops who have performed magnificently in battle with a grace under pressure that is distinctively American. I stand with the American people, who have placed their trust in the President, the Vice-President, and the former Secretary of Defense, each of whom abused the public trust and patience. I stand with the American taxpayers who have paid nearly $400 billion to finance the misadventure in Iraq. I stand with the 3,222 fallen heroes who stand even taller in death because they gave the last full measure of devotion to their country. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I stand fully, strongly, and unabashedly in support of H.R. 1591, which for the first time puts the Congress on record against an open-ended war whose goal line is always moving. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution. I am proud of that vote. I have consistently voted against the Administration's practice of submitting a request for war funding through an emergency supplemental rather than the regular appropriations process which would subject the funding request to more rigorous scrutiny and require it to be balanced against other pressing national priorities. The vote today will put the House on record squarely against the Bush Administration's policy of looking the other way while the Iraqi government fails to govern a country worthy of a free people with as much commitment and dedication to the security and happiness of its citizens as has been shown by the heroic American servicemen and women who risked their lives and, in the case of over 3,000 fallen heroes, lost their lives to win for the Iraqi people the chance to draft their own constitution, hold their own free elections, establish their own government, and build a future of peace and prosperity for themselves and their posterity. Mr. Speaker, there is no more important issue facing the Congress, the President, and the American people than the war in Iraq. It is a subject upon which no one is indifferent, least of all members of Congress. Many good ideas have been advanced by members of Congress to bring to a successful conclusion the American military engagement in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, nearly every decision reached by a legislative body is a product of compromise. The bill before us is no different. If it was left solely to us, any of us could no doubt add or subtract provisions which we think would improve the bill. Indeed, more than fifty amendments were offered to H.R. 1591, including four submitted by me. In fact, the only amendments voted on by the Rules Committee were two of the amendments I offered, although neither was made in order this time. The first of these amendments, Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1, would terminate the authority granted by Congress to the President in the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq because the objectives for which the authorization was granted have all been achieved. Specifically, Congress authorized the President to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following objectives: 1. To disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the security of the United States and international peace in the Persian Gulf region; 2. To change the Iraqi regime so that Saddam Hussein and his Baathist party no longer posed a threat to the people of Iraq or its neighbors; 3. To bring to justice any members of al Qaeda known or found to be in Iraq bearing responsibility for the attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001; 4. To ensure that the regime of Saddam Hussein would not provide weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists, including al Qaeda; and 5. To enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Thanks to the skill and valor of the Armed Forces of the United States we now know for certain that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction. Thanks to the tenacity and heroism of American troops, Saddam Hussein was deposed, captured, and dealt with by the Iraqi people in such a way that neither he nor his Baathist Party will ever again pose a threat to the people of Iraq or its neighbors in the region. Nor will the regime ever acquire and provide weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists. Also, the American military has caught or killed virtually every member of al Qaeda in Iraq remotely responsible for the 9/11 attack on our country. Last, all relevant U.N. resolutions relating to Iraq have been enforced. In other words, every objective for which the use of force in Iraq was authorized by the 2002 resolution has been achieved, most with spectacular success thanks to the professionalism and superior skill of our service men and women. The point of my amendment was to recognize, acknowledge, and honor this fact. My second amendment, Jackson Lee Amendment No. 4, would change the troop reference date for redeployment set forth in section 1904 from March 1, 2008, to December 31, 2007. What this means is that the Government of Iraq will have had more than 3 years since the United States turned over sovereignty to establish a sustainable government with secure borders that can protect its people. I believe that if the Allied Forces could win World War III in less than 4 years, certainly that is enough time for the Government of Iraq to provide for the security of its people, with the substantial assistance of the United States. While there are many good proposals that have been advanced which are not included in the bill, we ought not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good. This emergency supplemental may not be perfect but it is better--far better--than any legislation relating to the war in Iraq that has ever been brought to the floor far a vote. Let me count the ways. First, H.R. 1591 ensures that U.S. forces in the field have all of the resources they require. Second, the bill directs more resources to the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Third it improves healthcare for returning service members and veterans. Fourth, it establishes a timeline for ending the United States participation in Iraq's civil war. Last, it demands accountability by conditioning continued American military involvement in Iraq upon certification by the President that the Iraq Government is making meaningful and substantial progress in meeting political and military benchmarks, including a militia disarmament program and a plan that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to discuss why the American people believe so strongly that the time has come to an end the policy of not placing any demands or conditions on American military assistance to the Government of Iraq. As Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution, and a former senior member of the NSC, brilliantly describes in his essay, ``The Seven Deadly Sins Of Failure In Iraq: A Retrospective Analysis Of The Reconstruction,'' in Middle East Review of International Affairs (December 2006), our trust and patience has been repaid by a record of incompetence unmatched in the annals of American foreign policy. The Bush administration disregarded the advice of experts on Iraq, on nation-building, and on military operations. It staged both the invasion and the reconstruction on the cheap. It did not learn from its mistakes and did not commit the resources necessary to accomplish its original lofty goals or later pedestrian objectives. It ignored intelligence that contradicted its own views. It is clear now that the Administration simply never believed in the necessity of a major reconstruction in Iraq. To exacerbate matters the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the White House Office of the Vice President (OVP) worked together to ensure that the State Department was excluded from any meaningful involvement in the reconstruction of Iraq. The Administration's chief Iraq hawks shared a deeply naive view that the fall of Saddam and his top henchmen would have relatively little impact on the overall Iraqi governmental structure. They assumed that Iraq's bureaucracy would remain intact and would therefore be capable of running the country and providing Iraqis with basic services. They likewise assumed that the Iraqi armed forces would largely remain cohesive and would surrender whole to U.S. forces. The result of all this was a fundamental lack of attention to realistic planning for the postwar environment. As it was assumed that the Iraqis would be delighted to be liberated little thought was given to security requirements after Saddam's fall. The dearth of planning for the provision of security and basic services stemmed from the mistaken belief that Iraqi political institutions would remain largely intact and therefore able to handle those responsibilities. But there were too few Coalition troops, which meant that long supply lines were vulnerable to attack by Iraqi irregulars, and the need to mask entire cities at times took so much combat power that it brought the entire offensive to a halt. It was not long before these naive assumptions and inadequate planning conjoined to sow the seeds of the chaos we have witnessed in Iraq. The lack of sufficient troops to secure the country led to the immediate outbreak of lawlessness resulting in massive looting and destruction dealt a stunning psychological blow to Iraqi confidence in the United States, from which the country has yet to recover. We removed Saddam Hussein's regime but we did not move to fill the military, political, and economic vacuum. The unintended consequence was the birth of a failing state, which provided the opportunity for the insurgency to flourish and prevented the development of governmental institutions capable of providing Iraqis with the most basic services such as clean water, sanitation, electricity, and a minimally functioning economy capable of generating basic employment. Making matters worse, the Administration arrogantly denied the United Nations overall authority for the reconstruction even though the U.N. had far more expertise and experience in nation building. The looting and anarchy, the persistent insurgent attacks, the lack of real progress in restoring basic services, and the failure to find the promised weapons of mass destruction undercut the Administration's claim that things were going well in Iraq and led it to make the next set of serious blunders, which was the disbanding of the Iraqi military and security services. Mr. Speaker, counterinsurgency experts will tell you that to pacify an occupied country it is essential to disarm, demobilize, and retrain (DDR) the local army. The idea behind a DDR program is to entice, cajole, or even coerce soldiers back to their own barracks or to other facilities where they can be fed, clothed, watched, retrained, and prevented from joining an insurgency movement, organized crime, or an outlaw militia. By disbanding the military and security services without a DDR program, as many as one million Iraqi men were set at large with no money, no means to support their families, and no skills other than how to use a gun. Not surprisingly, many of these humiliated Sunni officers went home and joined the burgeoning Sunni insurgency. The next major mistake made in the summer of 2003 was the decision to create an Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), which laid the foundation for many of Iraq's current political woes. Many of the IGC leaders were horribly corrupt, and they stole from the public treasury and encouraged their subordinates to do the same. The IGC set the tone for later Iraqi governments, particularly the transitional governments of Ayad Allawi and Ibrahim Jaafari that followed. Finally, by insisting that all of the problems of the country were caused by the insurgency rather than recognizing the problems of the country were helping to fuel the insurgency, the Bush administration set about concentrating its efforts in all the wrong places and on the wrong problems. This explains why for nearly all of 2004 and 2005, our troops were disproportionately deployed in the Sunni triangle trying to catch and kill insurgents. Although our troops caught and killed insurgents by the hundreds and thousands, these missions were not significantly advancing our strategic objectives. Indeed, they had little long-term impact because insurgents are always willing to flee temporarily rather than fight a leviathan. Second, because so many coalition forces were playing ``whack-a-mole'' with insurgents in the sparsely populated areas of western Iraq, the rest of the country was left vulnerable to take-over by militias. Finally, Mr. Speaker, a cruel irony is that because the Iraqi Government brought exiles and militia leaders into the government and gave them positions of power, it is now virtually impossible to get them out, and even more difficult to convince them to make compromises because the militia leaders have learned they can use their government positions to maintain and expand their personal power, at the expense both of their rivals who are not in the government and of the central government itself. All of this was avoidable and the blame for the lack of foresight falls squarely on the White House and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Mr. Speaker, the American people spoke loudly and clearly last November when they tossed out the Rubber-Stamp Republican Congress. They voted for a New Direction in Iraq and for change in America. They voted to disentangle American troops from the carnage, chaos, and civil war in Iraq. They voted for accountability and oversight, which we Democrats have begun to deliver on; already the new majority has held more than 100 congressional hearings related to the Iraq War, investigating everything from the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse of Iraq reconstruction funding to troop readiness to the Iraq Study Group Report to the shameful mistreatment of wounded soldiers recuperating at Walter Reed Medical Center. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act provides real benchmarks and consequences if the Iraqi Government fails to live up to its commitments. First, it requires the President to certify and report to Congress on July 1, 2007 that real progress is underway on key benchmarks for the Iraqi government. If the President cannot so certify, redeployment of U.S. troops must begin immediately and be completed within 180 days. If the President fails to certify that Iraq has met the benchmarks on October 1, 2007, a redeployment of U.S. troops would begin immediately at that time and must be completed within 180 days. In any case, at the latest, a redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq must begin by March 1, 2008, and must be completed by August 31, 2008. Since the benchmarks the Iraqi Government must meet are those established pursuant to President Bush's policies, it is passing strange indeed that he would threaten to veto the bill since it necessarily means he would veto his own benchmarks for the performance of the Iraqi government. He would veto his own readiness standards for U.S. troops. The President demands this Congress send him an Iraq war bill with ``no strings.'' But the only ``strings'' attached, Mr. Speaker, are the benchmarks and standards imposed by the President himself. Mr. Speaker, in addition to the enormous financial cost, the human cost to the men and women of the United States Armed Forces has also been high but they have willingly paid it. Operation Iraqi Freedom has exacerbated the Veterans' Administration health care facility maintenance backlog; placed an undue strain on the delivery of medical treatment and rehabilitative services for current and new veterans; and exacted a heavy toll on the equipment, training and readiness requirements, and the families of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. The emergency supplemental acknowledges the sacrifices made by, and the debt of gratitude, we and the Iraqi people owe to Armed Forces of the United States. But more than that, it makes a substantial down payment on that debt by providing substantial increases in funding for our troops. The supplemental includes a total appropriation of $2.8 billion for Defense Health Care, which is $1.7 billion above the President's request. The additional funding supports new initiatives to enhance medical services for active duty forces and mobilized personnel, and their family members. Included in this new funding is $450 million for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder/Counseling; $450 million for Traumatic Brain Injury care and research; $730 million to prevent health care fee increases for our troops; $20 million to address the problems at Walter Reed; and $14.8 million for burn care. Unlike the Republican leadership of the 109th Congress and the Bush administration, the new Democratic majority is committed to America's veterans. What's more, we back up that commitment by investing in their well-being. For example, the bill includes $1.7 billion above the President's request for initiatives to address the health care needs of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and the backlog in maintaining VA health care facilities, including $550 million to address the backlog in maintaining VA health care facilities so as to prevent the VA from experiencing a situation similar to that found at Walter Reed Medical Center. The bill includes an additional $250 million for medical administration to ensure there are sufficient personnel to support the growing number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and to maintain a high level of services for all veterans; $229 million for treating the growing number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans; $100 million for contract mental health care, which will allow the VA to contract with private mental health care providers to ensure that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are seen in the most timely and least disruptive fashion, including members of the Guard and Reserve; and $62 million to speed up the processing of claims of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, when American troops are sent into harm's way, America has an obligation to do all it can to minimize the risk of harm to the troops. That is why I am pleased the supplemental includes additional funding above the President's request to support our troops. We are providing $2.5 billion more to address the current readiness crisis of our stateside troops, including ensuring that they are better equipped and trained. We include $1.4 billion more for military housing allowances and $311 million more for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles for troops in Iraq. And there is included in the supplemental $222 million more for infrared countermeasures for Air Force aircraft to address the growing threat against U.S. air operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Equally important, Mr. Speaker, the supplemental contains language directing the President to adhere to current military guidelines for unit readiness, deployments, and time between deployments. The supplemental requires the Defense Department to abide by its current Unit Readiness policy, requiring the chief of the military department concerned to determine that a unit is ``fully mission capable'' before it is deployed to Iraq. The President may waive this provision by submitting a report to Congress detailing why the unit's deployment is in the interests of national security despite the assessment that the unit is not fully mission capable. The Defense Department is also required to abide by its current policy and avoid extending the deployment of units in Iraq in excess of 365 days for the Army and 210 days for the Marines. The provision may be waived by the President only by submitting a report to Congress detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit's extended deployment is in the interests of national security. Mr. Speaker, to reduce the incidence of combat fatigue and enhance readiness, it is important that our troops have sufficient time out of the combat zone and training between deployments. The supplemental requires the Defense Department to abide by its current policy and avoid sending units back into Iraq before troops get the required time away from the war theater. The President may waive this provision by submitting a report to Congress detailing why the unit's early redeployment to Iraq is in the interests of national security. Last but not least, Mr. Speaker, it must be noted that the cost of the war in Iraq to the United States has also been high regarding the new and neglected needs of the American people. Americans have been exceedingly tolerant and patient with this Administration's handling of the situation in Iraq. We have postponed, foregone, or neglected needed investments in education, infrastructure, housing, homeland security. That is why I am very pleased that the supplemental includes the following $4.3 billion for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster recovery grants, including $910 million to cover the cost of waiving the matching fund requirements in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 5174 (Public Law 93-288) (Stafford Act) for state and local government meaning the Federal government will finance 100 percent of the grants. Waiving the Stafford Act's matching fund requirement is critically important to the Gulf Coast states devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Based on my multiple listening trips to New Orleans and the Gulf Coast region, and my numerous meetings and discussions with government officials at all levels in the affected states and with survivors of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, many of whom now are relocated to my Houston congressional district, the most important lesson I have learned is that the Stafford Act is in its present form is simply inadequate to address the scale of devastation and human suffering wrought by a disaster the magnitude of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I thank Mr. Obey and Mr. Murtha for responding to concerns I expressed to President Bush about the need to modernize the Stafford Act so that it remains relevant to the 21st Century. I believe the Stafford Act must be amended to grant the federal government explicit authority and flexibility to provide long-term recovery assistance to communities devastated by disasters of the magnitude of Hurricane Katrina and Rita. Such authority currently does not exist and the Stafford Act's emphasis on temporary assistance to affected individuals and communities is simply inadequate to address the scope of human suffering we witnessed last August and which is still with us today. I will continue my efforts to modernize the Stafford Act. But I very strongly approve of the nearly $1 billion included in the bill to waive the matching fund requirements for hard- pressed state and local governments coping with emergencies of the scale of Hurricane Katrina. Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) funding has been extended to September 30, 2010. SSBG funding provides critically needed social services, including programs for mental health, child welfare, and the treatment of addictive disorders. Also allocated is $1.3 billion for east and west bank levee protection and coastal restoration systems in New Orleans and surrounding parishes. There is included $25 million for Small Business Administration (SBA) disaster loans and $80 million for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) tenant-based rental assistance. The supplemental also adds $400 million to restore partial cuts to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). This funding will bring much needed relief to many States that are running out of LIHEAP funds just as many utility shut-off moratoriums are set to expire. The supplemental adds $750 million to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to ensure continued healthcare coverage for children in 14 States that face a budget shortfall in the program. By taking prompt action now, these States will not be forced to stop enrolling new beneficiaries or begin curtailing benefits. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the supplemental provides $30 million for K-12 education recruitment assistance; $30 million for higher education assistance; and $40 million in security assistance for Liberia. It also includes an additional $1 billion to purchase vaccines needed to protect Americans from a global pandemic. Development of production capacity for a pandemic vaccine must be accelerated so that manufacturers can quickly produce enough quantities to protect the population. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that although the bill may not be the best I might have hoped for, I have concluded that it is the best that can be achieved at this time, this moment in history. I support the bill because I believe it represents a change of course and a new direction in our policy on Iraq. This bill will place us on the road that will reunite our troops with their families and bring them home with honor and success. Mr. Speaker, the bill before is not asking us to expand or extend the war in Iraq. I would not and will not do that. On the contrary, this bill offers us the first real chance to vote to end the war. This bill puts us on the glide path to the day when our troops come home where we can ``care for him who has borne the battle, and for his widow and orphan.'' This bill helps to repair the damage to America's international reputation and prestige. This bill brings long overdue oversight, accountability, and transparency to defense and reconstruction contracting and procurement. Most important, Mr. Speaker, this bill offers us the first real chance to vote to end the war. We should take advantage of this opportunity. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1591, the ``U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act.''

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for yielding. And, Mr. Murtha, you were right, and the leadership. I rise here today because I stand next to those who have lost their lives, so many of them around the country, but so many in Houston, Texas. I said I would travel with this board from Houston to Washington, and I said that I would do what was right to make their sacrifice one that we continue to honor. We mourn them. Their families mourn them. This is the right direction because the military goes to battle, but we go to war, and the Constitution does say that this Congress can declare war. It was not declared. And, frankly, it is not an interference. The generals are working, but we are redirecting policy. In fact, we are providing for unit readiness, length of deployment, time between deployments, money for Afghanistan, money for prosthetics, money for brain injury. We are providing for a new life for these soldiers when they return home. And like the former member of the Intelligence Committee says, this bill is right. I quarreled with it. I fought with it. But I believe it is the right thing, though many of us want a different direction. Vote for this supplemental.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me first of all add my appreciation to Congressman Tom Davis; maybe the constitutional teachers at the University of Virginia law school are owed a debt of gratitude as well; and, of course, the gentlelady who has persisted throughout her, I think, legal and legislative career, the Honorable Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. This is a historic moment and an historic day. I think the crucial- ness of this debate should not be lost on the American people. I rise to support this rule, this structured rule, that allows an amendment by Mr. Waxman and Mr. Conyers, and I would like to give comfort to those on the other side of the aisle to read their Constitution and explore even some of the Supreme Court cases that document that the District of Columbia under Supreme Court law has been held as a State in certain purposes. Now, what is lost in this debate is that this is not a singular legislative act that excludes a balance. Out of this provision comes a seat for the State of Utah, which has requested a seat for many, many years. Just recently, we added a seat for North Carolina so that citizens of the United States could vote. So it is being defined by my opponents on the other side, this rule that it is unconstitutional because they are not giving you the whole story. This, because of population concerns, adds a seat to Utah. But, more importantly, this is a constitutional approach. They are right. Article I, section 2 indicates that the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members from every State. But then there is an enunciation of the powers of Congress that goes under section 8, clause 17, that ``the Congress has the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatever over such district that has been established as the capital of the United States.'' The Congress has all power. Now, let me say this. We are not all powerful. We represent the people of the United States. But would you ask the question as we are debating soon the crisis in Iraq, where the policies of this Nation have been to export democracy, create an opportunity for those citizens of Iraq to vest in their country, to vote for their leadership, does it make any sense for individuals paying taxes, who are on the front lines of Iraq, Afghanistan, World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, the Korean conflict, and any conflict around the world, to be denied the right to vote if the Constitution gives us the authority to do so? I commend the Constitution to my colleagues. I might say that we welcome the distinguished gentleman from Iowa's amendment to work with Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton to get Senate provisions, if he desires to do so. It seems like he was concerned that the other body was not represented. But when we debate this question as we will soon, let us have the facts. You cannot quote one part, as one would say in the church, of the Bible and exclude the other part. You can't quote one part of the Constitution and ignore the powers of this Congress that has a right to exercise authority over the District of Columbia. I think the other question that should be asked and answered, who will it harm? Who will be hurt by recognizing the voting rights of people that are here in the United States paying taxes and shedding their blood? Who would argue against the place that thousands and millions of Americans come as their capital that they love, and they leave behind those who care for and take care of this capital, the residents of the District of Columbia, and they leave them with no right to vote. So I believe that this rule is the right rule. I have disagreed with rules, both Republican and, frankly, Democratic rules. Later today I will disagree with the rule that will be put forward. But frankly I think this rule that is structured makes a great deal of difference and it is important that we make sure that we abide by this book and we read it consistently with its language and that is to say that Congress has the power to move forward. I would ask my colleagues to be reminded that there are citizens in this country that cannot vote, and I hope that you will view the work of the Congress as it is constitutional and right to give those citizens the right to vote, for they too are Americans. I ask my colleagues to support the rule.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Conyers, may I pay tribute to you? It gives me such a privilege to be able to come to this floor with you as the chairperson of the House Judiciary Committee, along with the ranking member, who is a friend and colleague from Texas. But it is a special honor, and it humbles many of us, because a lot of us were not here for the debate on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voter Rights Act of 1965. Many Americans think that that bill only pertains and helps people of color, but really what it does is it restores that legislation, the value and the preciousness of the right to vote for all Americans. I am gratified that Chairman Conyers, who has a history with restoring the rights of Americans to vote, now finds himself on the floor in the doorway of history to be able to reaffirm the Constitution. And I heard my good friend, and I am glad that you will hear from my colleague from Texas, Congressman Al Green, who spent a few days on the bench and I think would recognize a Constitution when he would see it. But I think this is important, because if the American people are listening, there is some suggestion, what kind of irreverent actions are occurring on this floor? Why are we ignoring the Constitution? And I take great umbrage with that. I am sensitive to that. My very fabric of my existence is embedded in the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment. I want the Constitution to be cherished, and I want it to be right. So let me just recount for you why we can move from one section to the next, and it relates to the constitutionality of what we are doing. And I would only hope that my friends would not be rejecting this bill because, in fact, it is the District of Columbia. And let me remind America that Utah is given an opportunity for its citizens to be represented. But in 1820, the Supreme Court held that Congress could impose Federal taxes on the District, and it was related to the provision in here that says representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States. So we tax them based upon language in the Constitution that they equal the States. Then in 1889, the Supreme Court found that the constitutional prohibition against State laws that interfere with commerce applies to States and the District of Columbia, again equating the District of Columbia to States. And then in 1934, the Supreme Court found that Congress could treat the District of Columbia as a State. So in the Constitution it says that: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of several States. But it also says that this Congress has jurisdiction in clause 17 under section 8 over the District of Columbia, and that is what we are doing here today. We are correcting a wrong, an ill. We are correcting a disease. We are equating this city to the rights of Iraqis, who are now able to vote for all of those they want to vote for, albeit it is in a troubled situation. And so I would simply commend my colleagues to this, and to suggest that there was something wrong in the rule for not asking for an expedited Supreme Court review, my friends, the Supreme Court will be able to deliberate on this particular legislation in due time and be able to render a decision and expedited request warrants or suggests there should be a crisis. There was not an expedited request in the election of 2000, and the Supreme Court decided it in 4 or 5 days. For me, that was an emergency.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the gentleman for his inquiry. He made a very good point: can't the courts reconcile the issues between the two parties on their own expedited time. They can. And that is the example I used with the issue in the election of 2000. As you well know, that case, Gore v. Bush, went to the United States Supreme Court on their own expediting, and a decision was made between four or five days. My friends, this is a smoke-and-mirror issue. We welcome the Supreme Court's review. But today, we are holding up the Constitution, and I hope that as we hold it up, we will reflect upon those whose blood has been shed on behalf of this country, that we are giving them the right to vote legally, and under the Constitution. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, and thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his leadership in shepherding this important piece of legislation to the floor. Today we remove a stain that has blighted our Nation for more than 200 years of shame and correct an injustice to the citizens of the District of Columbia. H.R. 1433 would permanently expand the U.S. House of Representatives from 435 to 437 seats, providing a new, at-large seat to Utah and a vote to the District of Columbia. Based on the 2000 Census, Utah is the State next in line to enlarge its congressional delegation. The bill does not give the District statehood, nor does it give the District representation in the Senate. Rather, in H.R. 1433 Congress is simply treating the District as a congressional district for the purposes of granting full House representation, as it can pursuant to the grant of plenary power over the District of Columbia conferred by the Constitution in article I, section 8, clause 17. At the outset, let me address the claim that H.R. 1433 is a weak foundation upon which to base the District's voting rights in the House because it is a statutory rather a constitutionally based remedy. The argument should be rejected for the simple reason that it makes the perfect the enemy of the good. It is like asking a person to remain homeless while she saves to buy a house even though she has enough money to rent an apartment. Madam Speaker, let us not lose sight of one indisputable and shameful fact: Nearly 500,000 people living in the District of Columbia lack direct voting representation in the House of Representatives and Senate. Residents of the District of Columbia serve in the military, pay billions of dollars in Federal taxes each year, and assume other responsibilities of U.S. citizenship. For over 200 years, the District has been denied voting representation in Congress--the entity that has ultimate authority over all aspects of the city's legislative, executive, and judicial functions. Madam Speaker, if a person can be called upon to pay Federal taxes and serve in the Armed Forces of the United States, then he or she should at least have the opportunity to vote for a representative who could at least cast a symbolic vote in this Chamber on critical matters facing our Nation--issues like war and peace, equality and justice. Madam Speaker, taxation without representation is tyranny. It is unconscionable that more than a half million American citizens are being unconscionably denied a vote and a voice in the most important legislative body in the world. As a supporter of freedom, democracy, and equality, I believe that it is long overdue for the citizens of the District of Columbia to have a Representative in Congress who can vote on the vital legislation considered in this body. Madam Speaker, it is wrong that we must be reminded daily by license plates in the District of Columbia that ``Taxation without representation is tyranny.'' The people in Boston felt so strongly about this in 1775 that they rebelled in Boston Harbor, launching the ``Boston Tea Party.'' The principle that political authority derives from the consent of the government is no less applicable when it comes to the District of Columbia. Let us be clear. There is no dispute that hundreds of thousands of American citizens reside in the District of Columbia. We all agree that universal suffrage is the hallmark of a democratic regime, of which the United States is the world's leading exemplar. None of us believes it is fair that citizens of the District of Columbia pay Federal taxes, risk life and limb fighting wars abroad to protect American democracy and extend the blessings of liberty to people living in foreign lands. In short, there is no moral reason to deny the citizens of the District of Columbia the right to full representation in Congress. The only question is whether Congress has the will and the constitutional authority to do so. As I will discuss, Congress has always had the constitutional authority. For the last 12 years, we have not had the will; but now we do. Congress Can Grant Voting Rights to the District Under the District Clause As Professor Dinh argued in his powerful testimony before this Committee, Congress has ample constitutional authority to enact H.R. 1433 under the Constitution's ``District Clause.'' Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 17. The District Clause empowers Congress to ``exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District'' and thus grants Congress plenary and exclusive authority to legislate all matters concerning the District. The text, history and structure of the Constitution, as well as judicial decisions and pronouncements in analogous or related contexts, confirms that this broad legislative authority extends to the granting of congressional voting rights for District residents. The District Clause, which has been described by no less a constitutional authority as Judge Kenneth Starr as ``majestic in its scope,'' gives Congress plenary and exclusive power to legislate for the District. Courts have held that the District Clause is ``sweeping and inclusive in character'' and gives Congress ``extraordinary and plenary power'' over the District. It empowers Congress to legislate within the District for ``every proper purpose of government.'' Congress therefore possesses ``full and unlimited jurisdiction to provide for the general welfare of citizens within the District of Columbia by any and every act of legislation which it may deem conducive to that end,'' subject, of course, to the negative prohibitions of the Constitution. Although, the District is not a State for purposes of Congress's article I, section 2, clause 1, which states that Members of the House are chosen ``by the people of the several States,'' this fact is not dispositive of Congress's authority under the District Clause to give residents of the District the same rights as citizens of a State. Since 1805, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has the authority to treat the District like a State, and Congress has repeatedly exercised this authority. No court has ever sustained a challenge to Congress's exercise of its power under the District Clause. Two related Supreme Court cases illustrate this point. In Hepburn v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. 445 (1805), the Court held that the diversity jurisdiction provision of article III, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution excluded citizens of the District of Columbia. The Court observed, however, that it was ``extraordinary'' that residents of the District should be denied the same access to Federal courts provided to aliens and State residents, and invited Congress to craft a solution, noting that the matter was ``a subject for legislative, not judicial consideration.'' Congress accepted that invitation 145 years later and enacted legislation that explicitly granted District residents access to Federal courts on diversity grounds. That legislation was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1949 in National Mutual Insurance Company v. Tidewater Transfer Company, 337 U.S. 582 (1949). A plurality of the Court led by Justice Jackson held that Congress could for this purpose treat District residents as though they were State residents pursuant to its authority under the District Clause. The two concurring justices would have gone even further; they argued that Hepburn should be overruled and that the District should be considered a State for purposes of Article III. Tidewater strongly supports Congress's authority to provide the District a House Representative via simple legislation. As the plurality explained, because Congress unquestionably had the greater power to provide District residents diversity-based jurisdiction in special article I courts, it surely could accomplish the more limited result of granting District residents diversity-based access to existing article III courts. Similarly, Congress's authority to grant the District full rights of statehood--or grant its residents voting rights through retrocession--by simple legislation suggests that it may, by simple legislation, take the more modest step of providing citizens of the District with a voice in the House of Representatives. Indeed, since Congress has granted voting representation to residents of Federal enclaves in Evans v. Cornman, 398 U.S. 419 (1970), and to Americans living abroad through the Overseas Voting Act, there is no reason to suppose that Congress has less ability to provide voting representation to the residents of the Nation's capital. II. Congress May Direct the Next-Entitled State to Elect Its Additional Representative at Large H.R. 1433 also grants an additional congressional seat to the State of Utah as the next-entitled State and directs that State to elect its additional Representative at large, rather than creating an additional single-Member district. Congress plainly has the authority to do so. This statutory scheme does not violate the ``one person, one vote'' principle. As the Supreme Court held in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), ``the command of Article I, Section 2 [of the Constitution], that Representatives be chosen `by the People of the Several States' means that as nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's.'' In that case the Court struck down a Georgia apportionment statute because it created a congressional district that had two-to-three times as many residents as Georgia's nine other congressional districts. The Court stated: The apportionment statute thus contracts the value of some votes and expands that of others. If the Federal Constitution intends that when qualified voters elect members of Congress each vote be given as much weight as any other vote, then this statute cannot stand. ``One person, one vote'' concerns arise when congressional districts within a State contain different numbers of residents, diluting the voting power of residents in the district with more residents. In contrast, here the proposed temporary ``at large'' district in Utah does not dilute the voting power of any Utah voter. When Utah holds its at-large election for the new fourth seat, Utah voters may cast a vote in their existing district and in the statewide election for the fourth seat. While it is true that the statewide ``at large'' district will necessarily contain more residents than the other districts, the establishment of that ``at large'' district would create no constitutional dilution concerns. Each person's vote in the ``at large'' district would have equal influence, and the opportunity to cast that vote would not alter in any way the value of that person's vote in her own smaller district. Nor does a potential ``one person, one vote'' challenge arise on the ground that Utah residents vote in two elections while residents of other States with single-member districts would vote only once. First, the Supreme Court has never held that the ``one person, one vote'' principle applies to the apportionment process. Indeed, the Court has held that Congress is entitled to substantial deference in its apportionment decisions. Second, the proposed at-large election does not give residents of the State more or less voting power than the residents of States with single-Member districts. The example cited by Richard Bress, one of the witnesses who testified before the Judiciary Committee in support of the bill, illustrates why this is so. Suppose that State A and State B have roughly the same population and are each entitled to four Representatives. State A holds an at-large election for all four of its Representatives, while State B divides its Representatives and voters into four districts. State A's statewide district would have a population four times the size of each district in State B. As compared to the single-district voter in State B, the ``at-large'' voter in State A has a one-fourth interest in each of four Representatives. The single-district voter in State B has a whole interest in one Representative. But in both scenarios, each voter has, in the aggregate, one whole voting interest. Similarly, as compared to a State with four single-Member districts, the voters in Utah's existing three districts would have proportionately less influence in the election of the Representative from their own district, but would gain a fractional interest in the State's at-large Representative. In short, Utah residents would have no more--and no less--voting power than residents of any other State. III. Conclusion For these reasons, I believe H.R. 1433 is constitutionally unassailable. Granting voting rights to the citizens of the District of Columbia is a matter of simple justice. I know it is morally right. It is also long overdue. Let us end this injustice and be true to the better angels of our nature. I urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 1433.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule governing the debate of H.R. 1591, ``U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act.'' There is no more important issue facing the Congress, the President, and the American people than the war in Iraq. It is a subject upon which no one is indifferent, least of all members of Congress. Beginning with the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha, many good ideas have been advanced by members of Congress to bring to a successful conclusion the American military engagement in Iraq. It is in that spirit that I commend the leadership and the Chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, for their patient and careful crafting of the Iraq Emergency Supplemental that will come before us later today. I support this rule and I support the supplemental because I support our magnificent servicemen and women in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, nearly every decision reached by a legislative body is a product of compromise. The rule and bill before us are no different. If it was left solely to us, any of us could no doubt add or subtract provisions which we think would improve the bill. For example, I offered four amendments to H.R. 1591. Let me describe them. Amendment No. 1 Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 terminates the authority granted by Congress to the President in the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq. The resolution is terminated because the objectives for which the authorization was granted have all been achieved. Let me explain. Congress authorized the President to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following objectives: 1. to disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the security of the United States and international peace in the Persian Gulf region; 2. to change the Iraqi regime so that Saddam Hussein and his Baathist party no longer posed a threat to the people of Iraq or its neighbors; 3. to bring to justice any members of al Qaeda known or found to be in Iraq bearing responsibility for the attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001; 4. to ensure that the regime of Saddam Hussein would not provide weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists, including al Qaeda; and 5. to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Thanks to the skill and valor of the Armed Forces of the United States we now know for certain that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction. Thanks to the tenacity and heroism of American troops, Saddam Hussein was deposed, captured, and dealt with by the Iraqi people in such a way that neither he nor his Baathist Party will ever again pose a threat to the people of Iraq or its neighbors in the region. Nor will the regime ever acquire and provide weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists. Third, the American military has caught or killed virtually every member of al Qaeda in Iraq remotely responsible for the 9-11 attack on our country. Last, all relevant U.N. resolutions relating to Iraq have been enforced. In other words, every objective for which the use of force in Iraq was authorized by the 2002 resolution has been achieved, most with spectacular success thanks to the professionalism and superior skill of our service men and women. The point of my amendment was to recognize, acknowledge, and honor this fact. Amendment No. 2 The Armed Forces of the United States have performed magnificently. They won the war they were sent to fight. Their civilian leadership has not succeeded in winning the peace. Rather than undertaking a misguided and futile surge in troops, the United States should surge diplomatically and politically. That is why Jackson Lee Amendment No. 2 called for the creation and appointment of a high-level Special Envoy for National and Political Reconciliation in Iraq (SENPRI) to launch a new offensive on the diplomatic front. This Special Envoy--who would be an individual of the stature of former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright, or James Baker--would be commissioned to undertake the peaceful reconciliation of the major stakeholders in a free and democratic Iraq, particularly the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. The SENPRI shall meet with any and all such persons, organizations, and entities, and make such recommendations as he deems necessary and expedient for bringing about national and political reconciliation in Iraq, including recommending the assistance of a bona fide international peacekeeping force where necessary. A real diplomatic surge requires a full-court press designed to engage all six of Iraq's neighbors--Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait--more constructively in stabilizing Iraq. These countries are already involved in a bilateral, self-interested but disorganized way. As the Iraq Study Group report makes clear, none of these countries wants to live with an Iraq that, after our redeployment, becomes a failed state or a humanitarian catastrophe that could become a haven for terrorists or a hemorrhage of millions more refugees streaming into their countries. To avoid this catastrophe, there needs to be national reconciliation between the contending factions in Iraq. A Special Envoy dedicated to achieving this goal would help a great deal in bringing about this reconciliation. Amendment No. 3 Mr. Speaker, as I have stated, the Armed Forces of the United States have performed magnificently in Operation Iraqi Freedom. This fact is deserving of effusive praise and explicit acknowledgment in H.R. 1591. My third amendment did this. The brave servicemen and women of the United States toppled the repressive Baathist regime, deposed one of history's greatest tyrants and gave the Iraqi people the chance to draft their own constitution, hold their own free elections, establish their own government, and build a future of peace and prosperity for themselves and their posterity. But the cost of America's magnificent gift to the people of Iraq has been high. It has been paid for with the lives of more than 3,000 service members and the limbs of countless thousands of other. It has been paid for with the hard-earned tax dollars of the families of America. The cost to the United States has also been high regarding the new and neglected needs of the American people. Operation Iraqi Freedom has exacerbated the backlog in Veterans Administration health care facility maintenance; placed an undue strain on the delivery of medical treatment and rehabilitative services for current and new veterans; and exacted a heavy toll on the equipment, training and readiness requirements, and the families of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. My amendment acknowledged the sacrifices made by, and the debt of gratitude, we and the Iraqi people owe to Armed Forces of the United States. Amendment No. 4 Last, Jackson Lee Amendment No. 4, changed the troop reference date for redeployment set forth in section 1904 from March 1, 2008, to December 31, 2007. What this means, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government of Iraq will have had more than three years since the United States turned over sovereignty to establish a sustainable government with secure borders that can protect its people. If the allied forces could win WorId War II in less than four years, certainly that is enough time for the Government of Iraq to provide for the security of its people, with the substantial assistance of the United States. But Mr. Speaker, we ought not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. The emergency supplemental may not be perfect but it is better-- far better--than any legislation relating to the war in Iraq that has ever been brought to the floor for a vote. For the first time, Mr. Speaker, the Congress can go on record against an open-ended war whose goal line is always moving. The vote today will put the House on record as squarely against the Bush Administration's policy of looking the other way while the Iraqi government fails to govern a country worthy of a free people and with as much commitment and dedication to the security and happiness of its citizens and has been shown by the heroic American servicemen and women who risked their lives and, in the case of over 3,000 fallen heroes, lost their lives to win for the Iraqi people the chance to draft their own constitution, hold their own free elections, establish their own government, and build a future of peace and prosperity for themselves and their posterity. But the cost of America's magnificent gift to the people of Iraq has been high. It has been paid for with the lives of more than 3,000 service members and the limbs of countless thousands of others. It has been paid for with the hard-earned tax dollars of the families of America. The cost to the United States has also been high regarding the new and neglected needs of the American people. Operation Iraqi Freedom has exacerbated the backlog in Veterans Administration health care facility maintenance; placed an undue strain on the delivery of medical treatment and rehabilitative services for current and new veterans; and exacted a heavy toll on the equipment, training and readiness requirements, and the families of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. The emergency supplemental acknowledges the sacrifices made by, and the debt of gratitude, we and the Iraqi people owe to Armed Forces of the United States. More than that, it makes a substantial down payment on that debt by providing substantial increases in funding for our troops. For example, the supplemental provides $2.8 billion for defense health care, which is $1.7 billion above the President's request. Additionally, another $1.7 billion is provided to address the maintenance backlog at VA health care facilities. We provide $2.5 billion to ensure that our troops are properly equipped and trained. Because after all, when American troops are sent into harm's way, America has an obligation to do all it can to minimize the risk of harm to the troops. That is why I am pleased the bill directs the President to adhere to current military guidelines for unit readiness, time between deployments, and meeting benchmarks and ending our involvement in Iraq's civil war. Although the bill may not be the best I might have hoped for, I have concluded that it is the best that can be achieved at this time, this moment in history. I support the rule and the bill because I believe it represents a change of course and a new direction in our policy on Iraq. This bill will place us on the road that will reunite our troops with their families and bring them home with honor and success. I urge all members to support the rule and the bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me, first of all, thank the gentlelady for being so timely in her yielding, and to congratulate her as well for this initiative. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be allowed as well, as I compliment her overall on her commitment to housing, just to reflect on the last 2 days. This was a challenge, but it was the leadership of this Subcommittee on Financial Services that managed to get their hands around what is confronting the gulf region, and particularly cities like Houston that are impacted by a large number of Hurricane Katrina survivors. And I just want to cite that, though I heard a good number of responses on the floor about how much, how long, and too much, frankly I am going to encourage all of the Members of this body to visit the gulf region and to recognize that no matter how much, too much and how long, they will see that people are still not settled, not in houses, and still are receiving eviction notices. Homeownership is a viable part of our dreams. But, at the same time, we have to be the ``fix it'' people. And unfortunately, there was much debate on this floor that didn't understand that hurricane recovery for Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma and Rita had not yet occurred. Therefore, I hope that as we go forward and more bills may come to the floor on dealing with Hurricane Katrina, we will be sensitive that this is one of the largest evacuations in the history of America, and that we must continue our work. And so for that reason, I support the underlying bill. But, likewise, I hope that we will have a heart and recognize that we are, in fact, our brothers' and sisters' keeper, and that we will take some time to understand that we are still healing, we are still repairing, and we are still helping.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1362, which makes several changes to federal acquisition laws to increase transparency and accountability in federal contracting. Specifically, the bill requires agencies to limit the use of certain types of abuse-prone contracts, and to promote integrity in the acquisition workforce. The bill limits the length of certain noncompetitive contracts and requires large federal agencies to develop plans to minimize the use of noncompetitive contracts and cost- reimbursement type contracts. In addition the bill requires the public disclosure of justification and approval documents required for noncompetitive contracts and requires reports to Congress on certain contract audits. Finally, the bill contains a number of provisions which would improve the acquisition workforce. The Bush administration has justified the award of lucrative no-bid contracts claiming exigent circumstances. The spending on no-bid contracts has more than doubled under the Bush Administration. The time has come again for us to continue in the tradition of restoring accountability back into Congress. This legislation builds on the progress we have made to return to the basic principles of fiscal responsibility and restore Congress's role as a check on the Executive Branch. Transparency and integrity is needed in order for accountability to be restored in the federal contracting process so that taxpayers' money can be protected from waste, fraud, and abuse. The effect of this legislation would change federal acquisition law to require agencies to limit the use of emergency no-bid contracts and to increase transparency and accountability in federal contracting in an effort to protect the taxpayers' money. An estimated $10 billion in Iraq reconstruction spending has already been wasted and the waste will continue until legislation such as H.R. 1362 makes it a requirement for agencies to limit the use of these abuse-prone contracts. Congress has held multiple hearings over the abuse that has occurred regarding such waste in federal contracting and now we must act. Waste and fraud occurred not only with Iraq reconstruction contracts but also in connection with Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts. Reports of government contractors defrauding the Coalition Provisional Authority of tens of millions of dollars in Iraq reconstruction funds have surfaced and this Administration has done little to try to recover the money. It is time to clean up fraud in Iraq and elsewhere. I wholeheartedly support H.R. 1362 to change our current federal acquisition laws to require agencies to limit the use of abuse- prone contracts. I applaud this beneficial legislation and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1362.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. I am not sure everyone heard you. I would appreciate it, so the vote we just voted is clarified, would you please restate the vote and also indicate whether or not that was an overruling of the Chair? Would you restate it for the full body, please?