Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 29, to support the goals and ideals of National Mentoring Month. As Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Davis, for introducing this bill to highlight the importance of mentoring our youth. Mr. Speaker, today many youth face temptations that often lead them down destructive paths and it is vitally important that we provide guidance that helps them make good decisions. Mentors have been an integral part of society for many years, dating back to Ancient Greece. The Greek poet Homer wrote in the Odyssey, that when Odysseus left to fight in the Trojan War, he charged Mentor, his wise old friend, with the task of caring for his son, Telemachus, and teaching him wisdom. Since then, the word mentor has come to mean a wise and responsible tutor or an experienced person who advises, guides, teaches, challenges, corrects, and serves as a model. In our society today, mentors exist in many different environments. There are mentors in professional settings who guide apprentices by teaching them how to effectively perform in the workplace. There are mentors in academic settings who guide students, teaching them how to reach and maintain high scholastic achievement. There are mentors in community groups who guide their proteges through life issues, teaching them how to be productive citizens. There are mentors in spiritual and church groups who advise others through their spiritual growth. In all cases, they are very important and essential to the success of the youth that they mentor. Who needs mentors? There are 35.2 million young people ages 10-18 in the U.S. today; of those young people: 1 out of 4 lives with only one parent; 1 out of 10 was born to teen parents; 1 out of 5 lives in poverty; 1 out of 10 will not finish high school. About half of young Americans--17.6 million young people--want or need caring adult mentors to help them succeed in life. Of those 17.6 million young people, only 2.5 million are currently in formal mentoring relationships. That leaves 15.1 million youth still in need of formal mentoring relationships. We call this our nation's ``mentoring gap.'' Mr. Speaker, imagine if every child had a mentor--just one person whom they could look up to and go to for advice and guidance. Imagine how many young lives could be positively impacted. We could create the avenues and encouragement to ensure that all of our children receive the proper education. Too many of our youth are not being properly advised and guided on the importance of getting an education. Mentors can help give those youth living in poverty to strive towards a brighter future for themselves. Every child could benefit from having someone in his or her life to turn to for advice and help in the time of need. National research has shown that children who have mentors are more confident in their academic performance, able to get along better with their families, 46 percent less likely to begin using illegal drugs, 27 percent less likely to begin using alcohol and 52 percent less likely to skip school. The positive relationships and reinforcement that mentors provide is clearly effective. I applaud the efforts of the mentors in our nation who encourage and motivate our youth to realize their worth and become productive citizens. I urge my colleagues to join me in thanking and supporting them by passing this resolution, H. Res. 29.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res, 52, which honors Rev. Waitstill Sharp and Martha Sharp for their outstanding heroism during the Holocaust. Although the couple lived safely with their two children in Massachusetts in 1939, both felt a calling to provide aid to those in need overseas. They traveled to Czechoslovakia and began providing food for the refugees fleeing the Nazi regime. However, when they arrived, the Nazis invaded Czechoslovakia and the situation grew more dangerous. Instead of returning home, they found that they could better serve those in harm's way by helping them escape from the region. Despite the numerous life-risking situations and constant pursuit by the Gestapo, the couple stayed and succeeded in helping over 2,000 people escape danger throughout World War II. I am pleased that they received official recognition as ``Righteous Among Nations'' last June, in the Yad Vashem ceremony in Israel, for truly their righteous actions are unparalleled, and we are incredibly honored to call them our fellow citizens. The Sharps were some of the first Americans to receive the award, setting an incredible example of righteousness and good will for all who follow them. In addition, I would like to note the powerful words of their daughter, Martha Sharp Joukowsky, who accepted the award on their behalf. She reminded us that her parents' actions represent ``the unseen efforts of a much wider circle of people who made their work possible'' and that this ``is the kind of network that is needed again today to stop the slow genocide in Darfur.'' Sadly, we must recognize that suffering and oppression does not end with one war or one crisis in our past but continues into our present day. In order to truly pay tribute to the Sharps, we must acknowledge our present condition. So I urge my colleagues, as they remember the Sharps today, to also remember the urgency of the devastating situation in Darfur. I am sure if they were alive today, they would devote all their efforts to save the people there from this modern-day Holocaust. I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 52, to honor Reverend and Mrs. Sharp for their heroic rescue efforts during World War II.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 475, the House Page Board Revision Act of 2007. I thank my colleagues, Mr. Kildee, the gentleman from Michigan, and Mrs. Capito, the gentlewoman from West Virginia, for their good work in crafting this bipartisan legislation, which will do much to ensure the safety of the pages that serve the United States Congress. In view of recent events, parents everywhere are right to be concerned for the safety of their children--after all, if children are not safe in the Capitol, the seat of the National Government, can they be safe anywhere? It is important that we pass this legislation today to reassure the public that the Capitol is safe for children, including pages. The scandal that erupted on September 29, 2007, involving former Representative Mark Foley's predatory conduct toward House pages, and coverup by the senior House Republican leadership, has led some to call for the termination of the Page Program. In my view, that would have been a terrible mistake and a terrible commentary upon the ability of the House of Representatives to ensure the safety of the children entrusted to its care. Mr. Speaker, the Page Program needs to be mended not ended. The teenagers who serve as congressional pages are outstanding young men and women, invariably chosen because of their high achievement and outstanding service to their community. Service as a page is often a stepping stone to greater public service and nearly always a window into history. The program's alumni include Representative Tom Davis, Representative Dan Boren, Senator Christopher Dodd, and Microsoft founder Bill Gates. Instead of eliminating the page program, we need to get rid of sexual predators in office. An important part of the new Democratic majority's agenda is end the culture of corruption that pervaded the previous Congress and to make the 110th Congress the most ethical Congress in history. The page program is a good thing; the kids that are in it are good kids. Right now, security for pages in Washington includes curfews, a buddy system when they leave their dormitory, 24-hour security at the residence hall, sign-outs when the pages leave, parental notification for many extracurricular activities, and a pre-program orientation laying out acceptable and unacceptable behavior for pages. Mr. Speaker, as the Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I am proud to support this legislation today. I support H.R. 475 because it will ensure more oversight of the Page Program in Congress, thus reducing substantially the risk of exposing pages to harmful persons or conduct. We must show America that we are striving to keep America's children safe, starting here on Capitol Hill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. For 12 years, Mr. Speaker, I have engaged in an energy brain trust that would hopefully engage the industry but help to reform the industry. And so I say to my colleagues, today we are making that first step, not ignoring the industry, but opening our doors to engagement and discussion so that we can truly have a reformed energy industry that focuses on energy independence and security for the American people. Now, we realize in 1998 and 1999 the price per barrel for oil was very low. And the administration, at that time, reasonably addressed the question of royalty relief. Today we have a different economic structure, and the price per barrel is $50-plus and up. And so what is this Congress and this leadership doing? It is doing the right thing. It is making a determination that we can now place some $14 billion in trust to support clean alternative energy and, of course, renewables, renewables and alternative energy that have been proposed by Members on both sides of the aisle. I look forward to an engagement of the energy industry so that it can diversify its own portfolio. It is necessary for our independence from foreign oil, and it is necessary for our homeland security. But what we do not do in this bill is important. For example, we do not repeal refinery expansion expensing. We don't repeal the intangible drilling cost deduction, nor do we impose a windfall profits tax. We are balanced. We are respectful of this process of engagement, and we don't repeal the natural gas line depreciation or the foreign tax credit. And so we understand that the industry, one, has to work to ensure that it is productive and that it moves away from total dependence on foreign oil to give relief to the American people as they proceed to develop greater energy independence and conservation. This is a good bill that focuses, in a balanced way, to begin the march toward energy reformation and opens the door towards new ideas for the energy industry that will allow energy independence and security for America. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6, which will create long-term energy alternatives for the Nation. The Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation, CLEAN, Act of 2007, includes two components that will roll back the unnecessary tax benefits and costly federal oil and gas leasing provisions included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The legislation would also help to correct the mistakes of the leases issued by the Interior Department between 1998 and 1999--which, if left unchanged, could cost the Federal Treasury an estimated $60 billion over the next 25 years. The CLEAN Act calls for investing in clean, renewable energy by repealing $14 billion in subsidies given to Big Oil companies by requiring these companies which were awarded 1998 and 1999 leases for drilling without price thresholds to pay royalties or pay a fee. H.R. 6 also eliminates unnecessary tax deductions which exist in the tax code and in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In the first ten years, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that these fees will generate $6 billion in revenue and the Joint Commission on Taxation estimates that the elimination of these deductions will result in $7.6 billion in revenue. The CLEAN Act also creates a Strategic Renewable Energy Reserve which would promote energy efficiency by investing in clean, renewable energy and alternative fuels, promote new energy technologies, develop greater efficiency, and improve energy conservation. We cannot justifiably continue to allow big oil companies to reap astronomical financial benefits while the citizens of this country continue to struggle to pay their living expenses due to the outrageous cost of oil and gas. These high costs derive primarily from our overwhelming dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration estimates that the United States imports nearly 60 percent of the oil it consumes. Moreover, the world's greatest petroleum reserves reside in regions of high geopolitical risk, including 57 percent of which are in the Persian Gulf. Mr. Speaker, we cannot even remotely begin to reduce the high price of oil and gas which has caused many of our citizens to change their standards of living, unless and until we find ways to create a more self-sufficient energy environment within the United States. Investing in clean, renewable energy is an important first step to achieving this goal. For example, an innovative solution to our national energy crisis is in the 21st Century Energy Independence Act, which I introduced in the 110th Congress. This legislation alleviates our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels by utilizing loan guarantees to promote the development of traditional and cellulosic ethanol technology. Investing in domestic alternatives such as traditional and cellulosic ethanol can not only help reduce the $180 billion that oil contributes to our annual trade deficit, but it can also end our addiction to foreign oil. According to the Department of Agriculture, biomass can displace 30 percent of our Nation's petroleum consumption. In addition to ensuring access to more abundant sources of energy, replacing petroleum use with ethanol will help reduce U.S. carbon emissions, which are otherwise expected to increase by 80 percent by 2025. Cellulosic ethanol can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 87 percent. Thus, transitioning from foreign oil to ethanol will protect our environment from dangerous carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. Cellulosic ethanol technology requires initial governmental investment and policy support to achieve the necessary scale to become self-sufficient and gain market- penetrating capacity. That is why I introduced the 21st Century Energy Independence Act since it ensures that America achieves energy independence and improves our environment. In addition to being from the energy capital of the world, for the past twelve years I have been the Co-Chair of the Energy Taskforce of the Congressional Black Caucus. During this time, I have hosted a variety of energy braintrusts, panels, conferences, and symposia designed to bring in all of the relevant players ranging from environmentalists to producers of energy from a variety of sectors including coal, electric, natural gas, nuclear, oil, and alternative energy sources as well as energy producers from West Africa. Bringing together thoughtful yet disparate voices to engage each other on the issue of energy independence has resulted in the beginning of a transformative dialectic which can ultimately result in reforming our energy industry to the extent that we as a Nation achieve energy security and energy independence. The CLEAN Act strikes energy bill provisions suspending royalty fees from oil and gas companies operating in certain deep waters of Gulf of Mexico. The bill also repeals royalty relief for deep gas wells leased in shallow waters of the western and central areas of the Gulf. It includes a provision from the President's FY 2007 budget restoring drilling permit application cost recovery fees; fees which the 2005 Energy bill prohibited. The measure also strikes royalty relief for specific offshore drilling in Alaska, and special treatment for leases in the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPR-A). H.R. 6 requires companies, which unfortunately have been able to escape paying royalties as a result of the 1998 and 1999 leases, to pay their fair share in order to be eligible for new federal leases for drilling. Specifically, the measure requires current offshore fuel producers who are not paying federal royalties to either: (1) Agree to pay royalties when fuel prices reach certain thresholds, $34.73 per barrel for oil and $4.34 per million Btu for natural gas, or (2) to pay new fees established in the bill--in order to be eligible for new federal leases for drilling. Under the bill, a new conservation of resource fee would be based on the amount of oil produced and will apply to new and existing leases and shall be set at $9 per barrel for oil and $1.25 per million Btu for gas. The changes regarding royalties offered under H.R. 6 are not entirely new. Similar royalty relief provisions have been debated and passed by the House as part of the OCS drilling bill, H.R. 4761, and in the Interior Appropriation bill with bipartisan support of 67 Republicans. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 would also close gaping loopholes and end gigantic giveaways for Big Oil in the tax code and in the 2005 Energy bill. The bill would eliminate a loophole written into the international tax bill, H.R. 4520, which allowed oil companies to qualify for a tax provision intended to encourage domestic manufacturing. According to the New York Times, this loophole provided ConocoPhillips $106 million in 2005, even though its profits totaled $13.5 billion. The benefits which ConocoPhillips reaped from the tax loophole, represents just a snapshot of the lopsided picture that overwhelmingly favors the financial well-being of big oil companies over average American families. While big oil companies continue to rake in millions and millions of dollars, American families see their budgets shrinking because of high costs of oil and gas. It is our responsibility to refocus our legislative lenses on solving this Nation's energy dependence problem so that we may rescue American families from the recent oil and gas price hikes. Because I represent the city of Houston, the energy capital of the world, I realize that many oil and gas companies provide many jobs for many of my constituents and serve a valuable need. That is why it is crucial that while seeking solutions to secure more energy independence within this country, we must strike a balance that will still support an environment for continued growth in the oil and gas industry, which I might add, creates millions of jobs across the entire country. We have many more miles to go before we achieve energy independence. Consequently, I am willing, able, and eager to continue working with Houston's and our Nation's energy industry to ensure that we are moving expeditiously on the path to crafting an environmentally sound and economically viable energy policy. Furthermore, I think it is imperative that we involve small, minority and women owned, and independent energy companies in this process because they represent some of the hard working Americans and Houstonians who are on the forefront of energy efficient strategies to achieving energy independence. H.R. 6 is a vehicle by which we can drive this country in the direction of energy independence. Under this bill, we can invest in clean, renewable energy resources through the creation of the Strategic Renewable Energy Reserve which would: Accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels; promote the utilization of energy-efficient products, practices and conservation; and increase research, development, and deployment of clean renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. It is critical that some of the additional funding created by this bill is invested in small, minority and women owned business and minority serving institutions. By investing in minority owned business and minority serving institutions, we are ensuring that sectors of our Nation and economy which are often overlooked are given an opportunity to compete against much larger businesses and institutions of higher learning. Madam Speaker, the changes we propose to the CLEAN Act will allow us to move this country in the right direction--the direction of becoming less dependent on foreign oil and in turn, more reliant on renewable energy. Because of these changes, we anticipate a win-win situation. These changes should stimulate the expansion of research into renewable energy because such changes positively impact oil companies that choose to reinvest in new and emerging technology. Thus, H.R. 6 offers great incentives for oil companies to contribute greatly to our efforts to create an energy-independent America. Moreover, the provisions that oil companies care about the most are preserved under the CLEAN Act. In part due to the concerted effort of the Houston/Harris County delegation, this bill WILL NOT include the following provisions: (1) Repeal of last-in-first-out (LIFO) accounting; (2) Refinery expansion expensing repeal; (3) Imposition of a windfall profits tax; (4) Repeal of intangible drilling costs deduction; (5) Repeal of natural gas distribution lines depreciation; and (6) Foreign tax credit repeal. For all of the foregoing reasons, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6 to create long-term energy alternatives and to create a more energy-independent and secure America.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Wilfred G. Gooden, who passed in January of this year. Wilfred G. Gooden was a philanthropist, and certainly someone who loved his country, but loved service. Born in Jamaica, West Indies in the Westmoreland area, he was a naturalized citizen. He came to New York City. In his commitment to serving the community, he became a master builder and opened a construction company in 1961 where he created jobs for young men and women in the Harlem area. He was a master artisan, a carpenter, a perfectionist in his work. As he became an astute businessperson, he also was concerned about affordable housing for many in the New York area. Mayor David Dinkins appointed him to have the opportunity to devise a housing program for the City of Houston. But yet he continued to do more, and he was a great philanthropist, providing clothing and opportunity for the people of Jamaica. We pay great tribute to Wilfred Gooden, and we mourn his loss.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Wilfred George Gooden, a great citizen and patriot, a philanthropist and Good Samaritan. Wilfred Gooden shuffled off the mortal coil and slipped the surly bonds of earth on Saturday, January 6, 2007. He was one month shy of his 75th birthday. More importantly, he was a son, a brother, an uncle, a friend, a neighbor, a servant of God, and a loving husband to his darling Sybil for 57 years. Madam Speaker, I do not think any of the many people who knew and loved Wilfred Gooden thought that when he returned to his native land of Jamaica in December 2006, that it would have been his last trip from his adopted home in the United States of America? I do not think any of them dreamed that those last fleeting words on the phone or in person would have been their last contact with him before he took his last breath on the Sabbath, January 6, 2007 at the Andrews Memorial Hospital, Kingston, Jamaica, with his faithful wife, Sybil, of 57 years, at his bedside. Who would have known that the Lord was going to take Wilfred Gooden's hands off the plough and say: ``Your work is done, my faithful servant--it's now someone else's turn.'' Wilfred Gooden was the last of three sons born to Mr. and Mrs. Gooden in Westmoreland, Jamaica. His parents and brother, Sam predeceased him. Vibert his eldest brother, lives in Atlanta, Georgia. His mother Ethel and stepfather Edburn took care of the family after the death of Wilfred's father. A very close-knit family, Wilfred and his brother telephoned each other and had long chats each day. Even in his last days on earth, Wilfred and his brother Vibert were on the phone. Brought up in a Christian home, Wilfred was baptized at the Rollington Town Seventh-Day Adventist church, and never forgot his first love--Jesus. His rich baritone voice could be heard in praises as he called his family and all who entered his home to worship morning and evening--wherever he was. His Christ-like character was seen in his deeds, the way he treated everyone with whom he came in contact--it did not matter their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, political persuasion, title or status; everyone was treated with respect, courtesy and kindness. In his youth it was not unusual for Wilfred to bring home, unannounced, three or four friends for the weekend who would be warmly received by a generous but sometimes frustrated mother. In 1944, Wilfred traveled to the United States where he settled in New York City. For many years, he pursued and enjoyed a successful career in mechanical dentistry. Former clients still praise the quality and craftsmanship of his work. Always on the lookout for new adventures and challenges, Wilfred invested in a brownstone on West 142nd Street, which it needed some repairs. With much enthusiasm, he immediately utilized his knowledge of plumbing as a result of his liberal arts training which required him to learn a trade as a part of degree program and performed the work himself, and in the process launched a new career for himself in housing rehabilitation. To gain more knowledge about his business, Wilfred attended City College and earned a Certificate in Building Engineering. In 1961, he organized a general contracting company with the basic purpose of renovating existing properties. As owner and builder of multiple dwellings, Wilfred renovated a group of old tenements into two and three bedroom modern, class A apartments. In many areas of New York City, Wilfred has revitalized entire neighborhoods, creating homes that gave and still give each dweller a sense of renewed hope and dignity. As general contractor for Maurel Realty Corporation, he renovated a one hundred apartment complex and for Almeric Realty Corporation, he renovated a fifty apartment complex. Serving in dual capacity as Project Manager and Field Superintendent, he directed every aspect of these massive projects. Wilfred was appointed by Mayor David Dinkins of the City of New York to work with Roger Starr, Administrator of Housing as consultant to the City's Housing program in urban areas. He reviewed the proposed projects with a vision of minimizing costs and suggested rehabilitation of buildings in the city's most needed areas. Wilfred George Gooden walked with kings, but never lost the common touch. His walls both in Jamaica and New York are filled with photographs and citations from both the American and Jamaican governments including former President Bill Clinton, former Jamaican Prime Ministers Norman Manley, Michael Manley, Alexander Bustamante, Edward Seaga and P.J. Patterson, as well as government officials in New York and Jamaica, church leaders, industry leaders and the leaders of educational institutions. Wilfred Gooden was, above all, a community servant. He sat on the Board of Directors of: Housing Board in New York; FISH Clinics in Jamaica; The American Friends of Jamaica; Concerned Committee for Christian Education; and NAJASO. Wilfred Gooden was honored as a philanthropist by Message Magazine in 1996 for his community service and humanitarianism and awarded honorary Doctor of Letters degree from Faith and Grant College in Huntsville, Alabama. Wilfred Gooden wanted others to succeed and helped countless Jamaicans relocating to New York to get jobs--many in his own construction company. When housing was needed, when food was required, when winter came and clothes and heat were required to keep bodies warm, they and others in the community knew whom to call: Wilfred Gooden. His charity knew no bounds. In the early years of their marriage, almost every Jamaican relocating to New York made the pilgrimage to the home of Wilfred Gooden for assistance in gaining a foothold in a new land. Wilfred Gooden was committed to his Church--the Ephesus Seventh-Day Adventist Church in Manhattan. He served as M.V. Leader, Sabbath School teacher, Sabbath School Superintendent and since 1980, as Chairman of the Building Committee, where he did so much to see that the physical plant of the Church was maintained in a manner befitting God's people. Christian Education was his passion. In 1980, he established The Concerned Committee for Christian Education to provide funds towards Christian schooling for Jamaica's children and organized a concert featuring the Cantata Choir from New York, held at the National Arena in Jamaica, of which the proceeds were used to refurbish and re-start the New Hope Preparatory school at the North Street Seventh-day Adventist Church. The school started out with one teacher and two students. The school has grown to 197 students, 12 teachers and a staff of 5. Wilfred Gooden provided scholarships for young people who would otherwise not have been able to attend his alma mater, Northern Caribbean University, formerly West Indies College. Wilfred Gooden personally assisted students from Jamaica, New York, Alabama, and Kenya. Each summer for the past 15 years, he has arranged employment for many students from various Adventist Colleges, thus aiding many in their pursuit of higher Christian education. As much as he supported students, it was not only ``classroom knowledge'' that Wilfred Gooden wanted to instill. The Concerned Committee for Christian Education also sponsored the cost for 26 children from Jamaica to go to Disney World in Orlando, Florida, who would not have otherwise been able to have that fun-filled and exciting experience. The young ladies and gentlemen of his hometown church--Ephesus in Harlem, New York--knew that their tertiary education was assured if they were willing to learn etiquette and social graces. All of the participants worked hard on the annual programs which his team, headed by Ms. Valerie Bennett and Mr. Joseph Merriweather managed. As the young ladies and gentlemen prepared for the Cotillion Ball at the Waldorf Astoria in New York, they stood tall in full bloom and presented themselves under the direction of these nurturers. It is important to note that while this program facilitated the personal development of these young people, it also funded scholarships for their tertiary education. Jamaican students pursuing medicine, engineering, dentistry, and other disciplines overseas were assured of tuition, housing and personal assistance. Wilfred Gooden wanted to ensure that all Jamaican youth had a chance to succeed so they could make meaningful contributions to society. Wilfred Gooden loved his native Jamaica and was always willing to support his native land. He thought young people from the country should learn Jamaican civic history and government, so with the authorization of the Jamaican government, he distributed copies of the Jamaican Constitution to every high school student in Jamaica. Wilfred Gooden brought notable Americans, including former Mayor David Dinkins and New York City Councilwoman Una Clarke, to the campus of his alma mater, Northern Caribbean University. He wanted people to know the quality of the Jamaican educational system and what his church and school were doing for the world. The philosophy and creed that Wilfred Gooden lived by was simple: To leave some simple mark behind To keep his having lived in mind To be an honest generous foe To play any part even if the honors did not fall on him. And like Edgar Guest would say: I'd like to think when life is done That I had filled a needed post That here and there I'd paid my fare With more than idle talk and boast; That I had taken gifts divine, The breath of life and manhood fine, And tried to use them now and then In service to my fellow men. Madam Speaker, the famed writer John Donne declared ``Death comes equally to us all and makes us all equal when it comes.'' Donne goes on: Death, be not proud, Though some have called thee Mighty and dreadful, for Thou art not so, For, those whom thou think'st Thou dost overthrow Die not, poor death, nor yet cans't thou kill me. In closing Madam Speaker, let me say that although my heart is heavy with sorrow, it is also filled with joy because I was one of the thousands of people whose lives has elevated and enriched by my association with the remarkable, the unforgettable, the irreplaceable Wilfred George Gooden. He was a role model, a hero, a mentor, a friend. He was my uncle and I will miss him terribly.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 57, to repeal certain provisions of the Federal law passed 70 years ago limiting the Virgin Islands' authority to assess and collect its property taxes. I thank the Delegate from the Virgin Islands, Mrs. Christensen, for bringing this legislation to the attention of the House. This outdated law, enacted in 1936, results in the imposition of high property taxes that could cause many residents of the Virgin Islands to lose their homes. The local government does not have the capacity to protect them from these federally imposed taxes, nor should it have to. The policies which the statute was originally designed to address are no longer an issue; it is now entirely unnecessary. In fact, the Revised Organic Act of 1954, which was enacted to grant the government of the Virgin Islands the power to assess, administer and collect real property taxes, was thought to have repealed the statute. However, the 1936 statute remained in effect, putting at risk our long-standing policies to support and protect economic development, social welfare, and homeownership in the Virgin Islands. No other State or territory in the United States is subject to such Federal restrictions. I look forward to seeing H.R. 57 passed to provide relief to the good people of the Virgin Islands from this outdated law. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my colleague from Texas. We must really approach violence, wherever it is, and I thank him for his words. Mr. Speaker, so many of us as Members have confronted families who have lost loved ones on the battlefields of Iraq. We realize that not one of those fallen soldiers would in any way step away from their duty. So today I rise to thank them. But because of their commitment to their Nation, I believe as policy makers we have a commitment to them, and it is imperative that this body and the other body not engage in nonbinding resolutions, when the American people have asked us to bring our troops home, when the President of the United States has not begun to consider alternatives such as political diplomacy, when there is no recognition that the Congress is an equal branch of government and can in fact cease the funding. We must have a new direction. We must have a safe and secure Iraq. We can work for both, but we must have the respect and mutuality of the three branches of government.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, allow me to take a moment to thank Chairman Miller and the Democratic leadership for the powerful groundwork that they are laying to provide relief to the Nation's college students and aspiring college students seeking an opportunity. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a number of Horatio Alger stories here on the floor of the House, representing the lives of so many of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, and I salute them. So many of us are first-generation college students who have had the opportunity to receive a degree in the Nation's institutions of higher learning. But let me cite for my friends and colleagues the landscape of the 21st century when China is producing more engineers in 1 month than America is producing in 1 year. It is a landscape that my friends from the other side of the aisle created, for over the last couple of years, Pell Grants have had no meaningful increase in the last 5 years. Last year, the maximum Pell Grant was worth $900 less in inflation-adjusted terms than it was in 1975 and 1976. Since 2001, Pell Grants have only increased by $300. Yes, more students are getting Pell Grants, Mr. Speaker, because more are eligible because they are poor. So there has been no educational agenda, but I am delighted that we are going to fix it for Texas. In the name of my schools, Texas Southern University, the University of Houston, Rice University, Houston Baptist University, Houston Community College, North Harris Montgomery Community College and University of St. Thomas, University of Houston-Downtown, we will finally, for the 208,000 students in Texas, bring down the cost of student interest rates some $4,000 over the next 5 years. This is relief, and this is opportunity. We need to move quickly to pass this legislation to go to the Senate and, yes, to have the President's signature. This is long overdue, and this is a meaningful response to students who are seeking an equal opportunity. I ask my colleagues to support H.R. 5. It is the right thing to do. It is long overdue. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act of 2007. This bill does much more than ease the burden of student loans for college graduates--it will make the American dream possible for the children of more than 5.5 million working and middle- class Americans. Mr. Speaker, in 21st century America, a college education is critical for individual success and the strength of our nation. Higher education is associated with better health, greater wealth and more vibrant civic participation, as well national economic competitiveness in today's global environment. As the need for a college degree has grown, however, so has the cost of obtaining that education. The result is rising student debt. About 5.5 million students borrow subsidized Stafford loans every year. Of those borrowers, nearly 3.3 million attend four-year public or private nonprofit institutions. The vast majority of these borrowers come from low- and middle-income families. According to the Congressional Research Service, 75% of traditional-aged borrowers with subsidized Stafford loans come from families with incomes below $67,374. The median income for an American family of four is $65,000. H.R. 5 Cuts Interest Rates in Half Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 5 because it cuts the fixed interest rate on subsidized Stafford loans for undergraduates from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent over the next five years. Loans originated during the intervening five years would be set at fixed interest rates of 6.12 percent in 2007-2008, 5.44 percent in 2008-2009, 4.76 percent in 2009- 2010, 4.08 percent in 2010-2011, and 3.4 percent from 2011 forward. After graduation, students could consolidate their loans into one loan at the weighted average of the interest rates of their various loans. Mr. Speaker, by lowering interest rates on subsidized Stafford loans, Congress can save college graduates thousands of dollars over the life of their loans. For example: The average four-year college student starting school in 2007 with subsidized Stafford loans would save about $2,280 over the life of his or her loans under the proposed legislation. When the interest rate cut is fully phased in, the average four-year college student starting school in 2011 with subsidized Stafford loans would save $4,420 over the life of his or her loans. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 5 because it will bring relief to the more than 205,000 student loan borrowers in my state of Texas. Today, the average subsidized Stafford Loan debt for a 4-year graduate of a Texas public college is more $14,230. Under H.R. 5, the savings for the average student starting school in Texas this year will be $2,350 over the life of his or her Stafford Loan and more than $4,500 for a student starting college in Texas in 2011. Last year, the Republican-led Congress cut $12 billion in federal student aid to give tax cuts to the wealthy. H.R. 5 would serve to give just a bit of that back by cutting interest rates on student loans in half by 2011. It may seem like just a small step, but reducing the interest rate on student loans from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent will do a lot for many Americans. High Student Debt Deters College Graduates from Becoming Teachers and Social Workers Mr. Speaker, recent graduates, especially those with low and moderate incomes, must spend the vast majority of their salaries on necessities such as rent, health care, and food. For borrowers struggling to cover basic costs, student loan repayment can create a significant and measurable impact on their lives. Crushing student debt also has societal consequences, Mr. Speaker. According to a report by two highly respected economists, Drs. Saul Schwarz and Sandy Baum, the prospect of burdensome debt likely deters skilled and dedicated college graduates from entering and staying in important careers educating our nation's children and helping the country's most vulnerable populations. To solve this problem and ensure that higher education remains within reach for all Americans, we need to increase need based grant aid; make loan repayment fair and affordable; protect borrowers from usurious lending practices; and provide incentives for state governments and colleges to control tuition costs. H.R. 5 is an important step in a new and right direction for America. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act of 2007.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 31, which honors the 21 African-American workers at Mare Island Naval Shipyard who filed a complaint of racial discrimination in 1961. This courageous decision to speak out led then Defense Secretary Robert McNamara to acknowledge the presence of military employment discrimination based on race in 1963. These 21 workers went on to establish the ``Original 21ers Club'' for the purpose of elevating qualified minorities in every phase of Mare Island employment. Their efforts have led to increased equal opportunity employment in the region and in military facilities throughout the rest of the Nation, and it is for this great impact on our society that we honor them today. I thank my friend, the distinguished gentleman from California, Chairman George Miller, for introducing this bill acknowledging the efforts of these hardworking men. It is especially fitting that we pass this legislation today, the first legislative day after the observance of the national holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Madam Speaker, this legislation highlights President John F. Kennedy's establishment of the Committee of Equal Employment Opportunity in 1961, which allowed the 21 workers proper recognition of their complaint. This committee was an essential forerunner to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in existence today. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill to honor these young men and their efforts toward equal opportunity employment for all Americans.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 58, which honors Muhammad Ali on the occasion of his 65th birthday. Muhammad Ali, who transformed the sport of boxing with his unparalleled physical gifts, social commentary, and poetry, is one of the world's most beloved athletes. Muhammad Ali has been a fixture on the world stage since the 1960, when he won the gold medal at the 1960 Olympics in Tokyo. He would go on to win such legendary bouts as ``The Rumble in the Jungle'' against George Foreman, and ``The Thrilla in Manila'' against ``Smoking Joe'' Frazier. Since his retirement in 1981, Muhammad Ali has engaged in many humanitarian endeavors, including a 1990 journey to Iraq to negotiate the release of 15 hostages. Muhammad Ali may be out of the ring but interest in him has not waned, 3 billion television viewers around the world watched him light the torch that opened the Olympic Games in Atlanta in 1996. In 1984 Ali was stricken with Parkinson's disease. However true to form, Ali has not let his illness stop him from being free to do what he wants. Never has a sports figure inspired so many people in so many different ways. Ali has shown that a sport can be more than entertainment; it can also be a cultural event with the power to change social values. Muhammad Ali is one of the most recognized sportsmen of all time. His legacy is one that inspires both in the ring and through his humanitarian work. Outside of the ring Ali was a tremendously important figure and ally in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Ali refused to fight in the Vietnam War due to his religion and because he said, ``Ain't no Viet Cong done nothing to me.'' He has won countless awards for his humanitarian efforts, including the Medal of Freedom. If anyone is deserving of the accolades that are bestowed on him, Muhammad Ali is certainly that person. The Muhammad Ali International Centre opened in Ali's home town of Louisville, Kentucky in November 2005. The Centre holds exhibits and provides learning initiatives. It was established to represent and promote the values by which Muhammad Ali has lived his life: confidence, dedication, respect, compassion, charity, and spirituality. It is hoped that the Centre will provide those that visit the enlightenment and ability to become the greatest they can be. Ali's wife Lonnie said of the initiative: ``the Muhammad Ali Centre is all about searching for common ground and establishing peace.'' On behalf of the citizens of the State of Texas and my constituents of the 18th congressional district I would like to join my colleagues in honoring Muhammad Ali, a global humanitarian, on the occasion of his 65th birthday and extend best wishes to him and his family. Muhammad Ali reminds us all that ``learning to love yourself is the greatest love of all.'' Happy Birthday, champ! As you often said after your many victories, you are the ``Greatest of all time!''

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 61, and thank my friend from Georgia, John Lewis, for authoring this important resolution. Madam Speaker, yesterday the Nation observed for the 21st time the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday. Each year this day is set aside for Americans to celebrate the life and legacy of a man who brought hope and healing to America. The Martin Luther King holiday reminds us that nothing is impossible when we are guided by the better angels of our nature. Dr. King's inspiring words filled a great void in our Nation, and answered our collective longing to become a country that truly lived by its noblest principles. Yet, Dr. King knew that it wasn't enough just to talk the talk; he knew he had to walk the walk for his words to be credible. And so we commemorate on this holiday the man of action, who put his life on the line for freedom and justice every day. We honor the courage of a man who endured harassment, threats and beatings, and even bombings. We commemorate the man who went to jail 29 times to achieve freedom for others, and who knew he would pay the ultimate price for his leadership, but kept on marching and protesting and organizing anyway. Dr. King once said that we all have to decide whether we ``will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. Life's most persistent and nagging question, he said, is `what are you doing for others?' '' And when Martin talked about the end of his mortal life in one of his last sermons, on February 4, 1968, in the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church, even then he lifted up the value of service as the hallmark of a full life. ``I'd like somebody to mention on that day Martin Luther King, Jr. tried to give his life serving others,'' he said. ``I want you to say on that day, that I did try in my life . . . to love and serve humanity. Madam Speaker, during these difficult days when the United States is bogged down in a misguided and mismanaged war in Iraq, which has claimed the lives of too many of our brave young service men and women, we should also remember that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was, above all, a person who was always willing to speak truth to power. There is perhaps no better example of Dr. King's moral integrity and consistency than his criticism of the Vietnam war being waged by the Johnson administration, an administration that was otherwise a friend and champion of civil and human rights. Speaking at the historic Riverside Church in New York City on April 4, 1967, Dr. King stated: I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor. Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. . . . I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours. Madam Speaker, these words were spoken by Dr. King 1 year to the day before his death. Thus it is that nearly 40 years after his death, Dr. King continues to teach us all. Madam Speaker, the death of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., will never overshadow his life. He was both a dreamer and a man of action. He leaves a legacy of hope, tempered with peace. It is a legacy not quite yet fulfilled. Madam Speaker, Dr. King's dream of equality under the law will never die so long as there are those like us in the Congress, and millions of people in this country and around the world, who are willing to continue the fight to make it real for all persons.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, this Monday the Nation observed for the 21st time the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday On Monday, we celebrated the life and legacy of a man who brought hope and healing to America. The Martin Luther King holiday reminds us that nothing is impossible when we are guided by the better angels of our nature. Dr. King's inspiring words filled a great void in our Nation, and answered our collective longing to become a country that truly lived by its noblest principles. Yet, Dr. King knew that it wasn't enough just to talk the talk, that he had to walk the walk for his words to be credible. And so we commemorate on this holiday the man of action, who put his life on the line for freedom and justice every day. We honor the courage of a man who endured harassment, threats and beatings, and even bombings. We commemorate the man who went to jail 29 times to achieve freedom for others, and who knew he would pay the ultimate price for his leadership, but kept on marching and protesting and organizing anyway. Dr. King once said that we all have to decide whether we ``will walk in the light of creative altruism or the darkness of destructive selfishness. Life's most persistent and nagging question,'' he said, is ``what are you doing for others?'' And when Martin talked about the end of his mortal life in one of his last sermons, on February 4, 1968, in the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church, even then he lifted up the value of service as the hallmark of a full life. ``I'd like somebody to mention on that day Martin Luther King, Jr. tried to give his life serving others,'' he said. ``I want you to say on that day, that I did try in my life . . . to love and serve humanity.'' Madam Speaker, during these difficult days when the United States is bogged down in a misguided and mismanaged war in Iraq, which has claimed the lives of too many of our brave young service men and women, we should also remember that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was, above all, a person who was always willing to speak truth to power. There is perhaps no better example of Dr. King's moral integrity and consistency than his criticism of the Vietnam War being waged by the Johnson Administration, an administration that was otherwise a friend and champion of civil and human rights. Speaking at the historic Riverside Church in New York City on April 4, 1967, Dr. King stated: I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after a short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy, and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor. Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours. Madam Speaker, these words were spoken by Dr. King 1 year to the day before his death. Thus it is that nearly 40 years after his death, Dr. King continues to teach us all. The Life of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was born in Atlanta, Georgia, on January 15, 1929. Martin's youth was spent in our country's Deep South, then run by Jim Crow and the Klu Klux Klan. For a young African-American, it was an environment even more dangerous than the one they face today. A young Martin managed to find a dream, one that he pieced together from his readings--in the Bible, and literature, and just about any other book he could get his hands on. And not only did those books help him educate himself, but they also allowed him to work through the destructive and traumatic experiences of blatant discrimination, and the discriminatory abuse inflicted on himself, his family, and his people. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that we celebrate here today could have turned out to be just another African American who would have had to learn to be happy with what he had, and what he was allowed. But he learned to use his imagination and his dreams to see right through those ``White Only'' signs--to see the reality that all men, and women, regardless of their place of origin, their gender, or their creed, are created equal. Through his studies, Dr. King learned that training his mind and broadening his intellect effectively shielded him from the demoralizing effects of segregation and discrimination. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a dreamer. His dreams were a tool through which he was able to lift his mind beyond the reality of his segregated society, and into a realm where it was possible that white and black, red and brown, and all others live and work alongside each other and prosper. But Martin Luther King, Jr., was not just an idle daydreamer. He shared his visions through speeches that motivated others to join in his nonviolent effort to lift themselves from poverty and isolation by creating a new America where equal justice and institutions were facts of life. In the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``We hold these truths to be self evident, that all Men are Created Equal.'' At that time and for centuries to come, African Americans were historically, culturally, and legally excluded from inclusion in that declaration. Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King's ``I Have a Dream'' Speech, delivered on August 28, 1963, was a clarion call to each citizen of this great Nation that we still hear today. His request was simply and eloquently conveyed--he asked America to allow of its citizens to live out the words written in its Declaration of Independence and to have a place in this Nation's Bill of Rights. The sixties were a time of great crisis and conflict. The dreams of the people of this country were filled with troubling images that arose like lava from the nightmares of violence and the dissension that they had to face, both domestically and internationally. It was the decade of the Cuban missile crisis, the Vietnam war, and the assassinations of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Malcolm X, Presidential Candidate Robert Kennedy, and the man we honor here today. Dr. Martin Luther King's dream helped us turn the corner on civil rights. It started with a peaceful march for suffrage that started in Selma, Alabama, on March 7, 1965--a march that ended with violence at the hands of law enforcement officers as the marchers crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge. But the dream did not die there. Dr. King led the Montgomery bus boycott, often with Rosa Parks. The boycott lasted for 381 days, as an end result, the United States Supreme Court outlawed racial segregation on all public transportation. Dr. King used several nonviolent tactics to protest against Jim Crow laws in the South. Furthermore, he organized and led demonstrations for desegregation, labor and voting rights. On April 4, 1967, at Riverside Church in New York City, he spoke out against the Vietnam War, when he saw the devastation that his nation was causing abroad and the effect that it had on the American men and women sent overseas. I quote: . . . it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hopes of the poor at home. It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem. When the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was stolen from us, he was a very young 39 years old. People remember that Dr. King died in Memphis, but few can remember why he was there. On that fateful day in 1968 Dr. King came to Memphis to support a strike by the city's sanitation workers. The garbage men there had recently formed a chapter of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees to demand better wages and working conditions. But the city refused to recognize their union, and when the 1,300 employees walked off their jobs the police broke up the rally with mace and billy clubs. It was then that union leaders invited Dr. King to Memphis. Despite the danger he might face entering such a volatile situation, it was an invitation he could not refuse. Not because he longed for danger, but because the labor movement was intertwined with the civil rights movement for which he had given up so many years of his life. The death of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., will never overshadow his life. That is his legacy as a dreamer and a man of action. It is a legacy of hope, tempered with peace. It is a legacy not quite yet fulfilled. I hope that Dr. King's vision of equality under the law is never lost to us, who in the present, toil in times of unevenness in our equality. For without that vision--without that dream--we can never continue to improve on the human condition. For those who have already forgotten, or whose vision is already clouded with the fog of complacency, I would like to recite the words of the good Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., himself: I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former shareholders will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the State of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but for the content of their character. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day down in Alabama with its vicious racists, with its Governor having his lips dripping with words of interposition and nullification--one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough place will be made plain and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. Dr. King's dream did not stop at racial equality, his ultimate dream was one of human equality. There is no doubt that Dr. King supported freedom and justice for every individual in America. We continue that fight today and forever, in the great spirit that inspired the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Madam Speaker, I thank all my colleagues for being here and remembering Dr. King's dream and for all that has been done to keep his dream alive.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the Speaker very much. Might I say I thank the Speaker for his leadership and certainly his patience this evening. We have spent the last 4 days in many of our Congressional districts celebrating and commemorating the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, and as many of us have participated for almost 3 days as we went home for the weekend, these commemorations have become more than celebrations and the kinds of actions that take place when a holiday allows one to commemorate. As I listened to my good friends across the aisle, one would wonder if I am now going to again recount the great legacy of Dr. King, as my good friend and colleague, John Lewis, who has an enormous history with the movement and is certainly our conscience, passed a suspension bill on the floor today, one that he authored, in tribute to Dr. King and in recognition of his 78th birthday. But in this time, I wish to suggest that Dr. King's legacy is really a living document and a living legacy, so I want to weave the message that Dr. King left for America and the world throughout the changes that I believe are key to where we are today. As I listened to my friends speak about the advancing bill that will deal with energy reform, let me just say that coming from Houston, I happen to be the Congressperson that represents one of the largest areas, we call it the energy capital of the world. I practiced oil and gas law for 15-plus years before coming to the United States Congress, and I have in many instances supported and will continue to support the growth, the positive growth and the continued development of a very important industry in this country. In fact, it should be known that as I got elected to Congress one of the first acts that I worked on with former President Clinton was to assess the issue of royalty relief for the industry, at that time of course suffering from low development, low prices, and which needed an economic engine, if you will. So rather than look at the next step that the Democratic leadership wants us to take as undermining the industry, we should look at it as an opportunity for expanding on the term ``energy.'' One would say, how does this weave into the life and legacy of Martin King? Martin King was a dreamer and also an activist, and he wanted for Americans, all of us, of all races, of all religions, of all beliefs, a better quality of life. So I believe that tomorrow and Thursday when we have an opportunity to present this bill on the floor of the House, it will be an opportunity to look at alternative fuels, renewable fuels, new ideas, but at the same time it will give many of us an opportunity to plant seeds of friendship and relationships with this energy industry that all of us want to become an independent industry and an independent America. So, I look forward to the debate on the floor of the House in the tradition of Dr. King, who dreams for a better quality of life. Let us look at a new direction as we look to the opportunities for energy investment in the Gulf, which many of us supported in the last Congress. Let us give this initiative a chance of reforming or looking to an investment in alternatives and renewables. Might I say to my friends who are in the regions of oil and gas exploration, believe me, there is much room for your technology and expertise in renewables and alternatives. I wanted to just comment on my good friends, as I begin to discuss where we are in Martin Luther King's dream. We all need dreamers. In fact, I would consider President John F. Kennedy the main Camelot of America. I would consider Americans wanting his dream to come true, his dream of a new and vibrant America, his dream of a youthful America, his dream of going to space, his dream of a peaceful America. So there are many dreamers. But the question is, do we take the dreams and the message that those dreamers give us and now provide the activism that would cause America to have a better quality of life? I think of our Constitution. In essence, as the Founding Fathers begin to deliberate on what kind of nation they wanted America to be, they were dreamers, because in fact they didn't know an America of the 21st century. They didn't know America as richly diverse as we have today. But when they organized in the Constitutional Convention this document that now provides a very effective road map of democracy, they started out as follows: ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'' This is the very Constitution that Dr. King vested himself in, the 13th and 14th and 15th amendments. So he answered the call of Rosa Parks in the mid-1950s, because he had an idea that our Constitution was not working. Was there actually equality or due process as the 14th amendment would suggest? Were we as colored people, Negroes, truly free, as the 13th amendment might suggest? I think Dr. King in his theological wisdom and his intellect probably recognized that this was not a free nation. So he accepted the call of Rosa Parks to question why free people could not sit anywhere they wanted in public modes of transportation. Many people consider the Montgomery bus boycott, and they used the terminology ``bus'' because it was a bus. But it was symbolic of the dividing line of color in America. So Dr. King was very eloquent in his words, that he wanted to make sure that the dream of freedom, the more perfect union, was one that we could accept as a reality. I want to acknowledge the King family. His children, Yolanda, and Martin, III, Dexter, Bernice; his wonderful, wonderful wife, of which I had the privilege of having a beautiful friendship, relationship, as she befriended women across America. This strong, regal woman, who after the death of her husband, a widow with four children, she was not going to let his dream die, and then organized the Martin Luther King Center in Atlanta, the memorial, the tribute to his works. The King family, Dr. King's family, Daddy King, and his mother. And the Ebenezer Baptist Church that still stands and has the legacy of the King family, and the tragic loss of his mother, doing what she loves best, playing in the church. No one pays attention to the comprehensiveness of the life of the King family and their commitment to public service and the tragedies that have befallen them, but this weekend and this past day, in remembering what they stood for, should catapult us, propel America, into doing better. That is why I am so proud that Democrats have weaved into their message of a new direction the understanding of the values of Martin King, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Franklin, individuals who would not have known where we would be in this 21st century, but would have hoped for a wonderful and valiant America. Alexander Hamilton, for example, charged us with the responsibility of not letting our democracy age as the paper upon which it was written, but he reminded us in 1775 that ``the sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.'' As I talk about Dr. King, I must reflect on Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib or where we are today in the Iraq war. You see, we are not isolated to view Dr. King simply as a holiday, a Federal holiday, or ``that civil rights leader,'' or the man who had this wonderful oratory and spoke eloquently in August of 1963, in the March on Washington. That is not all that his legacy should leave us. In fact, he too has provided a road map of which I am most saddened that we seemingly have left its pathway. As I started to say, I am grateful in this new election when America spoke volumes of what changes they wanted to see. We have the kind of leadership that is not turning a deaf ear to the voice of America. And Americans, if I might speak that you might hear, do not count your vote as your final word and say. You, too, are America. As we proceed in this very new and exciting time of listening to you, so much so that we committed ourselves to the first 100 hours, and in that 100 hours, you can now look to see that we have reformed the lobbying debacle that we experienced in the last couple of Congresses, we now realize that we must reform ourselves. We passed that legislation limiting the intrusion of lobbyists and recognizing that there should be restraints that close the door to special interests but open the doors to America. That was the dream of Martin King. Then, of course, we moved on to ensure that as we all fell to our knees during 9/11, as we saw the throngs of so many die, and made a commitment as we sang ``God Bless America'' on the very steps of this United States Capitol, Democrats and Republicans, we made a commitment to the fallen. We made a commitment to those mourning families. We made a commitment after the 9/11 Commission had finished its work to finish the job on homeland security. But for Congress after Congress, we could not pass simple tasks such as inspections of airline cargo and a number of other funding needs for our first responders, our firefighters and our police persons, and we are still working on interoperability and looking to do better things with rail security and highway security. We could not get it done; but in this new Congress, that took the dream of a dream of a better quality of life of Dr. King, we made his message a reality, passing the 9/11 Commission report. We moved on to something that in all actuality, Mr. Speaker, really brought tears to my eyes. I have been here 12 years, and I have never served in the majority, frustration of the Medicare prescription drug benefit vote, and the vote on the war, and the vote on over and over again of rejecting hate crime legislation. Nothing extraordinary, Mr. Speaker, just legislation that would indicate that simply we would not tolerate hateful acts against people because of their difference. I sat in painful hearings listening to people denigrate hate crimes legislation, just a simple addition, having come from the State that saw a man decapitated just a few years ago in Jasper, Texas, because of the color of his skin. I felt that pain of not getting legislation passed, and yet I believe it was last Wednesday we cast a vote for the minimum wage, an overwhelming vote, and I applaud my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. Tears came to my eyes because I have to go back to a restaurant where a waitress stopped me. Well, sometimes we do not give America much credit for all the knowledge that they have. I enjoy being out listening to my constituents. They are so instructive, and this waitress just stopped me while she was putting the food there on the steam table. Those of you know we get good Southern food at the steam table. And so she stopped me and said are we going to get an increase in the minimum wage. That vote last week, reflective of the message of Dr. King, acting on his dream, gave us that opportunity. We moved on, of course, to cast a number of other votes that would see improvement in the lives of Americans. This week we have the opportunity as well to address the piercing interest rates on our college students. We have always prided ourselves on believing in equality of education. It was an equalizer for immigrants in the early 1900s, as it is today, certainly for minorities, women, African Americans who started off as second-class citizens. You always had their parents telling you, get an education, but yet these spiraling interest rates, and we are getting ready to cut it in half. What an inspiration to be able to focus on that. So I want to acknowledge our vice-chair, John Larson, who many people do not know is a lover of history but also a protector of history and helped to introduce the Amistad slave ship to the rest of America. These are the new direction leaders. Rahm Emanuel who economically is one who helped guide the Clinton administration but helped to frame our debate on Medicare, and we know his sensitivity to these issues. Jim Clyburn, who always provides a steady compass of morality, who recognizes we were a divided America, and now is in a position to be a healer with his words and his actions. Of course, our majority leader who has an early history in civil rights and is certainly someone who is grounded in the leadership direction that we should be taking in this Congress. And of course, our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, symbolically and in reality exudes Dr. King's dream for I know that he would be comforted in his 78th year that maybe America has listened. This is the leadership team that I think will carry forth this dream, and as I participated in events over the weekend, the silent march organized by councilmember Ada Edwards that saw almost 5,000 people marching silently, the mayor of Houston and others who were there, an overwhelming experience, and then, of course, to commemorate and celebrate with our working men and women. The AFL-CIO national organization was in Houston celebrating the weekend with many, many union heads, including Richard Trumka and Richard Womack and Clayola Brown, locally John Bland and Richard Shaw and Claude Cummings and many others, along with President Little of the Transit Workers Union, and they were out and about serving, commemorating Dr. King's dreams, serving. We worshipped together with Reverend Sharpton on Sunday morning, and then we reflected in a breakfast on Monday morning, reflections of the past and dreams of the future by the North Houston Frontiers Club. I am sure these kinds of events were in our communities all over. And why did we have them? Why do people do this? Why is that it on that day we try to find people that do not look like us and embrace them? Why is it a day that we speak of love and unity and harmony? What is it about this man called King? Certainly during his lifetime he agitated quite a few, so much so that we can find him in any number of compromising positions. I hold this up. We can see law enforcement, with his hands shackled behind his back, and of course, again, being taken off to jail. This is the predicament that Dr. King would find himself in quite often. He even got sent to jail and wanted to insist that no one let him out, but they would bond him out anonymously so they could get him out of town; but Dr. King knew that if he did not suffer with those who likewise displayed a nonviolent protest, his message could not prevail. Dr. King saw the likes of dogs and hoses going after American citizens who simply wanted to have a sense of equality. He was found in many places, and I think that is why people stop on that day, and even as we sing over and over again, we shall overcome, tears come to the eyes of white clergy, young Hispanic men and women, Muslims, Protestants, those of the Jewish faith who were very much part of this ongoing movement, the labor movement, African Americans, religious beliefs of all kinds. They stopped for a moment, those who are sincere and believe in this great message. So this picture that reflects the marchers who would not stop going past the sign that reads ``Citizens Council, States Rights, Racial Integrity,'' which was a sign of a racial purity group of those who believed that there was inequality, in fact, superiority of one group over another. That is not the New Direction Congress, and so frankly I believe that more than ever Dr. King's dream brings about a reality. Now, let me tell you why I think we can use some of his writings for where we need to go next. As we all know, we are continuing the 100 hours with a cut in the student interest rates. Just last week, as I indicated, we did a number of reform measures, including fixing the Medicare Prescription part D. And, Mr. Speaker, you haven't lived until you live through a 6-hour vote when the clock stays open for 6 hours, not during the day but starting from 12 a.m. until 6 in the morning. You haven't lived until you are sort of circling this august place trying to talk, if you will, sense in Members about who will you be hurting if you deny us the right to negotiate a lower price, who will you be hurting if you put a doughnut hole? Just the concept of it. You are going along and everybody knows these, if you will, holes in the streets, whether they are cavities that fall in because the street is not built right or either these utility areas here, everybody has had or not had, but imagine the unpleasant experience of your car going down a sink hole. You usually can't get out on your own. It is usually unexpected. To think that in that Medicare part D vote we voted not to negotiate cheaper prices and to allow our seniors to go into a sink hole. But with Dr. King's message and the New Direction Congress, we voted on Friday to reform that, at least to allow the negotiating of lower prices. And, of course, there were all kinds of naysayers; the veterans would suffer and others. And, Mr. Speaker, you know we know better. We know how strong we have been on veterans, and, frankly, we know that we will have vehicles in which that we will make sure that it is a fair and balanced initiative. Let me tell you why I think that we have utilized the map that Dr. King left, and I take first of all to cite that point is his letter from a Birmingham jail. And I want everyone who has thought for a moment, ``I can't press the envelope on this.'' It may be that you are in a place of employment, that you have got a better way to do something and you just can't move to get to the boss' door, you are just a little intimidated. Or your fellow workers are saying, ``You know, you had better not go there. You know how they are.'' It takes a sense of courage to go against the tide when you know that some ill can befall you. So to America, we need some Dr. Kings. We need people who are willing nonviolently or with a word or pen to go against the grain. America needs that kind of inspiration again. And I just want to remind you, it is hard when you are a man of the cloth. Your friends are the clergy. They are rabbis, they are priests, they are Protestant ministers, they are deacons and deaconesses. These are your contemporaries and your friends. Dr. King got into the Birmingham jail. And it is lonely enough in jail. I can certainly tell you and know that people who have protested nonviolently and wind up in jail, it is a lonely place. You may have an idea that you are going to get out, but you begin to think of all kinds of loneliness, and are you sure they are going to let you out? Are you sure they are going to come and get you? Dr. King found himself in a Birmingham jail at the hands of Bull Connor; but, more importantly, the clergy of America thought it was important to just address him, or I would say dress him down. They thought it was important to tell him that, you know, you are a clergy and we are a little sensitive that you are getting out of hand. You are an outside agitator. You are disrupting things. The business community in Birmingham, they don't want you here. There is nothing more devastating or impacting than your colleagues, your clergy, those you hang out with giving no comfort to what you are doing or telling you to just go away. And that is what they did with a signed letter in the New York Times and in the papers across America, that you are really being a trouble maker. And you know how we are with our human emotions. The normal response would have been a harsh letter and more to come: How dare you write to me sitting in a jail in Birmingham that was probably one of the longer stays that Dr. King had? But he took time to introduce himself to America by saying: You may not know, but I am President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in the letter that he wrote. You may not be aware that we have 85 affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. And, by the way, they invited me here to Alabama. He mentioned that he came because his staff asked him to come. But then he got into the source of his inspiration, and he used it from a biblical perspective. So allow me just to say these words from his letter. He answered the clergy with their own scriptures. How many times do we do that? We are more apt to be able to write that insulting letter. It is hard for us to write an educating letter, a letter that is calming and peaceful. And Dr. King said: But, more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their thus saith the Lord far beyond the boundaries of their hometowns, and just as Apostle Paul left the village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco- Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own hometown. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid. Now, I am not reading a Christian interpretation for those who may be Muslim or other faiths or agnostic. What I am reading is a secular usage of his response to the clergy who said you need get out of there. You are an outside agitator. What he said is, is that I have got to go and help to bring freedom where there is a need for me to bring help. So my challenge to my colleagues as Dr. King's birthday passes on for another year and we go on about our normal duties, are we going to be the kind of Congress that renders aid and solves problems as we move into the formulation and the reform of Leave No Child Behind? I don't believe there is one Member who cannot recount a story where their schools are crying for relief, whether it is to give teachers more freedom in teaching, whether it is to give low performing schools the right kind of funding. We couldn't do that in the last Congress. We passed Leave No Child Behind. We had good intentions. But there were no dollars going to the schools to help them be fixed. So, for example, in Houston, TX our school boards felt obligated to close schools. And I hope that we will put school boards in a position that they will choose courageously to render aid to schools. There are many school districts who can be proud of their records. I believe that we have a number of proud moments in the Houston independent school districts at All Dean Klein, Cyprus Springs, North Forest Independent School District. Of course we have proud moments. But there are moments when we should be ashamed of what we are doing to our children; poor equipment, boxing them in so their educational desires are stifled, overtesting them. So I hope that this Congress will answer the Macedonian call, listen to our teachers. I hope we will bring them in in throngs. Let us listen to school children, let us listen to parents, the PTOs, the PTAs, how do we get a better educational system in America that balances out the excellence that we believe we derive from charter schools and private schools? Because I believe a Nation that dooms its public schools dooms its heritage and its legacy. Dr. King asked us to render aid, and that is important as we look to the many needs that we have. If we are to do a better job, then it is clear that we must develop a country that provides employment for all Americans, and weave into that, we have to address the question of keeping jobs here in America. Let me remind you that Dr. King lost his life in Memphis, Tennessee on April 4, 1968. And if your history is a little rusty, he wasn't there for providing opportunities to sit in the front of the bus or sleep in a hotel, he was there about jobs. He was there about the dignity of jobs. He was there because a labor union was organizing the garage workers, and they were not sanitation workers, they were garbage workers, treated like garbage. He went there for full employment so working people could have the dignity of their work. We as Members of Congress must invest in America, whether it be her technology, science, math, so that we can be at the cutting edge of job creation in this century. What does that mean? Some would say, Did Dr. King speak about research and innovativeness? Well, I think he laid out a road map. Remember, I said he was a dreamer. We have to start putting more dollars into basic science and research and math. We need to be developing in our Nation more mathematicians and inventors. Where is the massive investment we failed to get out of this administration into research and science? Where are our Ph.D.s, our physicists, our chemists, our biologists? Where are the quality laboratories in our universities? Where are the partnerships between universities and the Federal Government? Let us be reminded that it is well known that the Defense Department was probably at the cutting edge of the Internet 30 or so years ago. And so what are we doing by draining this Nation of all of its resources and not putting back into it so that 10-20 years from now, we can look to the new physicists to challenge the creativities of the last century, the Alexander Bells and others, who put us on the then- technological map with the telephone. Dr. King dreamed of an equal and free and just America, but he wanted to make sure that as we created that opportunity, the creative juices of America would certainly run free. Dr. King cannot be isolated in a box of civil rights. We as Members of Congress can use that dream to implement a better quality of life; and in basic research and science and technology, we have failed. We are flat-leveled. We have got to do a better job of finding those young mathematicians. That's why I hope in the reform of Leave No Child Behind, you can have a mathematical genius, they score high on the math test, but that little one may have trouble spelling. It is just the way we are. We are all different. We have to find a way to reform the educational system that has the opportunity for that young mathematician to block and work with the spelling so they are not held back. We have to address the question of 10th graders and 11th graders failing tests or having grades of Bs or C-minuses so they can graduate, but that last test, as a senior they leave and they don't come back so they don't get even a GED. We have to find a way to make an educational system that is accountable, but it must be as Martin's dream has offered to us and as Martin's words on April 3, 1968 offered to us, he had seen the promised land and he really believed America had the ability to get to the promised land for all Americans. So when we look at the reform or the reauthorization of Leave No Child Behind, let us be reminded that Dr. King gave us a road map. He gave us the ``I Have a Dream'' speech, and I always like to remind everyone of that thrilling experience, 250,000, the largest march ever in our history at that time in Washington, D.C., and what I found most thrilling as a little girl was the array of diversity. We talk about diversity now. That is our new lingo. But 1963. And the pride of the people who were there. I am from California, I am from Illinois, I am from Texas, I'm from Georgia. Everybody had on their State hats or State insignia. Young people, people in wheelchairs, veterans. What an experience. What an experience. And then to be between the Lincoln Monument, the Washington Monument, to be able to be on the steps of the Lincoln Monument, what a magnificent statement to America that we should never forget. I don't want to sound unrealistic. I know how holidays are given to us and they are one day. But I thought I would come to the floor tonight so that if anyone gleaned anything from what I am saying, it is that holidays are given for purposes, for lives, for reason. We commemorate President's Day because we are grateful to George Washington and Abraham Lincoln for the historic role that they played in America. George Washington, who guided us through the Revolutionary War and said we will stand. And Abraham Lincoln, for whatever his reasons as we have analyzed and critiqued about whether he was freeing the slaves or unifying the Union, he understood the death of soldiers and brother against brother. So we honor him because whatever happened, we stayed unified as a Union. That's why we have these holidays, so we can live again and again the value of our history. That's why we advocated and pushed and John Conyers offered the legislation on Martin Luther King Holiday, not for the fact that he was good then but so people could recycle what he stood for. I think now we have really, Mr. Speaker, lost our way. We have clearly not been able to capture all of the dream of Dr. King. So I would like to bring us almost full circle in terms of where we are today in the 21st century. This war in Iraq goes against all that Dr. King tried to convince us of in his commitment to nonviolence. Of course when I begin to speak of this issue of nonviolence, I know what I will get from most Americans and many of my colleagues, and certainly my friends on the other side of the aisle, particularly as I try to segue into this discussion on Iraq. They will tell me this is a post-9/11 world. Mr. Speaker, I understand that. You can be assured that every single American understands that, and they want us to secure America. I don't reject that responsibility. But what I do say is we can take some of the teachings of Dr. King and maybe we would be better off as we look for a new direction to craft a legislative response, a courageous legislative response, that would begin to redeploy our troops and to find a better way. Remember now, we are not isolated in our leadership. We are viewed as the most powerful Nation in the world. What does that mean? Conflicts around the world will look to us for relief: Sudan, South and North Korea, the changes in South America. They will look to this Nation for its guidance, and a Nation that is bogged down in an unceasing conflict where any one of us could account for you that we have had measuring sticks of success. I did not vote for the war, but I am not going to take away from that that, one, we invaded Iraq. Saddam is not there. We can debate that question. I would be happy to debate it. There was a democratic election. I will not take away from those benchmarks. But what I will say, as I would expect my good friend and colleague in the Senate, the other body, who served in the Reagan administration and who understands these issues, as many of my colleagues do firsthand, Senator Webb, I know that we are not denigrating things that have occurred. We won't deny that. But what we are saying is, is there not a better way? Is there not now time to turn the corner? Are we advancing any progress for Iraq or this Nation or the world with the mounting death, now 3,000-plus Americans, moving up from 25,000 maimed? And might I say, Mr. Speaker, we have returning Iraqi vets that don't have jobs who are in our communities and asking what happened to the work. By the way, I hope we will quickly pass the new GI Bill of Rights. I have had these people stop me in my community; and as mothers typically do, which I am, though I certainly act congressional, but tears well up in me that I have to have a veteran ask me what about a job or what about going to college. We are not prepared for these veterans. We say we are. We are making more of them, many of them maimed and needing to be retrained, and we are saying we are not ready. We are saying some of our hospitals don't have enough beds. Dr. King, in his Birmingham speech, again, talked to the clergy about why you may well ask why direct action. Because, as you well know, there was protest and petitions. Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path? You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such attention that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue it seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. Now, why am I citing this? Because of course I would imagine you would not think I am talking about direct action in Iraq, but what I am saying is that there are many ways to get factions to the table other than the bloody violence and the presence of our soldiers on the soil of Iraq, at least as they are now being used. Is this misdirected, Mr. Speaker? We are not bringing anyone to the table of negotiation, not with the constant violence, the constant maiming of our soldiers, and the constant fueling the fire of sectarian violence. Now, Mr. Speaker, I need tell no one of the enormous tragedy that we experienced today. I can't cite for you the numbers, but the U.N. now says that 34,000 Iraqis have died. The headline: ``Suicide Bombings Go on as U.N. Says 2006 Dead in Iraq Top 34,000.'' The United Nations said 34,452 Iraqi civilians had been killed in sectarian violence in 2006. This is not insurgents or al Qaeda coming across the border. These are Iraqi civilians caught up in sectarian violence. We have not been able to stop it. This is a terrible day today. We have over 100 today that have died. Over 100. So when we begin to try and resolve this question of Iraq, can we not put in place serious diplomatic negotiations? Can we not work in a bipartisan manner? Can we not suggest that we have done enough to warrant the Prime Minister at the table along with Sunni leaders? Can we ask the Prime Minister not to be so singular in his viewpoints? Do you expect, with his relationship with the cleric, that he would in any way provide the kind of necessary commitment that we have been told by this administration will be required for the Baghdad policy to work, dividing Baghdad into nine districts, forcing our soldiers, 20,000- plus, into neighborhoods, dragging people out of their neighborhoods when the bombing that occurred today occurred at the end of al Sadr, the city? The largest and one of the most egregious horrific bombings and we are to expect that our soldiers will be able to be in the midst? Oh, yes, I have the greatest faith in our young men and women. And I do believe they are well trained. I take nothing away from them, and I thank them for being willing warriors. They are called and they go, and we should never diminish them. They are our defenders. And when the Commander in Chief calls them, they respond. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, in the times I have gone every year since we invaded Iraq, I have gone along to Afghanistan, I have been in Mazul and Tikrit, and I have spoken to soldiers, and I probably left some behind who lost their lives. And every one of them would give you a stiff upper lip. They are there. As I got to go more recently, unfortunately I would see those who are there on their second and third redeployment, and those who will go back will be on the second and third redeployment. So Dr. King's dream is being extinguished in the bloodiness, in the misdirectedness of an ongoing war, longer than World War II, with no solution. We leave Dr. King's dream of nonviolence, of ways of using nonviolence, extinguished and stomped under our feet. So I say to the American people, Dr. King's birthday is past, it was yesterday, and we had a weekend of activities, I'm sure, in many, many cities. You won't remember it again until next year this time, but I believe we are commanded by icons like Dr. King and our own Founding Fathers who indicated first that we organize this Nation to form a more perfect Union. It is right here in the Constitution, the very document that provides for us the right kind of way to declare war, which we never did. Then, of course, Alexander Hamilton wanted to make sure we didn't leave our democracy, our freedom, our ability to speak just on some parchment paper they had written on. He said it has to be living, and we are not living the dream or living freedom here in America today. And, America, is what I am saying to my colleagues, you voted in November, I know, but it is time to break the silence. That is what Martin King said on April 4, 1967, a year before his death. Beyond Vietnam, a time to break the silence. That was a stepping away from Dr. King's whole legacy at that time. And, believe me, he received enormous criticism. But he said a time comes when silence is betrayal, and that time has come for us in relation to Vietnam. He even went on to say, when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in times of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conforming thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. He said, again, it is time to break the silence. Tonight, as he spoke to the congregation in this speech, he said: However, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, then of course our proposed enemies during Vietnam, but rather to my fellow Americans, who with me bear the greatest responsibility in ending a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents. So this is what I leave with my friends. It is the responsibility of America. It is our responsibility to end the conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents. And so I ask Americans to push forward. Let us hear from you on the cutting off of funds because, as we have heard over the weekend, the administration refuses to listen to the voices of the American people. And I was told the Vice President indicated that we have enough money, and so the Congress is not needed. But I remain committed and inspired by Martin King's dream. And he had a wonderful dream for a better America. He wanted to see all of us of all hues and religion, little black boys and girls and white boys and girls and brown boys and girls, and all races and creeds of his era, now translated to today sitting down at the table of peace and harmony. It may sound dated, but it is relevant today, and the New Direction Congress has grabbed hold, if you will, of the idea of making America great. Mr. Speaker, we cannot make America great unless, of course, we bring, in dignity, the end to the Iraq conflict. 34,000 dead. And America must speak against the funding and the continued funding of this horrific, misdirected conflict. Might I say, it has nothing to do with cutting off the resources of our valued soldiers on the battlefield, for, as we have heard, there are monies there. But unless our voice is heard, nonviolently, and comprehensively, we have a failed policy and a failed direction continued by the executive. I close, Mr. Speaker, by citing in the Constitution the recognition that there are three branches of government, the executive, the judiciary, and the legislature. The Founding Fathers made sure, not knowing of Dr. King's dream, that they were equal and balanced. And I respect the President as a Commander-in-Chief, but it is time now for America to breathe life into this Constitution, and to ensure, as we breathe life into this constitution, we, the people who are here to form a more perfect union, demand in debate and demand in action that we redeploy and bring our soldiers home. And we can be successful because America has always lifted her voice of reason and brought people to the table in negotiation. And all the violence in Iraq, all of the violence in Iraq has not brought the parties together. All of the warring, all of the militia and our soldiers on the ground has not brought the parties together. That is where the administration fails in its duty to heal America and to make a solution that recognizes sectarian violence is going to require those sects to sit down and find a valid peace. Martin King left us with good words, answer the Macedonian call to render aid, and we, as Americans, would get to the promised land some day. He might not be with us, but we have the opportunity, still, to continue our greatness and be part of the promised land. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you again for your patience this evening and having given us an opportunity to remind Americans that our history is not one that is passed, but it is living. Dr. King's dream must live within us.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 188, which extends the effective date for the applicability of certain provisions of law to Public Law 105-331 to July 1, 2007. Public Law 105-331 revises the nonfederal matching requirements conditioning payment to a designated recipient organization of certain proceeds from any surcharges on the sale of Thomas Alva Edison Commemorative Coins. H.R.188 will establish July 1, 2007, as the end of the 2-year period after which there must be deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts any amounts deriving from such surcharge proceeds which have not been paid to a designated recipient organization solely because of the organization's failure to submit an audited financial statement demonstrating that all matching requirements have been met. This extension will allow many organizations to receive the funds provided to them under the bill, and thus carry out the original intent of this body to celebrate the legacy of Thomas A. Edison, one of this country's greatest inventors. The 2004 Thomas Alva Edison Commemorative Coin Act, Public Law 105- 331, authorizes the production of up to 500,000 silver dollar coins. This coin commemorates the 125th anniversary of Thomas Edison's invention of the light bulb. Thomas Edison made immeasurable contributions to this country. His inventions include the invention of a complete system of electric light and power and the launching of the modern electric utility industry. The Pearl Street station, which opened in lower Manhattan in September 1882, featured safe and reliable central power generation, efficient distribution, and a successful end use (i.e., the long-lasting incandescent light bulb and electric motors. In the 1890s, Edison began working on motion picture technology, and in the process created a third industry. Edison began commercial production of short movies in 1893, often filming in the famous ``Black Maria,'' the first motion picture studio. Like the electric light and phonograph before it, Edison developed a complete system that encompassed everything needed to both film and show motion pictures. We must continue to acknowledge and honor Thomas Edison for his irreplaceable contributions, many of which we cannot imagine living without. Some of the organizations that will receive funds to help honor the many great contributions of Thomas A. Edison include: Museum of Arts and History--Up to one-eighth to the Museum of Arts and History, in the city of Port Huron, Michigan, for the endowment and construction of a special museum on the life of Thomas A. Edison in Port Huron; Edison Birthplace Association--Up to one-eighth to the Edison Birthplace Association, Inc. in Milan, Ohio, to assist in the efforts of the association to raise an endowment as a permanent source of support for the repair and maintenance of the Thomas A. Edison birthplace, a national historic landmark; National Park Service--Up to one-eighth to the National Park Service, for use in protecting, restoring and cataloguing historic documents and objects at the ``Invention Factory'' of Thomas A. Edison, in West Orange, New Jersey; Edison Plaza Museum--Up to one-eighth to the Edison Plaza Museum in Beaumont, Texas, for expanding educational programs on Thomas A. Edison and for the repair and maintenance of the museum; Edison Winter Home and Museum--Up to one-eighth to the Edison Winter Home and Museum in Fort Myers, Florida, for historic preservation, restoration, and maintenance of the historic home and chemical laboratory of Thomas A. Edison; Edison Institute--Up to one-eighth to the Edison Institute, otherwise known as ``Greenfield Village'' in Dearborn, Michigan, for use in maintaining and expanding displays and educational programs associated with Thomas A. Edison; and Edison Memorial Tower--Up to one-eighth to the Edison Memorial Tower in Edison, New Jersey, for the preservation, restoration, and expansion of the tower and museum. It is important that we allow these organizations that were selected to receive proceeds from the sale of the commemorative coins to receive the funds that will financially support their efforts to honor the legacy of Thomas A. Edison. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 188 to provide a new effective date for the applicability of certain provisions of law to Public Law 105-331.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4, the ``Medicare Prescription Drug Negotiation Act of 2007,'' a bill that will require the government to negotiate for lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries and people with disabilities in the Medicare program. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay special tribute to my good friend, Chairman John Dingell, for his lifetime of devoted service to the cause of affordable health care for all Americans. I also thank the Democratic leadership, led by Speaker Pelosi, making affordable prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries a central issue in the last election, which saw the voters return the Democrats to the majority in this chamber for the first time in twelve years. Democrats promised to chart a new direction for America if given the chance to lead. Today, we take another giant step toward fulfilling that promise. Mr. Speaker, under the current law, which was passed in the dead of night with little time for members of Congress to review the hundreds of pages of text involved in such a complex proposal and was written largely by and for the pharmaceutical industry, Medicare is explicitly prohibited from negotiating lower prices. It is past time for Congress to repeal this provision and put the needs of the American people before those of special interests. Allowing the government to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices puts the interests and well-being of ordinary Americans first by making health care more affordable for Medicare beneficiaries, who include millions of our country's most vulnerable citizens, seniors and individuals with disabilities. Our seniors and individuals with disabilities should not be forced to choose between buying medications and paying for rent or food. Lower prescription drug prices could go a long way to eliminate this Hobbesian choice. The ability to negotiate the cost of prescription drugs purchased through the Medicare program also will generate tremendous savings to the taxpayers. We have a duty to the taxpayers to get the best return on their hard-earned money, especially on costly pharmaceuticals for which the federal government facilitates purchases in such large quantities. Drug prices under the Medicare prescription drug plan are more than 80 percent higher than prices negotiated by other agencies in the federal government and more than 60 percent higher than prices in Canada. In 2007, many beneficiaries in private drug plans will see their premiums increase by an average of ten percent, and some premiums will rise more than six-fold if they stay in the same plan. We cannot afford to stay with the same faulty plan but must change direction to reflect the will of the American people. The American people overwhelmingly support having the Secretary of HHS negotiate for lower prescription drug prices on behalf of Medicare. The bill also has the support of a number of organizations including the AARP, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Consumer's Union, the AFL-CIO, and Families USA. We have heard the voice of the American people and we must not ignore our duty to act in their best interests. Allowing the federal government to negotiate for lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries is merely a start to our fulfilling that duty. Mr. Speaker, the Medicare Prescription Drug Negotiation Act of 2007, represents a win-win situation. Medicare beneficiaries will be able to obtain needed prescription drugs at prices they can afford and the taxpayers will get a greater return on their dollars by taking advantage of economies of scale. I urge all members to vote for H.R. 4, which will enable the federal government to negotiate for lower drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me compliment the gentleman for beginning his special order with the reference to Dr. King. Might I just add how excited I am that Members are going home to their districts to be able to commemorate this holiday. Might I just cite, for the first time in Houston, Council Member Ada Edwards and many other elected officials and myself will be walking silently. We love parades, and we will be commemorating that, but we will be walking silently. I want to pay tribute to that. The AFL-CIO will be in Houston, its national officers and representatives, the Reverend Al Sharpton, commemorating. Finally, we will have what we call the Frontiersmen breakfast, an annual event, for corporate Houston. I only cite that not to highlight Houston, but to say all over America, different representations, different communities, will be celebrating and commemorating his holiday, which shows the broadness of his legacy. I thank you for allowing me to speak and I thank the King family as well.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am always delighted to have the opportunity to follow my distinguished colleague from Tennessee. She has a breadth of assessment that provides insight, but I respectfully disagree with much of the commentary that has been spoken to in the last hour. That challenge that the American people gave to us on November 7, 2006, was to go in a new direction. It was to fix the broken and improve the conditions of livelihood and life for the American public. So I thank Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer, Majority Whip Clyburn and Chairman Emanuel and Vice Chairman Larson for recognizing that for almost 4 years large populations of individuals, your parents, your grandparents, have languished in the confusion of Medicare Part D, when they have fallen, sunken into a hole, and the enormous cost has overtaken them. The veterans know that we have stood fast on their behalf. Therefore, any disparity, disparate treatment to our veterans will be immediately fixed. I know that it was the Democrats who fought consistently to ensure that veterans hospitals were not closed by promoting, if you will, the veterans health care bill that was passed in order to give the veterans' hospitals more money. So I am grateful of this democracy. And I came to the floor to cite the leadership of a giant of an American whom we will honor on Monday. This Congress in a Special Order that I will lead will honor him again on Tuesday evening, January 16, for Members to join us in commemorating and celebrating the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King. I raise his name in the context of my good friend from Tennessee, because his whole legacy, although not admired during the time he was working, was to try and help America, to promote America's conscience. I am reminded of his letter from a Birmingham jail, and I encourage my colleagues to join us in the third hour on Tuesday, the 16th, when he was in essence thrown into jail for his work of advocacy in Birmingham. Bull Connor ruled, dogs and hoses were used to attack human beings, and the clergy of America wrote and asked why this pastor had gone to Birmingham to be disruptive. This is both eloquent, but biblically grounded, but really secularly teaching words that he said. He said, ``I am taking the time to write this letter to you because I knew it was important. Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford, never again can we afford, to live with the narrow, provisional, outside agitator idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.'' And lastly he said, ``Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.'' Dr. King was arrested repeatedly. But he left America the direction and the instruction of rendering aid, and as Members of the United States Congress, it is our challenge to render aid to America and to all of her citizens, to ensure that we provide them with the life and the dignity and the justice and the freedom promised by our Constitution. I look forward to joining with my fellow Members as I lead a special order on Tuesday, January 16th, to truly account for his life. But I also am grateful this week for the minimum wage and prescription drug benefit reform and 9/11 reforms and a number of other issues we are looking forward to, will in fact honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the body that we stand in is the people's House. It is our obligation to address the grievances of the people who petition us. Thank goodness today, by reforming the prescription drug benefit part D, H.R. 4 addressed the grievances of millions and millions of seniors and small pharmaceutical companies or pharmacies. Seventy-five percent of the drug program is paid by taxpayers. Thank goodness that we worked today on behalf of seniors who have suffered for years facing that terrible doughnut hole. Thank goodness we are negotiating a cheaper price. Thank goodness we are doing like the veterans hospitals are doing for veterans. Thank goodness we have corrected that 6-hour open vote of sheer despair, of pressuring all of the Members of Congress to vote the way our Republican friends wanted them to do, which is vote the worst prescription drug benefit program we have ever had in America. We did a disservice to Medicare. Today we fixed it. I am glad for seniors we stood up so they could be heard.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, last night the President announced to the Nation his intention to deploy another 20,000 troops to Iraq. Madam Speaker, troop surges in Iraq are not new and, judging from history, the one announced last night by the President 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.'' [CNN, 12/19/06. Washington Post, 7/26/06. Brookings Institution, 12/21/06.] 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. [Brookings Institution, 12/21/06. www.icasualties.org] 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. [Brookings Institution, 12/21/06. New York Times, 12/2/04.] 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. [Brookings Institution, 12/21/06. www.icasualties.org. USA Today, 3/4/ 04] Madam Speaker, rather than surging militarily for the third time in a year, the president should surge diplomatically. A further military escalation would simply mean repeating a failed strategy. A diplomatic surge would involve appointing an individual with the stature of a former secretary of state, such as Colin Powell or Madeleine Albright, as a special envoy. This person would be charged with getting all six of Iraq's neighbors--Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait--involved 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. The high-profile envoy would also address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the role of Hezbollah and Syria in Lebanon, and Iran's rising influence in the region. The aim would not be necessarily to solve these problems, but to prevent them from getting worse and to show the Arab and Muslim world that we share their concerns about the problems in this region. Madam Speaker, the President's plan has not worked. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is, as we all know, a definition of insanity. It is time to try something new. It is time for change. It is time for a new direction.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. McMillan, thank you. That's why I should have whispered to you before I came down. He would tell us that we needed to get on a bus and go to South Carolina to defeat, and I can say this on the floor, I know Mr. McMillan has gone on and is resting in peace, because this gentleman was an obstacle to the freedom, the dignity, and respect. All I knew was to get on this bus and go down to, I would like to say Florence, South Carolina, and go to a place where I was truly unwanted. We all were. In fact, the campaign office, they drove by in a pickup truck and shot at. But I had a sense of purpose and joy for the people of this great District, these patriots. These Americans deserved the equality of a vote. I will go to my seat by simply saying, out of their commitment comes Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, who I hope will claim the victory of the passage of H.R. 328, and that we will together, with you and your leadership, do the right thing for the patriots of this District. I thank Delegate Norton for organizing this special order on the ``District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act,'' bipartisan legislation that she and Congressman Tom Davis of Virginia have reintroduced as H.R. 328 in the ll0th Congress. The reintroduction of this legislation provides a second chance for Congress to complete one of the great unfinished tasks of the Civil Rights Movement. This is an opportunity that we should not squander. As Section 2 of H.R. 328 finds, over half a million people living in the District of Columbia lack direct voting representation in the House of Representatives and Senate. Residents of the District of Columbia serve in the military, pay billions of dollars in federal taxes each year, and assume other responsibilities of U.S. citizenship. For over 200 years, the District has been denied voting representation in Congress--the entity that has ultimate authority over all aspects of the city's legislative, executive, and judicial functions. H.R. 328 would permanently expand the U.S. House of Representatives from 435 to 437 seats, providing a vote to the District of Columbia and a new, at-large seat to Utah. Based on the 2000 Census, Utah is the state next in line to enlarge its Congressional delegation. This bill does not give the District statehood, nor does it give the District representation in the Senate. Rather, H.R. 328 treats the District as a Congressional district for the purposes of granting full House representation. Previous Congressional efforts to secure voting representation for the District of Columbia include a proposed 1978 Constitutional amendment, a 1993 statehood bill, and a 2002 voting representation bill. On August 22, 1978, a two-thirds majority in each Chamber of Congress passed the DC Voting Rights Constitutional Amendment, which would have provided District residents voting representation in the House and Senate. The required 38 states did not ratify the amendment within the seven-year time limit. On November 21, 1993, the New Columbia Admission Act, H.R. 51, a statehood bill for the District of Columbia, was defeated in the House by a vote of 277-153. Most recently, on October 9, 2002, then Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman, Joseph Lieberman, marked-up his legislation providing Senate and House representation for the District. The Committee reported the bill favorably with a vote of 9-0. However, the Senate did not take up this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the key provision of H.R. 328 is section 4, which permanently increases the Membership of the House of Representatives from 435 to 437. One seat would be designated for the District of Columbia and the other seat would go to Utah, the state next in line under the 2000 Census apportionment formula. Section 4 also provides that the new seat established in Utah shall be an at-large seat. This at-large seat shall exist until all congressional seats are reapportioned for the 2012 election. Mr. Speaker, passage of the DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act and would be a simple act of justice. After all, the legislation is vote-neutral in that it does not advantage any political party over another; the bill commands wide bipartisan support; and most important, the bill is constitutional. The Bill Is Vote-Neutral The DC Voting Rights Act provides Americans living in our nation's capital with voting representation in the House of Representatives for the first time ever. The DC VRA balances a seat for DC with an additional seat for Utah. Utah missed getting a fourth vote in the House by less than 1,000 people following the 2000 U.S. Census. Utah is a historically Republican state. The District of Columbia has traditionally voted Democratic. Thus, the bill is viewed as vote- neutral, not favoring one political party over another. This balance has led to a nonpartisan consensus, which is critical to enacting this bill. The Bill Is Bipartisan Throughout history, Democrats and Republicans have gone on record in strong support of DC voting rights. Presidents, presidential candidates, senators, members of Congress and prominent legal experts from both sides of the aisle have declared support for granting the residents of Washington, DC, a vote in Congress. From Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist and Senator Bob Dole to President Jimmy Carter and Senator Edward Kennedy, political leaders are on record for democracy in DC. In 2006, Representative Tom Davis and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton were joined by now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representatives Chris Cannon, John Conyers, Henry Waxman, Dan Burton, Rob Bishop and others in support of the DC Voting Rights Act. Off the Hill, former elected officials Jack Kemp, John Breaux, J.C. Watts and others support the bill. Secretary Kemp put it well at the Martin Luther King Memorial groundbreaking when he said: ``Dr. King like Mr. Lincoln believed that `democracy is the ultimate destiny of all mankind'. Thus it becomes strikingly ironic and indeed actually hypocritical for our nation to send young men and women to fight in foreign wars in the cause of freedom and democracy but continue to deny the people of this great city the opportunity to vote for their representative in the U.S. Congress.'' The Bill Is Constitutional In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee this summer, the American Bar Association stated: ``Enactment of the proposed [bill) would be an exercise of this constitutional authority conferred by the `District Clause.''' Former federal appeals court judge and Solicitor General, Judge Kenneth Starr, during congressional testimony in 2004, stated that Congress clearly has the constitutional power under the Constitution's District Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17) to confer voting representation: ``The use of the word `state' [in the Constitution) cannot bar Congress from exercising its plenary authority [under the District Clause) to extend the franchise to District residents.'' Other constitutional law experts, including Professor Viet Dinh and Judge Patricia M. Wald, formerly of the D.C. Circuit, agree that Congress has the constitutional authority to grant congressional voting representation to the residents of the District of Columbia. Mr. Speaker, Americans living in our nation's capital pay taxes, serve on juries, and defend our nation during times of war, but do not have voting representation in either chamber of Congress. The United States is the only democratic country in the world that denies voting representation to citizen of the nation's capital. A national poll conducted in January 2005 showed that 82 percent of Americans believe that Washingtonians deserve voting representation in the House and Senate. While we are attempting to export democracy abroad, it is time we provide American rights for people living in America's capital. In conclusion, let me express my thanks again to the Delegate from the District of Columbia for organizing this special order. I look forward to working with her and my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee and in the House to win passage of this important legislation, which will treat the hundreds of thousands of citizens in the District of Columbia fairly and equally when it comes to voting representation in the House of Representatives.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, many might wonder why we come to the floor of the House and begin to either cite the Bible or begin to associate Congresswoman Norton with the angels flying above, but I love the statistics that she cited, because she mentioned the statistics of churchgoing people in Washington, D.C. So I begin by saying the prayers of the righteous avail us much. Not only has she been praying but she has been working. I would cast the reintroduction of H.R. 328 as the morality of Sojourner Truth that Eleanor Holmes Norton exhibits, and the integrity of Harriet Tubman, for this has been a long journey. But I believe in this new Congress, with this new direction, this simple bill, this premise of equality and justice can finally say our time has come. And if you don't mind, allow me to emulate your eloquence in the simplicity of this bill. H.R. 328 couldn't be more fair. You made it very clear that this is a bill that could not move without bipartisan support. You made the historical pronouncement that when we began to admit States during the era of slavery we admitted a free State and a slave State. Now, we know that there are Democrats and Republicans all across America, but we might imagine that under this bill, H.R. 328, that the State of Utah might elect someone from a different party than myself. Then we might just envision that Washington, D.C. would select and elect someone of my party. How fair could you be? We know that the delegate, who I call Congresswoman, appropriately titled, certainly is valued in the Democratic Party, but this legislation will be fair and balanced because it draws disparate populations that have been denied their birthright from the far ranges of the east coast of America to the far ranges of the western United States. Let me just briefly speak to the issue of birthright. We have spoken so much about citizenship. We have had such outrageous debates on the question of immigration; yet we have left out, for more than 200 years or more, citizens who have shed their blood through the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and conflicts in between, the Vietnam War, and the present conflict that we now have. What do you say to parents and relatives, husbands and wives, sisters and brothers of a fallen soldier who happen to have an address in the District of Columbia, someone who offered themselves to stand up for this Nation's flag? I pledge allegiance to the concept of freedom and justice for all. So as we prepare to leave this weekend, Congresswoman, let me thank you for allowing us just a moment to come to the floor as we go into the weekend commemorating the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, who had the opportunity to be called by President Lyndon Baines Johnson to come to the Oval Office to witness the signing of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. I know full well that Dr. King would have wanted to have an amended initiative. I know Dr. King, if living, would be standing by your side and applauding you. Lastly, let me tell you an anecdotal story that I was going to try to ask you to remember, because I could not, but I really thought I was a champion of civil rights when your predecessor, Walter Fauntroy, who as you know would sing us all into marching wherever he wanted us to go, but he told us there was a man called McFarland that was chairman of the District of Columbia, wasn't it?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank you very much. I know this is a Special Order that has drawn the interest of Members from vast regions around America. The important thing is we are Americans, that we want what is best for America, and that is why the Congress created the Baker Commission, not for it to be partisan but for it to be bipartisan, for it to have experts from around the Nation. To my great disappointment, the President stood up, ignored the Congress, the people, the experts, the military experts, and the wisdom that would indicate that it is time now to redeploy our troops. This is a Martin Luther King moment. His birthday will be celebrated this coming Monday. Martin Luther King was courageous enough, as my colleague from Minnesota just said, to have the courage to go against the Vietnam War, realizing it was better to have peace over war and life over death. The President laid out last night an Iraqi-dependent policy for America. They have, in essence, called upon the American people to depend upon this failed government to be the source of our strategy in Baghdad. We now will send some 20,000-plus troops to engage in a nine- district process of dragging people out of their homes on the premise of utilizing Iraqi soldiers and security forces. My question to the President is: Why did we not do this before? Let me say in closing that I want a peaceful solution. I did not vote for the war, but I believe in our military. I believe in America and democracy. Bring the allies to the table in the region, have a political diplomacy, and have our troops backup the Iraqis. We cannot have a foreign policy dependent upon Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to speak on the most critical issue facing our country, the war in Iraq. This misguided, mismanaged, and costly debacle was preemptively launched by President Bush in March 2003 despite the opposition of me and 125 other members of the House. 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. 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 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. Mr. Speaker, I say with sadness that we have not 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 3,015 brave servicemen and women (115 in December and 13 in the first 9 days of this month). More than 22,000 Americans have been wounded, many suffering the most horrific injuries. American taxpayers have paid nearly $400 billion to sustain this misadventure. Based on media reports, tonight President Bush will not be offering any new strategy for success in Iraq, just an increase in force levels of 20,000 American troops. This reported plan 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. Mr. Speaker, 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. Mr. Speaker, the troop surge the President will announce tonight is not new and, judging from history, 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.'' [CNN, 12/19/06. Washington Post, 7/26/06. Brookings Institution, 12/21/06.] 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. [Brookings Institution, 12/21/06. www.icasualties.org] 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. [Brookings Institution, 12/21/06. New York Times, 12/2/04.] 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.[Brookings Institution, 12/21/06. www.icasualties.org. USA Today, 3/4/04] Mr. Speaker, stemming the chaos in Iraq, however, requires more than opposition to military escalation. It requires us to make hard choices. 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. Mr. Speaker, 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. I believe the time has come to debate, adopt, and implement the Murtha Plan for strategic redeployment. I am not talking about ``immediate withdrawal,'' ``cutting and running,'' or surrendering to terrorists, as the architects of the failed Administration Iraq policy like to claim. And I certainly am not talking about staying in Iraq forever or the foreseeable future. I am talking about a strategic redeployment of troops that: Reduces U.S. troops in Iraq to 60,000 within six months, and to zero by the end of 2007, while redeploying troops to Afghanistan, Kuwait, and the Persian Gulf. Engages in diplomacy to resolve the conflict within Iraq by convening a Geneva Peace Conference modeled on the Dayton Accords. Establishes a Gulf Security initiative to deal with the aftermath of U.S. redeployment from Iraq and the growing nuclear capabilities of Iran. Puts Iraq's reconstruction back on track with targeted international funds. Counters extremist Islamic ideology around the globe through long-term efforts to support the creation of democratic institutions and press freedoms. As the Center for American Progress documents in its last quarterly report (October 24, 2006), the benefits of strategic redeployment are significant: Restore the strength of U.S. ground troops. Exercise a strategic shift to meet global threats from Islamic extremists. Prevent U.S. troops from being caught in the middle of a civil war in Iraq. Avert mass sectarian and ethnic cleansing in Iraq. Provide time for Iraq's elected leaders to strike a power-sharing agreement. Empower Iraq's security forces to take control. Get Iraqis fighting to end the occupation to lay down their arms. Motivate the U.N., global, and regional powers to become more involved in Iraq. Give the U.S. the moral, political, and military power to deal with Iran's attempt to develop nuclear weapons. Prevent an outbreak of isolationism in the United States. Mr. Speaker, rather than surging militarily for the third time in a year, the president should surge diplomatically. A further military escalation would simply mean repeating a failed strategy. A diplomatic surge would involve appointing an individual with the stature of a former secretary of state, such as Colin Powell or Madeleine Albright, as a special envoy. This person would be charged with getting all six of Iraq's neighbors--Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait--involved 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. The high-profile envoy would also address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the role of Hezbollah and Syria in Lebanon, and Iran's rising influence in the region. The aim would not be necessarily to solve these problems, but to prevent them from getting worse and to show the Arab and Muslim world that we share their concerns about the problems in this region. Mr. Speaker, the President's plan has not worked. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is, as we all know, a definition of insanity. It is time to try something new. It is time for change. It is time for a new direction.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank Mr. Castle and Ms. DeGette for their outstanding leadership. Might I just simply call the roll: Parkinson's disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's, ALS, cancer, spinal cord injuries, and the many soldiers that are in the hospitals of America, Walter Reed, Bethesda, who have suffered from spinal cord injuries in the battle of Iraq and Afghanistan. We owe them hope. We owe them hope for the hopeless. As I listened to my friends talk about the existing research, let it be clear that the NIH approved lines lack the genetic diversity that researchers need in order to develop effective treatment for millions of Americans. We know that there is amniotic fluid, and there is some suggestion that that is a substitute. But George Daley from Harvard says that these newly discovered cells are not a replacement for embryonic stem cells. On the contrary, research for these is entirely complimentary. As Michael J. Fox has said, I respect and counsel and thank those who prayerfully disagree with me. I respect their moral standing. But ethicists and others believe this is the right way to go. Let us give hope to the hopeless. Support stem cell research. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3, the ``Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.'' Once again we find ourselves in a position to pass a bill that will provide our nation's scientists with the valuable opportunity to save lives. It is our duty as representatives of the people to help Americans who are suffering. In 1998, the very first stem cells were isolated, leading to the immediate realization of the enormous possibilities this discovery presents. Suddenly treatments, even cures, seemed possible for devastating illnesses like Parkinson's disease, diabetes, Alzheimer's, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), cancer, and spinal cord injuries. Despite restrictions on federal funding imposed by President Bush in 2001, the states of California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, and Maryland have provided funding for this important research. In 2005 and again last year, we learned that in spite of the President's continued opposition to stem cell research, support for it in Congress transcended party lines. Unfortunately, the embryonic stem cells currently permitted by law for research are not sufficient for scientists needs. According to the National Institute of Health (NIH), of more than 60 stem cell lines that were declared eligible for federal funding in 2001, only about 22 lines are actually available for study by and distribution to researchers. These NIH-approved lines lack the genetic diversity that researchers need in order to develop effective treatments for millions of Americans. Opponents of this bill repeat statistics on the little progress that has been made with embryonic stem cell research, but I must remind them that the restrictions placed on it have greatly hindered its success. In spite of recent scientific breakthroughs that suggest alternate means of obtaining stem cells, I must caution my colleagues from thinking that embryonic stem cell research is no longer necessary. I applaud Dr. Anthony Atala and his team at Wake Forest University and Harvard University for their very recent outstanding discoveries. However, I must repeat the caution of Harvard researcher George Daley in saying that these newly discovered cells ``are not a replacement for embryonic stem cells''--on the contrary, research for these is entirely complementary. In addition, while we know very little about these new methods, much progress has already been made in the research of embryonic, or pluripotent, stem cells, the most adaptable and unique of all the stem cell varieties. They currently provide scientists with the most possibilities for research and for the discovery of life-saving treatments; as such, we must allow these scientist the opportunity to do so. It is understandable that many Americans may have moral conflicts with this issue, but this bill is ethical in every respect. First, embryonic stem cells are only clusters of cells, and do not have the capability to develop into a fetus or a human being. Also, not a single embryo will be destroyed in order for this research to be implemented, because there is no need to do so. It is estimated that more than 400,000 excess frozen embryos exist in the United States today and that tens of thousands, and perhaps as many as 100,000, are discarded every year. Further, H.R. 3 ensures that none of the embryos used in stem cell research is intended for implantation in a woman. All of these embryos would otherwise be discarded. Mr. Speaker, denying people in our nation who suffer from debilitating illnesses the possible medical benefits that could result from embryonic research is not only cruel but a waste of these valuable life-sustaining stem cells. This is indeed a matter of ethics--we cannot morally argue that it is better to deny suffering people hope for a cure. Let us provide all people in this world with possibilities for a better future by supporting stem cell research. Let us create the potential for miracles in the lives of paralyzed individuals, those with cancer, or those in need of organ transplants. This bill provides a limited--yet significant--change in current policy that would result in making many more lines of stem cells available for research. If we limit the opportunities and resources our researchers have today, we only postpone the inevitable breakthrough. Our vote today may determine whether that breakthrough is made by Americans, or not. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, to vote in favor of scientific innovation, and to vote in favor of a perfect compromise between the needs of science and the boundary of our principles. Finally, the Texas Medical Center is located in Houston, it is a major research site and in desperate need for being giving the hope of Stem Cell Research--I urge support for H.R. 3--Stem Cell Research. January 9, 2007. Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: I am writing today to express my strong support for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. As you may know, I am pro-research, pro-science and support all forms of stem cell research. Every scientist I've spoken to (and a lot more I haven't) believes that embryonic stem cells may hold the key to better treatments and cures--not only for Parkinson's disease but for cancer, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, heart disease, Alzheimer's and countless other illnesses that cut short or diminish millions of lives every year. My own Foundation has funded this promising research, giving hope to millions of people worldwide. But under current restrictions, our ability to build on early breakthroughs is deeply compromised. No matter where you are on the issue of stem cell research, one thing is fundamentally clear: disease is a non-partisan issue that requires a bi-partisan solution. A majority of the House of Representatives, a majority of the United States Senate, and over two-thirds of Americans support expanded funding for stem cell research. We understand that embryonic stem cell research holds the potential to transform microscopic cells already marked for destruction into life-saving treatments. I have great respect for those who have concluded, after much thought, reflection, and prayer, that they cannot support embryonic stem cell research. But the debate today is over the use of embryos discarded by in vitro fertilization clinics. Indeed, this is the ultimate rescue operation. These embryos have the potenital to rescue millions or people from terrible diseases and in doing so they will not be created then discarded in vain. Personally, I can't think of a greater affirmation of the culture of life than to advance the fight against disease by increasing federal funding for biomedical research. Equally crucial is to remove undue restrictions on important paths forward, including embryonic stem cell research. The Senate and House of Representatives will soon consider the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, a vital piece of legislation that could lift current federal funding prohibitions and improve oversight of embryonic stem cell research. You can make a difference by co-sponsoring and voting yes on the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. I urge you with all my heart to support this bill and deliver hope to every person affected by debilitating disease. America is about optimism, about promise, about always moving forward. The idea of rejecting one of the most promising areas of research is shortsighted. We have no way of knowing where the next breakthrough will emerge. I very much appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to working with you this year to pass this important legislation and allow the science to move forward. Thank you, Michael J. Fox.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is not often that we have such serious moments in the House to save lives, so I rise today to offer to the President an opportunity to not use the United States military for 9/11 calls, to bring our troops home, and to focus on a political-diplomatic solution of solving the contentious civil disunity between Sunnis and Shiites. I oppose the escalation. But I rise today to save the lives of those who suffer from Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's by asking for an outstanding and enthusiastic vote for stem cell research. We must realize that even though amniotic fluid research is going on, it is not a substitute for embryonic stem cell research. We can do this together. We can save American lives. We can do the right thing and ask the President, do not utilize your veto. Help to save the lives of Americans. Bring our troops home, and support stem cell research.