Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 807, the ``Columbia Space Shuttle Memorial Study Act,'' which directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the feasibility and suitability of establishing a memorial to the Space Shuttle Columbia in the State of Texas and for its inclusion as a unit of the National Park System. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill because the seven astronauts whose lives were lost aboard Space Shuttle Columbia were extraordinary people. To the world those astronauts were valiant heroes; to us in Texas they were also friends, neighbors, and family. They made the ultimate sacrifice on a mission that benefited all of humanity. They deserve the highest level of honor, and their sacrifice and dedication must be commemorated in a way that will serve to inspire the next generation of explorers. We can never forget this magnificent seven, those heroes who explored the heavens: Rick D. Husband; Michael P. Anderson; Laurel Clark; David M. Brown; William C. McCool; Kapana Chawla; and Ilan Ramon. They were individuals of the highest caliber, always striving for excellence, and exemplifying the most noble of human traits. They were skilled professionals, scientists, clinicians, adventurers, and family men and women. The crew represented the diversity of our nation--black and white, men and women, immigrant and native-born, and included a comrade from Israel embodying the international goals of peace and cooperation. The Columbia crew was deeply committed to the NASA mission. NASA provides insights into the origins, destiny, and wonder of the universe and is a source of dreams for young and old alike. These seven courageous explorers paid the ultimate price to advance our understanding of the universe, to advance our medical and engineering sciences, and to make the nation safer and more secure. Before the Columbia started its tragic descent, the shuttle crew completed some 80 scientific experiments. Much of their research data had already been relayed to Houston where it has added to the pool of scientific knowledge. In the two previous Congresses, I introduced legislation authorizing the issuance of Congressional Gold Medals to the crew of Space Shuttle Columbia. In fact, 318 joined me in co-sponsoring that legislation but the bill was never brought to the floor for a vote. I have reintroduced the bill in the 110th Congress (H.R. 266) authorizing the coinage of a Gold Medal to pay proper tribute to our astronauts. One of the main reasons that the medal is bestowed is to make the highest expression of national appreciation for distinguished achievements and contributions. Mr. Speaker, very shortly I will be introducing legislation authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to mint a coin commemorating the 50th Anniversary of NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. For a half century, NASA and the JPL have been involved in many defining events occurred which have shaped the course of human history and demonstrated to the world the character of the people of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 807 and urge my colleagues to do likewise. I also invite all members to join me in bringing to a vote on the floor H.R. 266 to award Congressional Gold Medals to the crew of Space Shuttle Columbia and in supporting legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint a coin in commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of NASA and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chair, I thank the distinguished manager and I thank the distinguished speaker, and as well, George Miller, the chairman of the Education Committee, for his statement he made just a few weeks ago, how he had seen an absence of recognition of middle class workers in America being addressed in his committee and he was going to address it. I want my friends to know that the first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of association. That is what the Employee Free Choice Act does in H.R. 800. Let me thank the president of my local union AFL-CIO, Mr. Wortham, the Secretary/Treasurer of the AFL-CIO, Mr. Shaw and SEIU because I want them to know that my presence with them in the janitorial organizational effort over the last couple of weeks reinforced the importance of this Employee Free Choice Act. My standing with the old PACE union in front of energy refineries years ago reinforces the need of the Employee Free Choice Act. It is a simple process. All it does is it allows individuals to form unions and to engage in collective bargainig. Without this protection, many union organizers and members would be fired. I thank the distinguished gentleman, and I ask that this legislation be supported, because middle-class working America deserves this protection. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support, and as a proud co- sponsor of H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). I support this bill because despite several years of economic growth and high corporate profits, middle- and working-class families like the ones I represent in Houston have actually lost ground. They are squeezed between shrinking or stagnating incomes and rising costs for the basic necessities of modern life such as education, health care, transportation, food, and housing. One of the most effective and practical ways of reversing this undesirable trend is to restore the freedom of workers to join together to bargain collectively for better wages, benefits, and working conditions. Madam Chairman, on average, workers who belong to a union earn 30 percent more than nonunion workers. Members of unions, on average, receive 15 days of paid vacation annually, which is almost 50 percent more than their nonunion counterparts. Union members also fare better when it comes to health care: 80 percent of union members have employer-provided health care; only 49 percent of non-union workers have the same benefit. And, perhaps most important of all, workers who belong to a union earn on average 30 percent more than nonunion workers. Madam Chairman, no group or association deserves more credit than organized labor and the trade union movement for the creation and rise of the American middle class, the 5-day work week, the 40-hour work week, the existence of employee pension plans, and many of the other employment benefits which we take for granted today. The right to form a union is a fundamental human right and an essential element of a free and democratic society. But today, the right to organize and bargain collectively, protections that the National Labor Relations Act was enacted in 1935 to protect, have been so weakened that immediate action is needed to restore them. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was enacted in 1935 to protect the rights of workers to join unions and to bargain collectively with their employers. Unfortunately, over the years these rights have been dramatically eroded because of aggressive and intimidating employer anti-union campaigns, ineffective NLRA penalties for employers who violate worker rights, and lengthy employer appeals of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cases in the courts. As a result, it is now increasingly uncommon for workers to successfully organize by going through an NLRB-conducted election. When workers do choose to be represented by a union, moreover, employers use a variety of legal and illegal tactics to keep the union from obtaining a first contract. H.R. 800 will help restore the worker protections in the NLRA by: (1) requiring employers to bargain with a union when a majority of workers sign valid authorization cards; (2) providing for mediation and arbitration for a first contract; and (3) increasing penalties for employer violations of the NLRA. I support each of these provisions. Majority sign-up Madam Chairman, a large and growing percentage of employers either take advantage of loopholes in the NLRA or simply violate the NLRA to spy on, harass, threaten, intimidate, suspend, fire, deport, and otherwise victimize workers who attempt to exercise their right to act collectively through a union. According to a highly respected Cornell University survey, 36 percent of workers who vote ``no'' in union representation elections explain their vote as a response to employer pressure. This statistic is not surprising given the intensity of employer anti-union campaigns. According to the Cornell survey, employers illegally fire at least one worker in 25 percent of all organizing campaigns. And 92 percent of employers make their employees attend ``captive audience'' meetings, where they are required to sit through one-sided, anti-union presentations. (Union supporters are given no opportunity to speak.) Also, 78 percent of employers hold repeated closed-door, ``one-on-one'' meetings with workers, which are very intimidating to most employees. In the manufacturing sector, over 75 percent of companies threaten or ``predict'' the workplace will close or move if workers vote for the union. EFCA requires employers to recognize and bargain with unions when a majority of workers have signed valid authorization cards. With majority sign-up, workers are able to decide for themselves whether they want to form a union, free from the assault of an intimidating employer anti-union campaign, which is generally triggered at the moment a union files a representation petition with the NLRB. Mediation and arbitration Madam Chairman, when workers do manage to get over the obstacles to forming a union, they often face employer resistance to negotiating a first contract. With the use of anti-union consultants, delay, and the inadequacies of the NLRA, many employers drag out negotiations for a first contract until one year passes, at which time employees who were active in the ``vote no'' committee file a petition to decertify the union. In fact, 32 percent of workers who demonstrate majority support for union representation lack a collective bargaining agreement one year later. Without a contract as a bar, the decertification often goes forward and the union--seen as weak and ineffective--is frequently voted out. EFCA provides that if an employer and a union are engaged in bargaining for their first contract and are unable to reach agreement within 90 days, either party may refer the dispute to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). If the FMCS is unable to bring the parties to agreement after 30 days of mediation, the dispute is referred to arbitration and the results of the arbitration are binding on the parties for 2 years. The time limits may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties. Stiffer penalties for Employer Violations Madam Chairman, the NLRA has woefully inadequate remedies for employer violations. There are no punitive damages. There are no provisions for repeat violators, as there are under the Occupational Safety and Health Act or the Environmental Protection Act. And the limited back pay penalty is so weak that it is in the economic interest of most employers to fire key union supporters to chill an organizing drive. To rectify this situation, the third prong of EFCA would strengthen the penalties for certain employer violations of the NLRA during an organizing drive or negotiations for a first contract. Specifically, it would: (1) require the NLRB to seek a federal court injunction whenever there is reasonable cause to believe that the employer has illegally discharged an employee or otherwise engaged in conduct that significantly interferes with employee rights; (2) provide for triple back pay when an employee is illegally discharged or discriminated against, and (3) provide for civil fines of up to $20,000 per violation against employers found to have willfully or repeatedly violated employees' rights. Madam Chairman, these are modest and reasonable but necessary protections if the fundamental right to organize is to be preserved. It is difficult to understand how anyone could be opposed to such sensible legislation. But opponents of H.R. 800 have launched a major campaign to derail the bill. As discussed below, there is little or no merit to any of the major claims being raised to scare and intimidate supporters of the bill. The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish the National Labor Relations Board's ``secret ballot'' election process. That process will still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The legislation simply provides an alternative means for workers to form a union through majority sign-up if a majority prefers that method to the NLRB election process. Under current law, workers may only use the majority sign-up process if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice--whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up--a majority choice of the employees, not the employer. The Employee Free Choice Act will not result in intimidation and harassment by labor unions against workers. Research has found that coercion and pressure actually drops when workers form a union through a majority sign-up process. But more importantly, harassment by unions is not the problem. In a study covering a period of more than 60 years, the Human Resources Policy Association listed 113 NLRB cases involving allegations of union deception and/or coercion in obtaining authorization card signatures. A careful examination of those cases, however, revealed that union misconduct was found in only 42 of those 113 claimed cases. By contrast, in 2005 alone, over 30,000 workers received back pay from employers that illegally fired or otherwise discriminated against them for their union activities. Contrary to the claims of opponents, the Employee Free Choice Act does not require a secret ballot election in order for workers to get rid of a union. Under current law, if an employer has evidence, such as cards or a petition, that a majority of workers no longer supports the union, then the employer is required by law to withdraw recognition of the union and stop bargaining, without an election, unless an election is pending. Under current law, the employer can and must withdraw recognition unilaterally, without the consent of the NLRB. The Employee Free Choice Act would not change this. The Employee Free Choice Act does not require ``public'' union card signings. Under current law, employees must sign cards or petitions to show their support for a union in order to obtain an election. And, under current law, when an employer agrees to a majority sign-up process, employees must sign cards to show the union's majority status. Signing a card under the Employee Free Choice Act is no different from these card signings under current law. The union authorization card under the Employee Free Choice Act is treated no differently than a petition for election or a card under a majority sign-up agreement. As with petitions for an election, under the Employee Free Choice Act, the National Labor Relations Board would receive the cards and determine their validity. Madam Chairman, opponents of H.R. 800 claim the bill is hypocritical because some of its sponsors support secret ballot elections for workers in Mexico, but not in the United States. This is a short horse soon curried. Members of Congress wrote to Mexican authorities in 2001 arguing in favor of a secret ballot election in a case where workers there were trying to replace a sham incumbent union with a real, independent union. The Employee Free Choice Act is consistent with this; it requires an NLRB election in cases where workers seek to replace one union with another union. Indeed, the original framers of the National Labor Relations Act intended elections for precisely those cases where multiple unions were competing--particularly where one was a sham company union and another was a real independent union. All in all, Madam Chairman, H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act, is good for working- and middle-class families and that means it is good for America. Adopting this legislation is another step in the right direction for our country. A new and better direction is what Americans voted for last November. By supporting H.R. 800, as I do strongly, we are delivering on our promise to the American people.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 52, to support the goals and ideals of American Heart Month. The leading cause of death in the United States is not murder or gang violence or any other violent crime; it is heart disease. The statistics are staggering. One-third of adult Americans have 1 or more of the following heart diseases: high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, congestive heart failure, stroke, and congenital heart defects. While some of the major risk factors of heart disease like advanced age, gender, and heredity cannot be changed, minorities are at a greater risk than whites to die from heart disease and die at higher rates. Heart disease also is devastating to women. In 2003 a total of 685,089 people died of heart disease; 51 percent of these victims were women. Nearly twice as many women in the United States die of heart disease and stroke as from all forms of cancer, including breast cancer. Turning to African Americans, the numbers are even more shocking. Out of the five largest U.S. racial/ethnic groups, the death rate of 300 per 100,000 population for African Americans is the highest. It is essential for all Americans to be aware of the risk factors associated with heart disease and to take the necessary precautions to reduce those risks. Fortunately, there are things Americans can do to reduce the risk of heart disease. They can reduce stress, increase physical activity, consume alcoholic beverages in moderation, refrain from using illegal drugs or smoking or hormone replacement therapy. Mr. Speaker, I support H. Con. Res. 52 because we need to take the steps necessary to encourage Americans to fight the causes of heart disease and to take to heart the four simple ``healthy life, healthy heart goals'' identified by the Healthier US initiative of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Regular exercise regularly and maintain a healthy weight; good eating habits; avoidance of tobacco, drugs and excessive alcohol; and regular checkups and screenings. Mr. Speaker, we must not allow heart disease to become a silent killer. Let us support the goals and ideals of American Heart Month. I thank my colleague, Representative Millender-McDonald for introducing this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 52.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was certainly listening to my friend express himself on important issues. I believe it is important for this floor and this Congress to really turn on the light and have a transparent government. And so I will attempt this evening to share some of my concerns as they relate to a number of issues that I believe we have both the interest of the American people in making it transparent in its debate, but also an obligation, in some instances, to even save lives. First let me say that with all of the missteps on immigration issues, there is no route left for this Congress to take other than to begin a debate on comprehensive immigration reform, because until we get an orderliness with the individuals that are in this country and the securing of the border, all of the frustration will continue. And so I think it is the right step to make to save lives of those who would come into this country undocumented, fleeing for an economic opportunity; for the needs of the Border Patrol agents in the northern and southern border, what I consider to be a plus-up. Inasmuch as the support system provided by the National Guard has a time certain to end, we need to be constructive and look toward comprehensive immigration reform. I want to add to that discussion what I think is an injustice that has occurred to two particular Border Patrol agents who now languish in jail because they have been prosecuted by the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office. After the U.S. attorney prosecuted, he was heard to have said, I am sorry I had to do it, I wish there was another way. Well, Mr. Speaker, there was another way, and that is, of course, there could have been administrative action. And that is the issue surrounding the Border Patrol agents who fired at a fleeing alien, undocumented, across the border, wounded that individual, none of which I applaud, none of which I believe that any comments I make tonight sanction, but the harshness of 12- and 13-year sentences for what could have been an administrative proceeding to fire those individuals inasmuch as they were in the line of duty, this act of a prosecution and jailing does not speak to the sensibleness of addressing this question of inappropriate behavior, or, if you will, out-of-procedure behavior that might have occurred in this instance. The real question is why did the U.S. attorney proceed for a criminal prosecution? That needs to be corrected. And I have asked the Attorney General for an explanation and a reason why his U.S. attorney proceeded in that manner. Prosecutorial discretion was used wrongly. Let me conclude by suggesting that we are also wrongly in the Iraq war. There will be an opportunity forthcoming to make a very serious and deliberative decision about whether we continue the funding of this Iraq war. This is not in any way a diminishing of the heroics and the work of our United States military. I frankly believe, through my legislation, the U.S. Military Success Act, and the plussing up of diplomacy affirms that these individuals have done their job. It is now time for methodical, deliberative debate on how we do not interfere with the leadership of the United States military and brass and leaders on the ground in Iraq, but begin to give them the assignment of a strategic redeployment of our troops. It is the right decision to make when you look at the debacle of housing conditions for returning injured troops, when you see the mounting numbers of 22,000, 23,000, 25,000 severely injured troops, many of them with brain injury, as we saw very eloquently put forward by Bob Woodruff, who did a wonderful expose after himself being a real miracle of recovery, to show the imploded brain injuries of these soldiers. We are not there to babysit the insurgent violence and civil war violence and possibly al Qaeda violence. We should be engaged in the war on terror, but not as, in essence, a sitting symbol for them to abuse and misuse. And frankly, that is what the Iraq war has become. I applaud some of the diplomatic successes, determining how to organize the oil revenues, and some of the other steps that the Iraqi Government has made. They can continue to make that so that their reconciliation and the downing of the violence can be based upon a reconciliation diplomatic act. If there is a deployment time set, redeployment, it will give the generals on the ground the opportunity to secure the area and as well make sense of this terrible, terrible incident. We need to end the war now and bring our troops home.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Let me thank the chairman of the full committee and Chairman Frank and the ranking member of the full committee for the heavy lifting that has been done. I rise to support H.R. 556, and in the course of it, let me try to remind my colleagues why we got here. Among many reasons, I think the incident involving the Dubai Ports was not only a shock to the very fine Financial Services Committee, but a shock to Homeland Security, it was a shock to America. And the focus was not around I don't want jobs created by foreign investment; it was around, you mean to tell me we have been exposed to the potential of terrorist activities or control? Certainly some of the suggestions and allegations were probably far- blown because people are fearful. And that is why we have come together to work on these issues from a collective Financial Services perspective and a number of other jurisdictions. On the CFIUS committee is the Secretary of Commerce, is the Secretary of Homeland Security, so therefore, these diverse issues can be addressed. I rise to support H.R. 556 because of one particular reason. There is transparency. There is no more of the shock value. Across America we are now selling roads. We don't know what else we will be selling. We may be selling doors to banks as it relates to foreign investment. Not that we disagree with foreign investment. We want it to be balanced. And the way the bill has been constructed, one, there is a wide diversity of responsibility, including the Secretaries of Treasury, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, State and Energy, very appropriate, Attorney General, Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, the U.S. Trade Representative, Director of Office of Management and Budget, Director of National Economic Council, and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. I can't imagine a more inclusive group to be able to make a very studied assessment, one, of protecting us, which is the real question that Americans ask, who's in my backyard, who's at my back door, and also not to reject legitimate, forthright and job- creating opportunities. In the transaction process that has been laid out by this bill, it is a study in thoughtfulness. And I think it will work. This determination will be assessed: whether the transaction involves a foreign government-controlled entity, whether the transaction threatens to impair national security, and the review cannot mitigate the concern. So there you are again, no cover-up, transparent. The National Intelligence Director identifies concerns and if CFIUS cannot agree upon methods to mitigate these concerns, any one CFIUS member agency votes against approving the transaction. So one entity, it may be Commerce, it may be Homeland Security, can raise a concern about this transaction. This is, I think, a fast action on a matter that could not be addressed and did not get addressed in the last Congress. But we are here today talking about ways of securing America and working financially and businesswise with the various constituencies that would be impacted. I find this as a wonderful first step. Coming from the State of Texas, I can assure you that there is a lot of busy-ness about selling roads. It again raises its head of concern about security questions. I have always made the point, do we put making money over security? I believe that we have made a very important first step to strengthen this process, of recognizing the balance. My subcommittee on this question looks forward to hearings after the fact on the actual practical aspects of the selling of infrastructure in the United States, but we now have a body of thought through H.R. 556 which we can use as a form of study and relief. In conclusion, let me again thank the sponsors of this bill, I am a cosponsor of it as well, but the chairman and ranking member and also for moving this swiftly and quickly and really answering the question of both transparency, jobs and security, might I say security being number one. I ask my colleagues to support the bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 884, which establishes the Science and Technology Homeland Security International Cooperative Programs Office. H.R. 884 is an improved version of a similar bill, H.R. 4942, passed by the House during the 109th Congress. The purpose of these minor, non-substantive changes is to align the House bill more closely with its Senate counterpart, S. 1554, which will be considered when the Senate takes up H.R. 1, which implements the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The purpose of H.R. 884 and S. 1554 is to establish an office charged with promoting cooperation between entities of the United States and its allies in the global war on terrorism in the areas of research, development, and commercialization of high-priority technologies intended to detect, prevent, respond to, recover from, and mitigate against acts of terrorism and other high consequence events. The bill also addresses the homeland security needs of Federal, State, and local governments. The House bill authorizes $25 million per year for international cooperative activities for the fiscal years 2008 through 2011 and establishes an International Cooperative Programs Office within the Science and Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, headed by a Director. The Director is responsible for: Promoting cooperative research between the U.S. and its allies on homeland security technologies; Developing strategic priorities for international cooperative activity and addressing them through agreements with foreign entities; Facilitating the matching of U.S. entities--including small businesses--engaged in homeland security research with appropriate foreign research partners; Ensuring that activities of the office are coordinated with other relevant research agencies; and Planning and executing conferences and workshops to improve contact among technology developers and to help establish direction for future technology goals. H.R. 884 also establishes a Science and Technology Homeland Security International Cooperative Programs Office to facilitate international cooperative activities throughout the Directorate of Science and Technology. The United States currently participates in similar bilateral programs such as the Bi-National Industrial Research and Development-- BIRD Foundation--in which the United States and Israel cooperate on defense-related R&D. The office would conduct similar activities, but they would be run by the Department of Homeland Security rather than a private foundation. The Director of the Office reports directly to the Under Secretary for Science and Technology and is responsible for developing understandings and agreements that allow and support international cooperative activity in support of homeland security research, development, and comparative testing. The legislation also makes the Director responsible for developing strategic priorities for international cooperative activity in support of homeland security research, development, and comparative testing. Mr. Speaker, facilitating international cooperative activity to address strategic priorities through appropriate mechanisms such as grants, cooperative agreements or contracts with foreign public or private entities is another important objective that this legislation prudently vests in the Director. The Director shall also be mandated to identify and match domestic entities engaged in homeland security research with foreign entities so that they may partner in homeland security research activities. Finally, the Director is obligated to work toward bringing about the coordination of the Department's international cooperative activities with the activities of other relevant research agencies and to holding international homeland security technology workshops and conferences. These international cooperative activities are to be supported through grants, cooperative agreements, or contracts with Federal governmental organizations, businesses--including small businesses, federally funded research and development centers, institutions of higher education, and foreign and private entities. Mr. Speaker, this bill would encourage equal partnership by requiring that the foreign partner equitably match U.S. funding expended through direct funding or funding of complementary activities, or through provision of staff, facilities, material, or equipment. It strengthens ongoing partnerships and encourages new ones. In addition, partnerships are encouraged with the nations of Africa to facilitate the development of information sharing and other types of collaboration to strengthen American preparedness against threats to our Nation's agricultural sector and public health from exotic diseases. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 884 and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 990, which will provide all low-income students with the same opportunity to receive a Pell grant by eliminating the ``tuition sensitivity'' provision in the Pell grant program. The Federal Pell grant is need-based aid that serves as the foundation of a student's financial aid package. In fiscal year 2006, more than 5 million undergraduate students received the Pell grant scholarship, with 74 percent of these recipients having a combined family income below $30,000. Mr. Speaker, under current law Pell grants are awarded to students based on the difference between the appropriated maximum Pell grant award and the student's expected family contribution, which is a measure of the student's and their family's ability to pay for education expenses. The ``tuition sensitivity'' provision of the Pell grant comes into effect when the appropriated award is above $2,7000.00. The provision then reduces the Pell grant scholarship, received by the poorest students attending institutions with the lowest tuition. As a result of this provision, two students with the same low-income background and family expenses could be awarded different amounts for the Pell grant although they are both entitled to receive the maximum amount. Although both students share the same economic hardships, the student attending the college with the lower tuition would receive a smaller Pell grant, thus requiring their expected personal and family expenses to the institution to rise. However, if these same two students attended universities with matching tuition expenses, the award amounts would be equal. Just because a student attends a school with low tuition, that does not mean that he or she can expend more from their personal and family income. A needy student should receive the same amount regardless of their institution's tuition. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 990, which would provide all low-income students with the same opportunity to receive a Pell grant by eliminating the tuition sensitivity provision in the Pell grant. Every student in our Nation who plans to further their education, whether at our Nation's most expensive or least expensive schools, deserves that opportunity. Our Federal Government has made the provisions to financially assist students, especially those from low-income families, in their quest to attend college and we must ensure that every student has this opportunity.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in proud support, and as an original co-sponsor of H. Res. 42. This resolution is offered by the Texas Democratic Delegation in the House, chaired by Congressman Ortiz, and recognizes the extraordinary contributions of Ann Richards to public life in Texas and the United States. It is both fitting and proper that the People's House pay this tribute to a pioneering and path breaking woman who devoted her life to serving the people. Mr. Speaker, this happy moment stands in stark contrast to that sorrowful morning of September 14, 2006, when I informed the House from this podium of my sad duty to report that an American original and the First Lady of Texas politics, the great Ann Richards, had lost her long and valiant battle with throat cancer. Mr. Speaker, Dorothy Ann Willis Richards began her career in politics in the early 1970s after having raised four children. A Democrat, she served as County Commissioner in Travis County, Texas from 1977 to 1982. Richards was elected to the first of two terms as Texas State Treasurer in 1982. We who knew and loved her will remember her always as a forcefully articulate and an amusingly folksy speaker. She first gained national prominence with her keynote address at the 1988 Democratic National Convention. In 1990 she was elected governor of Texas, the first woman chief executive of Texas in more than fifty years. Dorothy Ann Willis was born in Lakeview, Texas. She grew up in Waco, Texas, and graduated from Waco High School in 1950, participating in Girls State. She received a bachelor's degree from Baylor University while on a debate scholarship. She married her high school sweetheart, David Richards, and moved to Austin, Texas, where she earned a teaching certificate from the University of Texas at Austin. After graduation, she taught social studies and history at Fulmore Junior High School in Austin, Texas from 1955 to 1956. She had also two daughters and two sons in the following years, and she campaigned for Texas liberals and progressives such as Henry B. Gonzalez, Ralph Yarborough, and Sarah Weddington. One of her daughters, Cecile Richards became president of Planned Parenthood in 2006. Throughout her life Ann Richards was a forceful champion for economic and social justice for all Americans, especially women and the disadvantaged. In 1976, Richards ran against and defeated a three-term incumbent on the Travis County, Texas Commissioner Court, holding the position for six years. She then was elected State Treasurer in 1982, becoming the first woman elected to statewide office in more than fifty years. In winning the Democratic nomination for treasurer, Richards ended the career of a Texas politician with the same name as a president (but no relation), Warren G. Harding. In 1986, she was re-elected treasurer without opposition. Ann Richards delivered the keynote address to the 1988 Democratic National Convention, a move which put her in the national spotlight with the line ``Poor George [H.W. Bush], he can't help it . . . He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.'' The speech set the tone for her political future; she described herself as a real Texan (in supposed contrast to George H.W. Bush), established herself as a feminist, and reached out to African-Americans and Hispanics. In 1989, with co-author Peter Knobler, she wrote her autobiography, Straight from the Heart. In 1990, she sought and won the Democratic gubernatorial nomination besting such venerable vote getters as Texas Attorney General James ``Jim'' Mattox and former governor Mark White. In the general election she defeated multi-millionaire rancher Clayton Williams after a brutal campaign and was inaugurated the 45th governor of Texas in January 1991. The Texas economy had been in a slump since the mid-1980s, compounded by a downturn in the U.S. economy. Governor Richards responded with a program of economic revitalization, yielding growth in 1991 of 2% when the U.S. economy as a whole shrank. She also streamlined Texas's government and regulatory institutions for business and the public. Her efforts helped to revitalize and position Texas's corporate infrastructure for the explosive economic growth it experienced later in the decade. Her audits on the state bureaucracy saved Texas taxpayers more than $6 billion. Governor Richards reformed the Texas prison system, establishing a substance abuse program for inmates, reducing the number of violent offenders released, and increasing prison space to deal with a growing prison population (from less than 60,000 in 1992 to more than 80,000 in 1994). She backed proposals to reduce the sale of semi-automatic firearms and ``cop-killer'' bullets in the state. The Texas Lottery was also instituted during her governorship-- advocated as a means of supplementing school finances; Ann Richards purchased the first lotto ticket on May 29, 1992. However, most of the income from the lottery went into the state's general fund rather than specifically to education, until 1997, when all lottery net revenue was redirected to the state's Foundation School Fund, which supports public education. School finance remained one of the key issues of her governorship and of those succeeding hers; the famous Robin Hood plan was launched in the 1992-1993 biennium which attempted to make school funding more equitable across school districts. Richards also sought to decentralize control over education policy to districts and individual campuses; she instituted ``site-based management'' to this end. In March 2006, Governor Richards announced that she had been diagnosed with esophageal cancer and will be seeking treatment at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. The disease has a five-year survival rate of 25 percent. Despite the statistics, Governor Richards vowed to beat her illness and battled valiantly until the very last day, when she finished her journey on earth and ascended to the heavens. None of us who knew and loved Ann Richards will ever forget her or the way she brightened the lives of all the people she served. She was one in a million and she will be deeply missed. She will never be replaced. She was an American original. She was my friend.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 47, supporting the goals and ideals of a National Medal of Honor Day to celebrate and honor the recipients of the Medal of Honor. The Medal of Honor is the highest award that can be bestowed on a member of the Armed Fores for his or her valiant acts of bravery while engaged in combat against an enemy of the United States. The Medal of Honor is awarded by the President, in the name of the Congress, to members of the Armed Forces who have distinguished themselves conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity and risked their lives above and beyond the call of duty. The first Medal of Honor was awarded on March 25, 1863 during our country's Civil War to PVT Jacob Parrott during the American Civil War for his role in Andrews Raid. He was the first of only 3,443 members in war, military operations and other armed conflicts of our Armed Forces who have received this great honor. There are 111 Medal of Honor recipients still living and serving our country in their own capacity and I, as well as the entire Nation, will forever be indebted to all recipients of this award for their valor during armed conflict. It is appropriate and necessary to commemorate and honor the recipients of the Medal of Honor and to recognize their valiant sacrifices for our country. That is why I support the designation of a National Medal of Honor Day which would heighten the understanding and appreciation of the American people regarding the significance and meaning of the Medal of Honor. It is essential that our Nation celebrate and salute those members of the Armed Forces who have risked their lives to ensure our safety and the safety of our country. Designating this day will also help to focus the efforts of national, State, and local organizations striving to foster public appreciation and recognition of Medal of Honor recipients. I sincerely appreciate the sacrifices the members of our Armed Forces make each and every day on behalf of our country. I support the designation of March 25 as National Medal of Honor Day in honor of all those members of the Armed Forces who performed valiant acts of bravery during combat against an enemy of the United States.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished member of the Rules Committee for yielding. I rise to finally say we have relief. I thank the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and the chairwoman of the Small Business Committee because without you, we wouldn't be here today being able to finally move forward not only tax relief for small businesses but getting a vote for the minimum wage. Thank you very much. And I thank you for working it out with the ranking members. Finally we will be able to move in the other body that would not give us an up- or-down vote on the minimum wage. But we have good news because we extend the Work Opportunity Tax Credit. We help small businesses invest in new equipment, which is so very important. And, third, and what is certainly not least, we win the support, as I said, of the Senate to move forward on the minimum wage. But it is important to note that this WOTC will help veterans, ex- felons, high-risk youth, and welfare recipients, individuals who create the engine of our economy who are trying for a second chance. So this is the right kind of mixture, giving relief to small businesses, which I have always said, are the backbone of the economy of America. I am grateful to say that the small businesses in the 18th Congressional District, which have created an economic engine in our community, will now have the right kind of tax relief to create opportunities for them to reinvest in their own businesses to buy more equipment, because every one of us go home to the churning of small businesses. Every day small businesses open their doors and create jobs for one and two and three and four and five and six and seven and eight and nine and ten employees. So this will be the right message that we will send. Then, of course, we will give the opportunity for training for our welfare-to-work mothers. We will give training for our veterans. We will give training for high-risk youth. And, yes, we will help those who are trying to reenter to be able to create an opportunity for their families. Finally, of course, I am gratified that we will have the opportunity now in 10 years to provide the opportunity for those on minimum wage. And in the State of Texas this will create a $4,000 increase for our working families with a minimum wage increase. Let me thank the proponents of this bill. I ask for a vote in support of H.R. 976. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 976, the ``Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007.'' I support the bill for several reasons. First, H.R. 976 extends the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC)--which provides incentives to employers to hire individuals from targeted groups that frequently experience barriers to work--for one year and expands it to cover disabled veterans. Second, H.R. 976 helps small businesses invest in new equipment and more easily afford large capital expenses. It extends small business expensing (Section 179) for one year--increasing both the amount small businesses can deduct from their taxes (from $112,000 to $125,000) and the number of small businesses that can take these deductions (by increasing the income limits for businesses taking the deduction from $450,000 to $500,000). Third, and not least important, passage of H.R. 976 is necessary to win the support of the Senate and signature of the President on the legislation passed earlier by this House to raise the minimum wage for millions of hard-working, low-wage workers by $2.10 per hour to $7.25. It has been more than nine years since the minimum wage was last increased, the longest period in the history of the law. In contrast, during this time period Indeed, Mr. Speaker, that it removes the last major hurdle between low-wage workers and the long-overdue pay raise they desperately need, is reason enough for me to support the bill before us. But evaluated on its merits, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit included in the bill before us is a good and useful measure. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) is a successful federal tax credit that encourages employers to hire eight persons belonging to one or more of eight targeted groups of job seekers by reducing employers' federal tax liability. The credit limit is $2,400, and the targeted groups include veterans, ex-felons, high-risk youth, and welfare recipients. Mr. Speaker, government data show that 7 out of 10 welfare recipients who obtain jobs in the private sector are using WOTC, and that placing workers in private employment is highly cost-effective compared to State-funded public service jobs. Under the WOTC, employers pay the bulk of job costs, so the average cost to the Government is about $900 per job per quarter (with a ceiling of $1,560 annually) while the cost of a State-funded public service job at $7 per hour averages $3,700 per quarter with no ceiling. Thus, WOTC enables States to economize their welfare and training block grants and saves money that can be used for child care and transportation. And what are the benefits to the less-skilled and disabled workers WOTC is intended to help? Virtually every study of jobs credits by the Government Accountability Office and independent evaluations funded by the Department of Labor have shown that employment and skills of these workers are increased. In fact, in one study, GAO reported that WOTC workers achieve gains in real wages as a result of their jobs. Mr. Speaker, the WOTC provides a market incentlve to employers to hire and train less-skilled and disabled workers. To continue this human capital investment in workers who might otherwise be left out of the job market--some 20 million high school dropouts, less-skilled high school graduates, single parents on welfare, disabled workers, and returning combat veterans--we need to extend the WOTC. By extending the WOTC, many more employers, especially small businesses, will have an incentive to look for and offer jobs to people who at first glance may not appear to be good job prospects. Mr. Speaker, the job site is the place where the most effective learning occurs for a young worker or slow-starter. Because the growth of the nation's labor force is slowing, future economic growth will depend on raising productivity by upgrading skills and making every worker count. Extending the authorization for WOTC will advance this goal. That is why the legislation before us, H.R. 976 is worthy of our support. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let us also remember how important that the minimum wage be increased. Today's minimum wage of $5.15 today is the equivalent of only $4.23 in 1995, which is even lower than the $4.25 minimum wage level before the 1996-97 increase. It is scandalous, Mr. Speaker, that a person can work full-time, 40 hours per week, for 52 weeks, earning the minimum wage and would gross just $10,700, which is $5,888 below the $16,000 needed to lift a family of three out of poverty. Mr. Speaker, since 2000 the cost of college tuition has risen 57 percent, which is only slightly less than the increase in the cost of gasoline. Health insurance premiums have skyrocketed by 73 percent and inflation is up 13.4 percent. But during that time, the minimum wage has not increased one cent. That is unconscionable and downright un- American. Mr. Speaker, today more than ever America's hard-working families are feeling squeezed, living paycheck to paycheck. I can tell you Mr. Speaker that record prices at the pump, skyrocketing health care costs and the rising cost of college in the face of falling or flat wages, are squeezing hard-working Texans in my Houston-based Congressional District as they struggle to make ends meet. That is why ensuring that the minimum wage is increased to $7.25 per hour is one of the nation's highest priorities. For Texas workers the basic cost of living is rising; it is only fair that the pay for hard-working Texans does too. Nearly 890,000 hard- working Texans would directly benefit from raising the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, and 1,774,000 more Texans would likely benefit from the raise. Raising the minimum wage is vital for Texas families. At $5.15 an hour, a full-time minimum wage worker in Texas brings home $10,712 a year--nearly $6,000 below the poverty level for a family of three. An increase of $2.10 an hour would give these families a much needed additional $4,400 a year to meet critical needs such as rent, health care, food and child care. The increase in the minimum wage before us today will not allow workers to live as large as the typical CEO, who now earns 821 times more than a minimum wage worker, but at least it will allow these low-wage workers to make a little better life for themselves and their families. Mr. Speaker, 89 percent of Americans favor raising the minimum wage. Americans know that the minimum wage must be increased. They know low- wage workers, many of whom live in your district and mine, badly need the money and have been waiting for it for too long. That is why I urge all members to support H.R. 976, which is inextricably linked to the minimum wage increase.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I believe that each and every Member that has come to the floor tonight and over the last 2 days would never consider any of their remarks frivolous, nor would we characterize this debate as political. Unfortunately, in 2002, many of those same words were used to characterize a very needed debate and one that we had hoped that those who had the powers of decision would have listened to. I remember standing in this same location and suggesting to my colleagues that I was proud to accept and to make as my choice life over death and peace over war. Through these years, members of the Progressive Caucus thoughtfully have gathered to reinforce the words that we offered during those days when even though the en masse lobbying and representation of mass destruction weapons, we knew that this was a war that would be ill-fated and misdirected. In fact, during that time, we had solutions. We asked for a continued use of political diplomacy and, as well, the continuation of utilizing the U.N. inspectors to determine if there were weapons of mass destruction. But now we have come some 5 years and we hear the same refrain. And I know in the hearts of those who have spoken that they are sincere. But if we said nothing else but point to those who have fallen, let their faces represent the sacrifice of America. Those are the faces of those who are always willing to go into battle, and not one of us on the floor today will ever say anything untoward about the United States military through the years and decades and centuries, because they have never faltered in the Commander in Chief's direction to go to war. But what has really failed in this Congress in its oversight and responsibility and, as well, the choices being made by the leadership that has sent them into war. And so, as Abraham Lincoln has said, ``We wish to honor the soldiers and sailors everywhere who bravely bear this country's cause; honor also to the citizen who cares for his brother. We will never forget.'' But we now stand in opposition to the escalation and support of this resolution because we believe that the Nation must hear, but also the leaders who make the decisions must hear this is wrong and misdirected. The troops have been magnificent. We have had 180,000 of them who have served in Iraq from Texas, we have had 200 or more who have been killed, including the 3,000-plus that have been killed across the Nation. They do have a military success. But we know that the surges do not work. We know it was ill-fated from the beginning. There was no collaboration, very minimal, and now the collaboration has ended. What is needed now is the declaration of a military success, which is what I have expressed in H.R. 930. And now we must search for diplomatic and political reconciliation, a Special Envoy to Iraq that focuses specifically on bringing together the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds. We know that surges have only generated more insurgents, they have only generated more violence, and it has not brought about the safety that is needed. Of course, the response is that this escalation will bring some sort of security to Baghdad, and then we can sit down and have reconciliation. One more soldier generates one more violent act. So we know that the troop surges do not work. We also know that it strains the readiness. We need a diplomatic surge. More importantly, we need not to go over the steps of Secretary McNamara who indicated in his words, as I said in the October 2002, Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara said in his mea culpa on the Vietnam War: We were wrong, terribly wrong. And he hoped that the suffering, as he quoted one of the philosophers, he hoped that what we had experienced in the suffering of Vietnam would give us experience. Today this ongoing war in Iraq shows we have thrown away that experience. We also throw away the Constitution, because this is not pursuant to Article I, section 8. This is not a declaration of war that we are in, and we therefore need to terminate the power of the President that had been given in 2002 to attack Iraq. This document has not been followed. And so H.R. 930 will terminate the authorization given in 2002, because for these lives lost already we don't want to participate in the foolishness of monies being spent recklessly, the lack of accountability, and a war that already can be claimed as a military victory by the United States military who can now come home with honor and dignity. Let us stand again on this floor and claim that we support life over death and we support peace over war and we want our soldiers to return home in celebration and dignity in honor of these who now are fallen on the battlefield. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 63. I stand in strong support of our troops who have performed magnificently in battle and 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 3,019 fallen heroes who stand even taller in death because they gave the last full measure of devotion to their country. For these reasons, Madam Speaker, I stand fully, strongly, and unabashedly in opposition to the President's unilateral decision to escalate the war in Iraq by deploying more than 20,000 additional combat troops to Iraq, and at least that many more to provide logistical support. I wish to make clear, Madam Speaker, that sending more combat troops into Iraq will not lead to success in Iraq. We cannot achieve success in Iraq unless we change strategy. But the President's proposed troop surge is not a change in strategy and it does not signal a new direction; it is simply more of the same. As our most recent great President, Bill Clinton, once said, ``if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got.'' In proposing this latest troop surge, President Bush seeks to ``cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.'' But even Henry V did not exhort his troops, his band of brothers, to go ``once more, into the breach'' for a fifth time. And neither should we. Madam Speaker, instead of a surge in combat troops, the United States needs to launch a diplomatic surge for political and national reconciliation in Iraq. That is why I have introduced H.R. 930, the ``Military Success in Iraq and Diplomatic Surge for Political and National Reconciliation in Iraq Act of 2007.'' As I will discuss in greater detail later in my remarks, my legislation offers a far better chance of sustainable success in Iraq than does the President's escalation. And equally important, my legislation will go a long way toward ensuring that never again will the American people or the Congress be bamboozled into rubber-stamping an ill-advised, ill- planned, preemptive war. Madam Speaker, I am privileged to represent the citizens of the 18 Congressional District in the great State of Texas. The sons and daughters of the Lone Star State have always answered the call to service. More than 280 Texans have been made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. More than 2,200 Texans have been wounded. Only California has suffered a greater number of dead and wounded. Today, Madam Speaker, there are more than 31,000 Texans serving in Iraq, which is 12,000 more than the next highest state. Since the war began in March 2003, more than 180,000 Texans have served in Iraq, some deployed two, even three, in some cases four times. Madam Speaker, it is more than irresponsible not to oppose the President's plan to escalate the war in Iraq. It is unconscionable. In opposing the President's latest folly, we send a message that is both simple and profound: You cannot win the just War on Terror by launching an unjustified War in Iraq. That is one of the hard and bitter lessons we have learned during the 4 years course of the War in Iraq. The misguided, mismanaged, and costly debacle that is the Iraq War was preemptively launched by President Bush in March 2003 despite the opposition of me and 125 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives. To date, the war in Iraq has lasted longer than America's involvement in World War II, the greatest conflict in all of human history. But there is a difference. The Second World War ended in complete and total victory for the United States and its allies. But then again, in that conflict America was led by FDR, a great Commander-in-Chief, who had a plan to win the war and secure the peace, listened to his generals, and sent troops in sufficient numbers and sufficiently trained and equipped to do the job. My friends, I say with sadness that we have not enjoyed that same quality of leadership throughout the conduct of the Iraq War. The results, not surprisingly, have been disastrous. To date, the war in Iraq has claimed the lives of 3,109 brave servicemen and women (115 in December and 39 in the first 13 days of this month). More than 23,400 Americans have been wounded, many suffering the most horrific injuries. American taxpayers have paid nearly $400 billion to sustain this misadventure. The depth, breadth, and scope of the President's misguided, mismanaged, and misrepresented war in Iraq is utterly without precedent in American history. It is a tragedy in a league all its own. But it was not unforeseeable or unavoidable. As the President's intention to launch a preemptive war against Iraq became known back in the fall of 2002, thoughtful members in the halls of Congress took to the floor, and concerned citizens in the countryside took to the streets to stop it. Patriots all, we registered our dissent. We acted not out of dislike of the President but out of love for our country and what it had represented to the world. As Robert Taft, ``Mr. Republican,'' as he was affectionately known, the late, great Senator from Ohio, stated two weeks after Pearl Harbor, ``Criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of a democratic government.'' My friends, in light of the enormous losses of precious American blood and treasure, it is very small consolation to know that those of us who acted on the biblical injunction to speak truth to power have been proven right in our warnings about the disaster war in Iraq would produce. We predicted before the war that ``the outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the hardest part, and it is far less certain.'' We made the point that it was essential for the Administration to develop ``a plan for rebuilding of the Iraqi government and society, if the worst comes to pass and armed conflict is necessary.'' We knew the Armed Forces of the United States is invincible on the battlefield and would decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam Hussein. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we questioned whether the President knew what to do after we caught it.'' We warned of the ``postwar challenges,'' particularly the fact that there was no history of democratic government in Iraq, and that its economy and infrastructure was in ruins after years of war and sanctions and that rebuilding Iraq would cost hundreds of billions of dollars that could be better at home securing the homeland and waging the real War on Terror. And we warned against sending American soldiers to war in Iraq without adequate protection against biological and unconventional weapons. I am also reminded how General Eric Shinseki told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2003 that the Defense Department's estimate of troops needed for occupying Iraq is too low and that several hundred thousand soldiers would be needed. But instead of heeding the wise counsel of General Shinseki, the Bush administration cashiered him out of the Army. Indeed, anyone who questioned the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war was ridiculed and marginalized as unpatriotic, weak, sympathetic to terrorists, and un-American: Anti-Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, Council of Economic Advisors Chairman Laurence Lindsay, Joe Wilson, and congressional Democrats. But four years later, people like us are now the majority. And we are united in raising our voices to proclaim: End the war and redeploy our troops out of Iraq. Madam Speaker, it is instructive to review why the American people have turned against the war in Iraq. The American people were told erroneously but repeatedly that the gravest threat facing America was Saddam Hussein and his regime. The Vice-President assured all who listened that he knew that Iraq and Al Qaeda had high-level contacts that went back a decade and that Iraq had trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and deadly gases. He was wrong. What's more, the American people were led to believe that the regime in Baghdad had long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations. Wrong again. President Bush even went so far as to say that you couldn't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talked about the war on terror. Of course, this claim turned out to be untrue as well. That is not all, Madam Speaker. The campaign to persuade Americans that Iraq posed a clear, present, and mortal danger to us included the false claims that Iraq possessed ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles--far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations. It was also falsely represented to Americans that Iraq had a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas and that Iraq was exploring ways of using unmanned aerial vehicles to target the United States. But the capstone of the administration's disinformation campaign was the claim that Saddam Hussein was actively pursuing nuclear weapons which could be used against America by Iraq, or by the terrorists to whom it was giving safe harbor. President Bush even went so far to announce to a world-wide audience in his 2003 State of the Union address that ``the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein had recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.'' According to the President, facing such clear evidence of peril, we could not wait for ``the final proof that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.'' We now know for sure that these claims were false. And covering up those false claims is one of the main reasons that Scooter Libby found himself in the predicament that led to his indictment by a grand jury and the on-going trial in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Regarding the actual conduct of the looming hostilities, the Administration and its courtiers assured us that ``it would be a cakewalk'' and that American troops ``would be greeted as liberators.'' The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, boldly claimed that ``the war could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.'' Vice- President Cheney said, ``I think it will go relatively quickly . . . [in] weeks rather than months.'' There are many things one could say about these rose- colored scenarios peddled by the Administration nearly four long years ago. But there is one thing you cannot say and that is ``truer words were never spoken.'' Finally, Madam Speaker, let us not forget the wildly extravagant claims of this Administration regarding the cost of this war. The Director of the White House OMB was quoted as saying that ``Iraq will be an affordable endeavor that will not require sustained aid and will be in the range of $50 billion to $60 billion.'' At last count, Madam Speaker, the war has cost the taxpayers $379 billion. That a cost overrun of more than 600 percent. To put the cost of the war in perspective, consider that we are spending more than $8 billion a month to sustain the war effort in Iraq. Could this money be put to better use? Well, consider the following: For $33.1 billion, or 4 months in Iraq, we could have fully funded the Department of Homeland Security FY 2007 budget. For $10 billion, just 5 weeks in Iraq, we could equip every commercial airliner with defenses against shoulder-fired missiles. For $8.6 billion, just 30 days in Iraq, we could finance the shortage of international aid needed to rebuild Afghanistan. For $5.2 billion, just three weeks in Iraq, we could finance the capital improvements needed to secure the nation's public transportation system, including trains, subways, and buses. For the equivalent of 5 days in Iraq, just $1.5 billion, we could provide radiation detectors at every port in the United States. For only $1.4 billion, the cost of another 5 days in Iraq, we could double the COPS (community police grants) program. For the cost of a mere two days in Iraq, we could fund the $700 million needed to provide 100% screening of all air cargo. For $350 million, 26 hours in Iraq, we could instead make emergency radio systems interoperable. For the cost of 8\1/2\ hours in Iraq, $94 million, we could restore the cuts in Homeland Security funding to cities hit on September 11. Madam Speaker, opponents of the resolution before us contend that it gives comfort to the enemy and undermines the President's strategy for success in Iraq. They claim it is our patriotic duty to avert our eyes to this Administration's nearly unbroken record of spectacular failure and incompetence and rally around the flag. But to paraphrase the old saw: fool me four times, shame on you; fool me a fifth time, shame on me. The truth is, Madam Speaker, this Congress--and the American people--has not been fickle or impatient. Rather, it has been understanding and generous to a fault, overlooking and excusing blunder after blunder committed by the White House and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). 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. Madam 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, Madam 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. Madam 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 52 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. But President Bush is still not listening to America. He is acting as if nothing has changed. He is not offering a way out of Iraq, only a way forward that will take us deeper into the morass and quagmire. The troop surge proposed by President Bush is not a new strategy for success in Iraq; it is just the same old repackaged policy of ``stay the course.'' This troop surge--this escalation of the war--will not provide lasting security for Iraqis. It is not what the American people have asked for, nor what the American military needs. It will impose excessive and unwarranted burdens on military personnel and their families. It is opposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It is opposed by an overwhelming majority of the American people. It is opposed by a majority in Congress. The architects of the fiasco in Iraq would have us believe that ``surging'' at least 20,000 more soldiers into Baghdad and nearby Anbar province is a change in military strategy that America must embrace or face future terrorist attacks on American soil. Nothing could be further from the truth, as we learned last year when the ``surge'' idea first surfaced among neoconservatives. The President's proposed troop surge is not new and, judging from history, we know it will not work. It will only succeed in putting more American troops in harm's way for no good reason and without any strategic advantage. The armed forces of the United States are not to be used to respond to 911 calls from governments like Iraq's that have done all they can to take responsibility for the security of their country and safety of their own people. The United States cannot do for Iraq what Iraqis are not willing to do for themselves. Troop surges have been tried several times in the past. The success of these surges has, to put it charitably, been underwhelming. Let's briefly review the record: 1. Operation Together Forward, (June-October 2006): In June the Bush administration announced a new plan for securing Baghdad by increasing the presence of Iraqi Security Forces. That plan failed, so in July the White House announced that additional American troops would be sent into Baghdad. By October, a U.S. military spokesman, Gen. William Caldwell, acknowledged that the operation and troop increase was a failure and had ``not met our overall expectations of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence.'' 2. Elections and Constitutional Referendum (September-December 2005): In the fall of 2005 the Bush administration increased troop levels by 22,000, making a total of 160,000 American troops in Iraq around the constitutional referendum and parliamentary elections. While the elections went off without major violence these escalations had little long-term impact on quelling sectarian violence or attacks on American troops. 3. Constitutional Elections and Fallujah (November 2004-March 2005): As part of an effort to improve counterinsurgency operations after the Fallujah offensive in November 2004 and to increase security before the January 2005 constitutional elections U.S. forces were increased by 12,000 to 150,000. Again there was no long-term security impact. 4. Massive Troop Rotations (December 2003-April 2004): As part of a massive rotation of 250,000 troops in the winter and spring of 2004, troop levels in Iraq were raised from 122,000 to 137,000. Yet, the increase did nothing to prevent Muqtada al-Sadr's Najaf uprising and April of 2004 was the second deadliest month for American forces. Madam Speaker, by more than 60 percent, Americans oppose increasing American troop levels in Iraq. So do many of the nation's leading and most knowledgeable military officers. In testimony before the Senate, Gen. John P. Abizaid, the former Commander of United States Central Command, stated: ``I do not believe that more American troops right now is the solution to the problem. I believe that the troop levels need to stay where they are.'' General Abizaid's view is shared by Gen. Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who has said ``I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work.'' And Gen. Barry McCaffrey (retired), who commanded the 24th Infantry Division during the first Gulf War, is even more blunt: ``It's a fool's errand . . . Our allies are leaving us . . . Make no mistake about that. Most will be gone by this summer.'' Even leading members of the Republican Party are skeptical of the President's latest ploy to salvage the mess he has made of Iraq. According to Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, the President's escalation plan ``represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam--if it's carried out. I will resist it.'' Senator Hagel is joined in his skepticism by Senators Olympia Snowe, John Warner, Susan Collins, Gordon Smith, Norm Coleman, George Voinovich, Sam Brownback, Arlen Specter, and a growing list of others. Madam Speaker, although Americans are right to oppose the President's troop surge, stemming the chaos in Iraq will require more than opposition to military escalation. It requires us to make hard choices. It is past time for a new direction that can lead to success in Iraq. We cannot wait any longer. Too many Americans and Iraqis are dying who could otherwise be saved. Since the President still has not seen the light, we need to make him feel the heat. I believe the time has come to debate, adopt, and implement a plan for strategic redeployment. I am not talking about ``immediate withdrawal,'' ``cutting and running,'' or surrendering to terrorists. And I certainly am not talking about staying in Iraq forever or the foreseeable future. I am talking about a paradigm shift. Rather than undertaking a misguided and futile surge in troops, the United States should surge diplomatically. 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. That is why I have introduced H.R. 930, which among other things creates a high-level Special Envoy to launch a new offensive on the diplomatic front. My legislation, the ``Military Success in Iraq and Diplomatic Surge for Political and National Reconciliation Act of 2007,'' implements twelve of the most important recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker and 911 Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton. Among other things, H.R. 930, would require a diplomatic 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 and disorganized way. While their interests and ours are not identical, 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. Madam Speaker, when Congress authorized the president to use military force in Iraq in 2002, it departed from the wisdom of our forefathers. The Framers understood that while the military does the fighting, a nation goes to war. That is why they lodged the power to declare war in the Congress, the branch of government closest to the people. They knew that the decision to go to war was too important to be left to the whim of a single person, no matter how wise or well-informed he or she might be. But the AUMF passed by Congress was not a declaration of war but rather a blank check for the president to start and wage war in Iraq at a time, place, and manner of his choosing. It is time to rescind that blank check and return to first principles. That is why H.R. 930 also includes another important legislative initiative, the ``Military Success in Iraq Act of 2007 (MSIA).'' This provision of my legislation is crafted to end the American military involvement in Iraq and redeploy American troops out of Iraq. The MSIA declares that the objectives which led Congress to pass the 2002 AUMF have been achieved. It further declares that whenever the objectives set forth in an AUMF have been achieved, the AUMF expires automatically. Then it finds that Congress is the ultimate arbiter as to whether the objectives set forth in its AUMF have been achieved. Because Congress now finds that the 2002 AUMF objectives have been achieved, my legislation provides that the authorization to use force conferred upon the President by the AUMF has now expired. My bill then makes clear that the President must obtain a new authorization to continue the use force in Iraq. Finally, my bill requires that if the Congress does not vote to reauthorize the use of force in Iraq by March 31, 2007, then all American armed forces in Iraq must be redeployed out of Iraq. Thus, under my legislation, an up-or-down vote must be held by the House and Senate to continue waging war in Iraq. Madam Speaker, our domestic national security, in fact, rests on redeploying our military forces from Iraq in order to build a more secure Middle East and continue to fight against global terrorist networks elsewhere in the world. Strategic redeployment of our armed forces in order to rebuild our nation's fighting capabilities and renew our critical fight in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al-Qaeda is not just an alternative strategy. It's a strategic imperative. My legislation requires the Congress to provide leadership on the most important issue of our day. That is what the American people want. That is what they voted for last November. That is what has been required all along. And providing constructive leadership that will bring peace, enhance security, and save lives is the task to which I am now, and always have been, dedicated. That is why I strongly and proudly support our magnificent, heroic, and selfless service men and women. That is why I strongly support H. Con. Res 63 and squarely oppose the President's decision to escalate the war in Iraq. I urge all members to support the resolution before the House.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, greetings to Senator Clinton, Dorothy Height, Dr. E. Faye Williams, Eleanor Smeal and Cicely Tyson. In this country's majestic Capitol rotunda sits a monument honoring three pioneers of the women's suffrage movement, which led to the women of our great Nation being granted the right to vote in 1920. The monument features the busts of Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony. As the Architect of the Capitol has noted, the monument was presented to the Capitol as a gift from the Women of the United States by the National Women's Party and was accepted on behalf of Congress by the Joint Committee on the Library on February 10, 1921. The unveiling ceremony was held in the rotunda on February 15, 1921, the 101st anniversary of the birth of Susan B. Anthony, and was attended by representatives of over 70 women's organizations. The committee authorized the installation of the monument in the crypt, where it remained until, by act of Congress in 1996, it was relocated to the Capitol rotunda in May 1997. In addition to the wonderful busts of Stanton, Mott, and Anthony, one of the interesting features of the monument is the existence of a large slab of stone that was never sculpted. Looking at the monument, it is clear that it was intended for a fourth person--another pioneer of the women's suffrage movement--to be sculpted. The legislation that myself and Senator Clinton along with Senator Specter crafted calls for Sojourner Truth to be that person. Born into slavery as one of the youngest of 13 children of James and Elizabeth in Hurley, which is in Ulster County, New York, in approximately 1797, Sojourner Truth's given name was Isabella Baumfree. Almost all of her brothers and sisters had been sold to other slave owners. Some of her earliest memories were of her parents' stories of the cruel loss of their other children. Isabella was sold several times to various slave owners and suffered many hardships under slavery, but throughout her life she maintained a deep and unwavering faith that carried her through many difficult times. In 1817, the New York State Legislature passed the New York State Emancipation Act, which granted freedom to those enslaved who were born before July 4, 1799. Unfortunately, however, this law declared that many men, women, and children could not be freed until July 4, 1827, 10 years later. While still enslaved and at the demand of her then owner, John Dumont, Isabella married an older slave named Thomas, with whom she had at least five children--Diane, Peter, Hannah, Elizabeth, and Sophia. As the date of her release came near--July 4, 1827--she learned that Dumont was plotting to keep her enslaved, even after the Emancipation Act went into effect. For this reason, in 1826, she ran away from the Dumont plantation with her infant child, leaving behind her husband and other children. She took refuge with a Quaker family--the family of Isaac Van Wagenen--and performed domestic work for them as well as missionary work among the poor of New York City. While working for the Van Wagenens, she discovered that a member of the Dumont family had sold her youngest son Peter to a plantation owner in Alabama. At the time, New York law prohibited the sale of slaves outside New York State and so the sale of Peter was illegal. Isabella sued in court and won his return. In doing so, she became the first black woman in the United States to take a white man to court and win. Isabella had always been very spiritual, and soon after being emancipated, she had a vision that affected her profoundly, leading her--as she later described it--to develop a ``perfect trust in God and prayer.'' In 1843, deciding her mission was to preach the word of God, Isabella changed her name to Sojourner Truth--her name for a traveling preacher, one who speaks the truth--and left New York. That summer she traveled throughout New England, calling her own prayer meetings and attending those of others. She preached ``God's truth and plan for salvation.'' After months of travel, she arrived in Northampton, Massachusetts, and joined the Northampton Association for Education and Industry, where she met and worked with abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglas, and Olive Gilbert. As we know, during the 1850s, slavery became an especially heated issue in the United States. In 1850, Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Law, which allowed runaway slaves to be arrested and jailed without a jury trial, and in 1857, the Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott case that those enslaved had no rights as citizens and that the government could not outlaw slavery in the new territories. Nevertheless, these extraordinarily difficult times did not stop Sojourner Truth from continuing her mission. Her life story--``The Narrative of Sojourner Truth: A Northern Slave''--written with the help of friend Olive Gilbert, was published in 1850. While traveling and speaking in States across the country, Sojourner Truth met many women abolitionists and noticed that although women could be part of the leadership in the abolitionist movement, they could neither vote nor hold public office. It was this realization that led Sojourner to become an outspoken supporter of women's rights. In 1851, she addressed the Women's Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio, delivering her famous speech ``Ain't I a Woman?'' The applause she received that day has been described as ``deafening.'' From that time on, she became known as a leading advocate for the rights of women. Indeed, she was one of the nineteenth century's most eloquent voices for the cause of anti-slavery and women's rights. By the mid-1850s, Truth had earned enough money from sales of her popular autobiography to buy land and a house in Battle Creek, Michigan. She continued her lectures, traveling to Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, and Wisconsin. When the Civil War erupted in 1861, she visited black troops stationed near Detroit, Michigan, and offered encouragement. After the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, she worked in Washington as a counselor and educator for those who had been previously enslaved through the Freedman's Relief Association and the Freedmen's Hospital. It was during this time--in October 1864--that she met with President Abraham Lincoln. Throughout the 1870s, Sojourner Truth continued to speak on behalf of women and African Americans. Failing health, however, soon forced Sojourner to return to her Battle Creek, Michigan, home, where she died on November 26, 1883. Friends, this brief recounting of Sojourner Truth's life story only begins to speak of her faith, courage, intelligence, and steadfastness in the face of extraordinary circumstances and volatile times in our Nation's history. Though she could neither read nor write, her eloquence commanded the attention of thousands of Americans, both black and white. It therefore comes as no surprise to learn that among her many friends, admirers and staunch supporters were Frederick Douglass, Amy Post, Olive Gilbert, Parker Pillsbury, Mrs. Francis Gage, Wendell Phillips, William Lloyd Garrison, Laura Haviland, Lucretia Mott, and Susan B. Anthony. The legislation we introduced pays tribute to Sojourner Truth.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a great American and a member of this House. Charles Norwood was a veteran, dentist, small business owner, and Member of Congress from Georgia. Congressman Norwood, who died on Wednesday, February 14, 2007, was a respected member of this body and respected by all who knew him. His presence will be greatly missed and we all mourn his loss and extend our sincerest condolences to his family and friends. Charles Norwood was born July 27, 1941 in Valdosta, Georgia. ``Charlie'' as he was known, attended school in Valdosta throughout his first year of high school when his family moved to Tennessee, where he graduated in 1959 from Baylor Military High School in Chattanooga. He received his B.A. from Georgia Southern University in 1964 and a Doctorate in Dental Surgery from Georgetown University Dental School in 1967 where he was elected President of the Dental School Student Body during his senior year. After completing dental school, Charlie Norwood enlisted in the United States Army, and was commissioned a Captain in the U.S. Army Dental Corps from 1967 to 1969. He was first assigned to the Army Dental Corps at Sandia Army Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In 1968, he was transferred to the Medical Battalion of the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vietnam. While in the Dental Corps, Charlie pioneered dental practices that became standard procedure after the Vietnam War. In addition to assisting the soldiers, he also provided some of the first field-based dental treatment of military guard dogs. For his distinguished service to our Nation, Charlie received the Combat Medical Badge and two Bronze Stars. He was discharged in 1969 after which, he entered the private practice of dentistry in Augusta, Georgia. For many years, ``Doc Norwood'' provided great service to all his patients. In 1994, Charlie Norwood was elected to represent the Tenth Congressional District of Georgia in the historic 104th Congress. We were classmates because that same year I was elected to represent the citizens of the Eighteenth Congressional District of Texas. Charlie represented his district so well that he was reelected by his constituents six times and always by substantial margins. In Congress, Charlie Norwood was a strong proponent for health care reform. He introduced legislation calling for a Patient's Bill of Rights. He also championed more and better health care for veterans. In addition to his work in health care reform, Norwood introduced legislation and worked on various other public-policy issues. Throughout his congressional career, Charlie Norwood served on the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Education and Workforce Committee. He was Vice Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health from 2001 to 2004 and a member of the Energy and Power Subcommittee from 1997 to 2000. Mr. Speaker, a dear colleague has fallen but he will not be forgotten. We are all saddened by our loss but we are happy to have served with him. Our prayers and condolences are with his family and loved ones. Charlie Norwood--Vietnam Veteran, dentist, small business owner, and Member of Congress--was a good representative, a good legislator, and a good man. He will be missed.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 109, to recognize the historical significance of the Pinedale Assembly Center in Fresno, California, the reporting site for 4,823 Japanese Americans who were unjustly interned during World War II. It is fitting that a memorial will be established at this historical location, especially on this year's National Day of Remembrance. On that same day in 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, requiring 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry to be removed forcibly from their homes and placed in internment camps--two-thirds of these were American citizens, none of which had ever shown disloyalty to the American cause. Forced to live under harsh conditions, the last internment camp closed four long years later. These innocent Americans were treated unjustly by their own government during a time of war, simply because of their national origins, and such an injustice must not go unremembered. It is absolutely essential to remember the past mistakes of our government in an effort to avoid future ones. In times of war it may be easy to get carried away and put labels on those around us, imputing disloyalty to persons of different national origins or religious backgrounds. But as we saw in World War II, such assumptions are frequently wrong, unjust, and can lead to disastrous consequences for a group of individuals. I thank my colleague, Representative Costa, for introducing this important legislation. We must never let such unjust practices occur in this great Nation again. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 109.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in strong support of H.R. 808, the ``Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act.'' This bill places efforts toward peace and nonviolence high on this Nation's list of priorities, efforts which deserve the same attention and organized structure that this government gives war through its Department of Defense. I thank the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich, for introducing this legislation, to reduce violence both within our borders and across the globe. Here at home, the Department of Peace would seek to reduce domestic violence, gang violence, child abuse, violence in schools, hate crimes, racial violence, and mistreatment of the elderly. It would also seek to develop peace education programs, instructing students in peaceful conflict resolution skills both at home and abroad. The Department of Peace would also strive to make a difference in the current United States foreign policy. This administration's attitude toward the international community has been far too aggressive, while critical human rights issues have been ignored. The Department of Peace would analyze these aspects of foreign policy and make recommendations to the President to ensure that human rights are protected and to lessen armed international conflict as a whole. Specifically, the Department of Peace and Nonviolence would seek to strengthen nonmilitary means of peacemaking and to promote the development of human potential. It is high time for the United States to change its approach to diplomatic efforts. We have seen in Iraq how an aggressive foreign policy can destroy so many lives, throw a country into chaos and civil war, and drain the resources and social services of the American people. We are tired of this war, yet the President announced yesterday that he wants another $235 billion for military operations in the Middle East, while cutting away funds for the American people, such as healthcare and transportation. Let us get our priorities straight. Let us put the American people's tax dollars in programs that benefit them, not in this meaningless war. Let us promote policies of peace and make this world a better place.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 512, to establish the commission to study the potential creation of the National Museum of the American Latino to develop a plan of action for the establishment and maintenance of a National Museum of the American Latino in Washington, DC, and for other purposes. Here in our Nation's Capitol we are proud of the history from the past that surrounds us and embrace the history that is made each and every day. Amongst the many museums that pay tribute to our rich history as a nation, there still remains a sense of incompletion in our lessons of our history, art and culture. Even though 40 million United States residents share the Latino heritage and culture, hardly any permanent exhibits in Washington's museums commemorate their cultural contributions. I commend Representative Becerra for recognizing the need to share the collective history of Latino-Americans and to ensure that their stories, cultural contributions and heritage are not forgotten for generations to come. This bipartisan bill was first introduced as H.R. 2134 during the 109th Congress and passed by a unanimous vote but time ran out before the Senate could act on the bill. I was a co-sponsor of H.R. 2134 and it is my sincere hope that my colleagues in the Senate will take quick action and speedily move this important legislation forward upon its passage in the House. This legislation recognizes the need for detailed and careful planning and proposes a 23 member commission to discuss the museum's vitality and is charged with producing a national conference to bring stakeholders, experts, policy makers and other interested parties together. It is important to take the chief ideas discussed and move them from concept to reality; the commission would be tasked with designing a fundraising plan to create an extensive public-private partnership as well as reporting to Congress a detailed recommended plan of action on how to do so. Again, I thank my colleague, Mr. Becerra, for introducing this important legislation, to ensure that we celebrate, commemorate and remember the contribution of Latino Americans by moving to establish a National museum and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 134, to recognize the employees of the Department of Homeland Security for their efforts and contributions to protect and secure the Nation. The Department of Homeland Security is critical in ensuring our great nation's preparation for future terrorist threats and attacks. Its employees step beyond the ordinary call of duty and tirelessly help to prepare our Nation to counter acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies. After the events of September 11, 2001 the American people became painfully aware of the difference between feeling secure and actually being secure. The president responded to the need for development and implementation of a comprehensive national strategy to secure the U.S. from terrorist threats or attacks and thus on November 25, 2002 with the largest government reorganization in 50 years, DHS was established. More than 208,000 employees of the Department work with state, local and tribal partners to ensure disaster preparedness at all levels of government while sacrificing their invaluable time with their family and working long hours to stand willing, able, and ready to respond if catastrophe strikes. The Homeland Security Department's employees not only stand vigilant and steadfast against terrorist attacks but fulfill the mission of the department to protect continuously our Nation's borders, airport, seaports, rail lines, and other transit systems. While it is fitting and appropriate to recognize the contributions of DHS employees, Mr. Speaker, it is also necessary to recognize that this Administration continues to deny labor rights to some of the most vital workers in the Transportation Security Administration--the TSA Screeners. Hiding behind the argument and the rhetoric that it needs a flexible security screening force, the Bush Administration continues to equate basic collective bargaining rights with a lack of patriotism. That is, the Administration is operating under the mistaken belief that allowing employees to collectively bargain for rights that others at DHS have will negatively impact homeland security. This is simply untrue. If the Administration's argument were true, then this means that the law enforcement officers at the Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, and the Federal Protective Services are all negatively impacting homeland security--since these brave men and women have collective bargaining rights. And, despite having these rights, these folks are part of a flexible and highly sought after human resource, just like the TSA Screeners. So, as we honor all DHS employees, Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that we must do more to make DHS a fair and equitable place to work. I thank Congressmen Carney and Bilirakis for managing this important bipartisan legislation and I strongly urge my colleagues to stand together to commend, applaud and commemorate the employees of the DHS. Their important duties extend beyond the ordinary. They protect our homeland and our people. DHS employees have sacrificed and worked tirelessly to safely protect us not only from terrorist attacks but our borders as well as our airports, seaports, rail lines, and other transit systems. For this, they deserve our gratitude.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support of H.R. 34, which authorizes a new 10-year pilot program designed to increase judges' expertise in presiding over patent cases. Under the new pilot program, district judges could request to hear cases relating to patent law or plant variety protection. Currently, cases in Federal district courts are assigned randomly. Under the measure, if one judge declines to hear a patent case, the case could be reassigned to one of the judges in the pilot program who has requested to hear such cases. The bill directs the Administrative Office of the Courts, within six months of enactment, to designate at least five courts in at least three different judicial circuits in which the pilot program would be conducted. It requires that these districts for the pilot program be chosen from the 15 districts that have had the largest number of patent and plant variety protection cases filed within the past year, and that the pilot program is conducted in districts in which at least three judges will participate. It also requires the administrative Office of the Courts to submit periodic reports to the Committee on the Judiciary for the House and the Senate regarding the effectiveness of the pilot program. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 34 enjoys strong bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee. I urge my colleagues to support this pilot program.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 44, which gives fitting honor and praise to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People on the occasion of the 98th anniversary of its founding. The NAACP is the oldest, largest, most historic and most influential civil rights organization in the United States. First organized in 1905, the group was known as the Niagara Movement when they began meeting at a hotel situated on the Canadian side of the Niagara Falls. They had to meet in Canada because American hotels in Niagara Falls were segregated. Under the leadership of the Harvard-educated scholar, the great W.E.B. DuBois, the group would later be known as the National Negro Committee before finally adopting the name by which it has been known for the last 98 years--the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP--at its second conference in 1910. The first official meeting was held in 1909 exactly 98 years ago today: February 12, the centennial of the birth of President Abraham Lincoln. The mission of the association was clearly delineated in its charter: To promote equality of rights and to eradicate caste or race prejudice among the citizens of the United States; to advance the interest of colored citizens; to secure for them impartial suffrage; and to increase their opportunities for securing justice in the courts, education for the children, employment according to their ability and complete equality before law. For nearly a century, the NAACP has stayed true to its charter and championed the cause of justice and equality in America. It has fought valiantly and tirelessly on behalf of African Americans and others to secure their civil rights and liberties and the full measure of justice and equality for all. At a time when African Americans were treated as second-class citizens and the scourge of slavery was still rampant, the NAACP emerged to ensure that the rights, interests and voices of African Americans did not go unheard. As Chair for the Congressional Children's Caucus, I am especially concerned with fair access to quality education for today's youth. I am personally grateful to the NAACP for its leadership in winning the greatest legal victory for civil rights in American history: the 1954 landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), in which the Supreme Court struck down de jure segregation in elementary schools. NAACP General Counsel Thurgood Marshall, who would later become the first African American associate justice of the Supreme Court, forcefully argued and persuaded the Court to rule unanimously that in the field of public education, ``separate but equal'' was inherently unequal. That decision gave hope to millions of Americans that their children might enjoy the full promise of America that had been denied their forebears for more than three centuries. The NAACP used the Supreme Court's decision in Brown to press for desegregation of schools and public facilities throughout the country. In 1955, Rosa Parks was arrested and fined for refusing to give up her seat to a white man in Montgomery, Alabama. Her act of civil disobedience triggered the Montgomery Bus Boycott, one of the largest and most successful mass movements against racial segregation in history and ignited the Civil Rights Movement. Daisy Bates spearheaded the campaign by the Little Rock Nine to integrate Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. The NAACP remains committed to achieving its goals through nonviolence, the legal process, and moral and political suasion, and through direct actions such as marches, demonstrations, and boycotts to give voice to the hopes and aspirations of African Americans and others who lack the power to make their voices heard. There is still a need for justice and equal treatment for African Americans and other vulnerable populations in our country. Thankfully, the NAACP is alive, well, vital, and effective. I am grateful for the many fights for equality that the organization has won, and thankful that the NAACP will be there in the future to champion the cause of justice wherever and whenever it needs a spokesman. Happy birthday, NAACP and thank you for all you have done to make our country better. I urge all Members to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 44.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 122, which lends support to the goals of the Japanese American, German American, and Italian American communities in recognizing a National Day of Remembrance to increase public awareness of the restriction, exclusion, and internment that these communities suffered during World War II. In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, requiring 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry to be removed forcibly from their homes and placed in internment camps--two-thirds of these were American citizens, none of which had ever shown disloyalty to the American cause. Forced to live under harsh conditions, the last internment camp closed four long years later. A little known fact of this shameful history is that Americans of German, Italian, Hungarian, Bulgarian, and Romanian descent were interned as well. Further, those that escaped internment often suffered from discrimination and prejudice at the hands of legislators and their fellow citizens. These innocent Americans were treated unjustly by their own government during a time of war, simply because of their national origins. Such maltreatment must not go unremembered. It is absolutely essential to remember the past mistakes of our government in an effort to avoid future ones. In times of war it may be easy to get carried away and put labels on those around us, assuming what their political ideals are based solely on their national origin or religious background. But as we have seen in World War II, such assumptions are unjust and can lead to disastrous consequences for a group of individuals. By celebrating a National Day of Remembrance on February 19th, we renew our promise as a Nation to never let this happen again. We must ensure that all Americans are aware of these historical events, so that they may join us in an effort to prevent the repetition of such acts of prejudice. I commend my colleague from California, Mr. Honda, for introducing H. Res. 122 to support these goals. I also commend the efforts of other Americans who recognize the significance of these events and create awareness within our communities, especially among our youth. The Public Broadcasting Service has made efforts to do just that, by providing a classroom resource online to teach middle and high school students about these events and to help them think critically about their impact. During the week of February 19, 2007, this year's National Day of Remembrance, I encourage our Nation's educators to teach their youth about these events in our Nation's history. In honor of the Japanese American, German American, and Italian American communities within our Nation, let us never allow such unjust practices occur in this great Nation again. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 122.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 72, which honors Dr. Britt ``Max'' Mayfield upon his retirement from his position as the Director of the National Hurricane Center. This resolution recognizes his leadership at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Tropical Prediction Center. Although we continue to mourn the loss of the thousands of victims who perished in Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, because of Max Mayfield's cool head and steady hand the lives of the countless thousands were saved since they were able to heed Dr. Mayfield's warnings and evacuate the area. His accurate forecasts and persistent warnings have hundreds of thousands of lives over the last three decades and it is fitting that we honor him today. Dr. Mayfield began working at the National Hurricane Center 34 years ago as an intern. Through hard work and demonstrated performance, Max Mayfield was promoted through the ranks of the National Hurricane Center: forecaster, senior forecaster, deputy director, and finally, director. His extensive work in the field of meteorology has earned him numerous awards. In 1996, the American Meteorological Society honored him for his outstanding performance as coordinator of the National Hurricane Center's hurricane preparedness training. In 2000, he received an Outstanding Achievement Award for his work in the development and expansion of educational opportunities for state and local emergency management officials. Dr. Mayfield has also been recognized by the U.S. Department of Commerce with Gold and Silver Medals for his work during some of this nation's most destructive hurricanes. Dr. Mayfield retired one month ago, and we will surely miss his outstanding service and leadership at the National Hurricane Center. I thank the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mahoney, for introducing this legislation to honor Dr. Max Mayfield for his dedication to meteorology and his 34 year career of distinguished service to NOAA and our nation. For these reasons, I strongly support H. Res. 72 and urge all members to do likewise.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 434, the Short Term Extension of the Small Business Administration, SBA, as amended by the Senate. H.R. 434 will provide for additional temporary extension through July 31, 2007, of programs under the Small Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958. This very important extension is crucial to the success of many small businesses across the country. Our entire Nation's economy relies on the success of small businesses. Mr. Speaker, small businesses represent more than the American dream--they represent the American economy. Small businesses account for 95 percent of all employers, create half of our gross domestic product, and provide three out of four new jobs in this country. Small business growth means economic growth for the Nation. But to keep this segment of our economy thriving, entrepreneurs need access to loans. Through loans, small business owners can expand their businesses, hire more workers and provide more goods and services. The Small Business Administration, SBA, a Federal organization that aids small businesses with loan and development programs, is a key provider of support to small businesses. The SBA's main loan program accounts for 30 percent of all long-term small business borrowing in America. Recently, my colleagues and I were able to restore funding to the SBA's main loan program for small businesses for 2005. And I am confident that we will continue to protect loan programs that will create and expand American small businesses. I have worked fervently and will continue to work to make sure small businesses have access to loans. These loans contribute greatly to the viability of many of these small businesses. Providing loans for small businesses has also played a role in ``Rebuilding the Gulf Coast'' contracting opportunities. As of March 6, 2006, the Small Business Administration there have been: 55 Disaster Home Loans approved for $727,000; 27 Disaster Business Loans approved for $1,750,800; 17 Disaster Economic Injury Loans approved for $750,100; and 99 Total Disaster Loans approved for $3,227,900. In my own district, small businesses are vital to our economy. That is why I have worked to introduce minority, women, and small business owners to contracting officials at NASA to help promote and develop Houston small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I have worked hard to help small business owners to fully realize their potential. That is why I support entrepreneurial development programs, including the Small Business Development Center and Women's Business Center programs. These initiatives provide counseling in a variety of critical areas, including business plan development, finance, and marketing. I also support investing in the highly successful Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, Program, which offers services to help small U.S. manufacturers stay competitive. These measures are important to keeping jobs here at home, and helping American small business prosper. Small business owners are leaders in innovation, creative business operations and new technologies and products. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the extension of the Small Business Administration.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Kevin Ener, of Houston, Texas, who died last Saturday, February 3, 2007. Kevin Ener, or simply ``KP'' to the multitudes who knew and loved him, was a self-made man and broadcast entrepreneur, who dedicated his life to serving his family, friends, neighbors, and the people of the community he loved more than any other, the Acres Homes community of Houston. Kevin Ener served the people of the Acres Homes community in a multitude of ways, but most of all by keeping them informed and providing them an outlet by which their voices could be heard. He used the broadcast station he founded, FM96.1 DaZone, and managed to empower his community. Madam Speaker, I want to share with you the story of Kevin Ener and his creation, FM96.1 DaZone, so the world will understand how much KP meant to the people of Acres Homes and why he will be missed so much. Kevin Dwayne Ener was born to Deborah and Carl Shankle on March 8, 1970 in Houston, Texas. He was educated at Aldine High School and Texas Southern University, where he learned to become a legal assistant. But Kevin's true love and calling was music, both the performance and the business. His first business venture occurred when he was 13 and secured engagement as a mobile disk jockey at St. Monica's Catholic Church and at the Sid Ranch. By the time he was twenty, Kevin Ener had managed several record labels; he started his record label, AHEM Recording, before he was thirty. Along with his partner, Sean Whittington, Kevin produced music for many local artists, including Billy Cook, Phoenix, Big Mello, Hahje, Eda Massberg, and Nuyorka. Kevin's interest in music production soon led him to the business of music promotion, graphic design and production, merchandizing, artist management, and, ultimately, radio broadcasting. Madam Speaker, in his heart and soul, Kevin Ener was always a son of Acres Homes. So great was his love for this community that in May 2005, Kevin and his long-time friend Larry Williams, started a low power FM radio station. In those heady early days, the station broadcast from the living room of Kevin's house in Acres Homes. Later, as the station established its niche and found its audience, it moved the broadcast signal up the FM dial from 89.1 to 96.1, and moved its base of operations to the corner of West Montgomery and South Victory Streets. Located in the heart of Acres Homes, FM96.1 DaZone soon became the heartbeat of the community. Led by Kevin and a team of over 30 dedicated volunteers, the station broadcast a wide range of music, public service announcements, live-remote events, and public affairs programming, including exclusive interview shows with local government officials, community activists, economic developers, performing and visual artists, and leaders of faith-based organizations. From top to bottom, FM96.1 is and has always been a labor of love. It has no employees; no one involved with the station receives a salary; everyone serves in a volunteer capacity. The station operates largely on a barter basis, exchanging, for example, free staff haircuts for live remote broadcasts from the Acres Homes College of Barber Design, or free lunches on Fridays in exchange for ``shout outs'' to Chi Chi's Soulfood Kitchen. Modest cash donations are made in exchange for other on-air notices or promotions. FM96.1's mission and programming are targeted directly to the needs of the roughly 40,000 people who live in Acres Homes, an underprivileged and underserved historic part of north Houston. The mission of FM96.1 is to enhance the services, identity, unity and overall quality of life of Acres Homes' residents by providing programming focused directly on their needs and aspirations. It promotes local activities, community events, businesses, churches, and service organizations, offering a microphone to business owners, school principals, ministers, community service providers and politicians who seek to instruct, employ, build or inspire the community. Perhaps FM96.1's indispensable role in the Acres Homes community is best demonstrated by its response to a series of rapes and murders occurring last year within just a few miles of the station's broadcast location. Anchored by Kevin Ener, the station performed yeoman work in informing the community and participating in a series of weekly Town Hall Meetings at the Acres Homes Multi-Service Center. These meetings were held to inform local residents of the presence of a serial killer in the community, educate area women about personal safety, and inform the community about efforts being taken by a wide range of law enforcement agencies to find the perpetrator. In addition, under the leadership of Kevin Ener, FM96.1 routinely provided free promotional advertising and live remote broadcasts for such events as Christmas toy drives, school supply drives, little league baseball registrations, basketball camps, Trail Riders, youth ministry conferences, Juneteenth celebrations, park dedications, teen dances, North Houston City College registration, Stay-In-School drives, GED certification drives, disaster-relief commodity collection projects, community health awareness events, and voter registration drives. The depth and quality of service FM96.1, a creation of the love and vision of Kevin Ener, has delivered to the Acres Homes community is widely recognized and acknowledged and reflected in the many letters, certificates and testimonials it has received from civic organizations, churches, small business owners, community leaders, and elected officials. It is no exaggeration to say that the large radio stations serving the Houston market would be hard pressed to match the FM96.1's record of direct service to the Acres Homes community and effectiveness in addressing the real-world issues facing Acres Homes' residents. Madam Speaker, Kevin Ener was preceded in death by his father, Carl, and by his daughter Carolyn. He leaves to cherish his memory a beloved wife, Felisha, and nine devoted children: Brittany, Brandan, William, Kevin, Lois, Dexter, Chase, Jessica, and Nyah. Mourning his loss are his mother Deborah, his grandmother Daisy; brothers Robert, James, Kerry, and Carl; sisters Cora, Carlie, and Tiffany; and a host of relatives, friends, and admirers. In closing, Madam Speaker, let me say that although many a tear is falling in Acres Homes tonight, joy cometh in the morning. Because that is when the thousands of people whose lives were touched and uplifted by the incandescent, effervescent, and irrepressible Kevin Ener will remember that when he was in their midst, they were in the company of a hero. He will never be forgotten. Farewell, dear prince. May angels carry you to your final rest.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 365, the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2007. As a member of the Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine, I am proud to be a sponsor of H.R. 365, which will help combat the scourge of methamphetamines and ameliorate the serious problems it is causing our Nation. First and foremost, H.R. 365 will require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop health-related guidelines for the cleanup of methamphetamines. It will also call for the National Academy of Science to perform a study on the long-term health effects on children rescued from living in methamphetamine lab homes. In addition, NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, will establish a research program to develop field kits that will test for and detect methamphetamine. Despite improvements in state and local efforts to reduce its prevalence, the problems produced by methamphetamines and incidents related to methamphetamines continue. In 2005, 5,846 methamphetamine labs were seized, and in 2003, 7.6 percent of high school students reported having used methamphetamines. Self-reported use of methamphetamines by adults and adolescents continues to rise. As methamphetamine usage increases, the demand for the drug rises. Nowhere is it a bigger problem that in the Midwest, where methamphetamines account for nearly 90 percent of all drug cases. In states such as Oklahoma, methamphetamines are surpassing cocaine as the drug of choice. The state medical examiner's office reports the number of death cases testing positive for methamphetamines has been higher than cocaine. The office also reports methamphetamine is found in more cases of homicides, and motor vehicle accidents. Methamphetamine labs not only damage individuals, they affect our children and our environment. As the founder and co-chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I am horrified by the effects methamphetamine labs have on children. Children living at methamphetamine labs are at increased risk for severe neglect and abuse, both physical and sexual abuse. A child raised in or near a methamphetamine lab environment experiences stress and trauma that significantly affect his or her overall safety and health, including behavioral, emotional, and cognitive functioning. Hazardous living conditions and filth are common in methamphetamine lab homes where explosives and loaded guns are often present and in many instances, within easy reach. The safety and development of our children are negatively influenced by living in methamphetamine lab homes. Our environment suffers from methamphetamine labs as well. In general, there are 5-7 pounds of toxic waste produced for every pound of methamphetamine manufactured. There are more than 30 chemicals used to produce methamphetamines, and most are explosive, caustic, and carcinogenic. The chemicals are often poured into streams, down drains or disposed of in fields, yards or gutters. Many highway cleanup crews have reported finding toxic garbage from methamphetamines in ditches. All of this illicit toxic waste eventually winds up in waterways via rainwater runoff. Mr. Speaker, these dire problems require immediate action and H.R. 365 does this appropriately. I urge my colleagues to join me in the fight against the methamphetamine epidemic by supporting H.R. 365, the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act of 2007.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?