Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank you for your leadership and presence during this important debate and discussion. I almost don't know where to start. Because when you begin to discuss the issue of Iraq, you must be very cautious. One, the constitutional premise is that the President is the Commander-in-Chief. The immediate inquiries of the press of how are you going to translate the vote of the American people into action, you are just the Congress; the Commander-in-Chief has every right to command the troops. And might I say that this President has commanded the troops. As I visited Afghanistan and Iraq, every one of those soldiers has stood up and said, I was willing to come and follow the orders of my Commander-in-Chief. I respect them, thank them, thank their families. That is why I feel a special obligation to begin to renew the energy and the outrage that many of us expressed during the debate of 2002 when we had hoped that we would have secured enough votes to oppose the attack on Iraq. But I am not here to recapture past failures or successes. What I am here to say is that it is imperative, it is the demand that the American people have made. Not that we follow opinion polls. For if you look at the opinion polls, 57 percent of the American people are dissatisfied with the way Iraq has been handled. Larger numbers than that are not supporting the escalating of the war. So many might say, as I imagine the Commander-in-Chief will say tonight, I am not here to follow opinion polls. I do say that any elected person has a right to define their own anchor. But what we are here to do is do right by the American people. We are here to do right by the 22,000 maimed soldiers who have returned who are in the Nation's hospitals, who we have not seen, with amputated arms and legs, those that I have seen in MASH units with imploded brains because of the IEDs. We are here to do right by the 3,000 plus who have died and the families who are mourning their loss. We are here to do right by the soldiers who have said, send me. I believe that the plan that the President will offer tonight is a misdirected plan. It is a wrong plan. And let me tell you why. Upping or plussing or surging the troops should have happened 3 years ago. This is a war that has lasted longer than World War II. The idea of more troops without a mission is not effective. Listen to the generals who have testified before our committees. Listen to the generals who have now been given early retirement, who did not agree with the plussing up. Why is it that the President has often said, I will listen to my generals, and all of a sudden these generals have been deposed? And then, of course, the question is a realistic question. Twenty thousand troops for the city of Baghdad, now captured by the civil war? Not 20,000 troops to help us in Mosul or Tikrit, but 20,000 troops to go to Baghdad, a city like Mexico City, or a city that is like another, a huge teeming city, 25 million plus. And our soldiers will now be the police officers knocking on doors looking to drag people out of their houses. That is not a military operation. And then, of course, let me say to you that we did an operation upsurge or plus from June to October 2006. The purpose was to secure Baghdad. But as the Baker Commission has indicated, and I hope the President has read, this is a sectarian civil war. There is a need for diplomacy instead of or in front of a military action. I passed an amendment that said that the redeployment or the number of times that you have been redeployed should be taken into consideration before you are being called up. None of that will occur. We don't have 20,000 troops; and our soldiers have been over two times, three times, four times, more than any occurrence in Vietnam. In order to get the 20,000, we must redeploy soldiers who have been on the battlefield, who are battle worn, not individuals who refuse to serve their country but are battle worn and battle torn. What are we for? I am for the rebuilding of the military. I am for the replenishing of our equipment. I want us to be strong on defense. But I am not for an escalating war that has no mission and no end. We must have political diplomacy. We must not send our soldiers. We must have a new direction. 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 service, men 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. Troop surges have been tried several times in the past. The success of these surges is, to put it charitably, has 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 force 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 longterm 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. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Education and Labor Committee and thank him for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, there is a biblical story about the children of Israel in the desert seeking the promised land for 40 years. I would like to tell my good friend that there are American workers who are deserving and in need of an increase in the minimum wage, and we know that for 51 years we have had the lowest valued minimum wage in America. It is clear that the minimum wage increase would help reverse the trend of declining real wages for low-wage workers, American workers, and that, between 1979 and 1989, the minimum wage lost 31 percent of its real value, American workers. What about the waitress who stopped me in a restaurant and said, When are you going to raise the minimum wage? A woman raising children who, with the minimum wage, will be able to have an opportunity to get a car loan to get a car to get her children to school or to the doctor or to be able to do the things that we in America enjoy doing, being with our family, providing them an opportunity? This is a moral issue. I ask my colleagues to support the increase in the minimum wage for Americans across America. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2, the ``Fair Minimum Wage Act.'' With the adoption of this bill, the House of Representatives will take the first step in making good on its commitment to working-class Americans that one of the first concerns of the Congress is the well-being of ordinary Americans who work hard, play by the rules, and are struggling to get by through no fault of their own. We Democrats promised to chart a new direction for America if the voters entrusted us with the majority. They did and with our votes today in support of H.R. 2, we are making good on our promise. Mr. Speaker, before I discuss the importance of this bill in detail, I wish to commend Chairman Miller, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Majority Whip Clyburn, and the rest of the Democratic leadership, as well as my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, which was led so ably last Congress by Congressman Watt and is now led Congresswoman Kilpatrick. Because of their resolve and visionary leadership, more than 13 million workers will soon receive a long overdue raise. What difference an election makes!

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in this week of recognition and admiration of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I am reminded of a book he wrote and the words ``why we can't wait'' which emphasized the urgency of the civil rights movement for the then Negro in the United States of America. Today we rise to indicate to America we cannot wait for an increase in the minimum wage. We cannot wait for that waitress who asked me when she would be able to provide more for her children and have the opportunity for the American dream. By raising the minimum wage today, we impact 7 million women, 3.4 million parents, and we raise it from $5.15 to $7.25 over 2 years. In 9 years, 10 years, we have not raised the minimum wage. I say this in the backdrop of the President's speech tonight on Iraq, because that theme follows why we can't wait for a successful policy in Iraq, and why we can't wait to have the President change directions to ensure that we eliminate that failed policy. We are going to stand for a new direction in Iraq, saving our soldiers and bringing them home with dignity. And we are going to stand for working families in America.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of Title IV of H.R. 6, the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 110th Congress. With the adoption of this title, we begin to make good on our pledge to restore fiscal responsibility, open government, and honest leadership to the House of Representatives. Madam Speaker, it is critically important that we adopt the ``pay as you go'' or ``paygo'' rules contained in Title IV. We must restore budget discipline with no new deficit spending as the first step to reversing record budget deficits that are passing trillions in debt on to our children and grandchildren. We must also amend House rules to require full transparency in order to begin to end the abuse of special interest earmarks. Madam Speaker, the Bush Administration has turned a projected 10-year $5.6 billion surplus into a nearly $3 trillion deficit. Under this Administration, America's debt has climbed 50 percent to more than $28,000 per person, and the United States has borrowed more from foreign nations than the previous 42 U.S. presidents combined. Rising interest rates caused by Bush deficits cost middle-class families as much as $1,700 a year on credit card and mortgage payments, with interest payments on the debt becoming one of the fastest growing categories of spending in the federal budget. Madam Speaker, pay-as-you-go was the law of the land from 1990 until 2002, paving the way for a balanced budget in the late 1990s, four years of budget surpluses, and bringing down the national debt by $453 billion. Forty-two percent of the American public says reducing the deficit should be a top priority. On November 5, 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed a deficit reduction bill imposing pay-as you-go discipline in a bipartisan deal supported by 47 House Republicans and 19 Senate Republicans. Republicans such as former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Senator John McCain support pay-as-you-go budgeting. It is supported by the Concord Coalition, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and the Committee for Economic Development. Madam Speaker, earmark reform is needed to bring transparency and accountability for special projects. The status quo has permitted some Members of Congress, with no transparency and accountability, to provide favors to special friends through earmarked special projects-- putting special interests ahead of the public interest. The American people deserve to know who is sponsoring earmarks to begin to stop the cases of flagrant abuse of earmarks. The number of earmarks has exploded under the Republicans, climbing from 3,023 in FY 1996 to 13,012 in FY 2006, and the lack of transparency and accountability has led to problems--of which Rep. Cunningham is an example. Former Representative Duke Cunningham pleaded guilty to accepting bribes from defense contractors in return for his help in securing defense contracts. The Democratic reform package will amend House rules to clearly define what constitutes an earmark, along with its proper use. Specifically, the package will prohibit earmarks that personally benefit Members and their spouses. Earmark reform under Democrats will ban earmarks that benefit lobbyists who chair a Member's Political Action Committee. Madam Speaker, to restore public confidence in this institution, we must commit ourselves to being the most honest, most ethical, most responsive, most fiscally responsible Congress in history. We can end the nightmare of the last six years by putting the needs of the American people ahead of partisan political advantage. To do that, we must start by adopting Title III of H.R. 6, the fiscal responsibility reforms to the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 110th Congress.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Title III of H.R. 6, the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 110th Congress. With the adoption of this title, we begin to make good on our pledge to restore civility, open government, and honest leadership to the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, it is critically important that we adopt the civility rules contained in Title III because Americans are paying for the cost of corruption in Washington with skyrocketing prices at the pump, spiraling drug costs, and the waste, fraud and no-bid contracts in the Gulf Coast and Iraq for Administration cronies. But that is not all. Under the previous Republican leadership of the House, lobbyists were permitted to write legislation, 15-minute votes were held open for hours, and entirely new legislation was sneaked into signed conference reports in the dead of night. The American people registered their disgust at this terrible way of considering and voting on legislation last November and voted for reform. House Democrats picked up 30 seats held by Republicans and won the majority. Restoring open government and honest leadership is one of the top priorities of the new majority of House Democrats. That is why we have included Title III in the Rules of the House of Representative for the 110th Congress. We seek to end the excesses we witnessed under the Republican leadership and to restore the public's trust in the Congress of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Slaughter and the members of the Rules Committee for their excellent work in preparing the rules package. The reforms contained in the package are necessary to ensure that all Members of Congress, each of whom is elected to represent the interests of nearly 600,000 constituents, have sufficient time to consider important legislation before casting an informed vote. The reforms we are considering also will discourage manipulation of the voting rules to alter the outcome of roll call votes. Mr. Speaker, I support the elements of the civility package, which (1) prohibits holding votes open for the sole purpose of affecting the outcome; and (2) reforms the conference committee process by requiring adequate notice of meetings, ensuring information is available to all conferees, and prohibiting changes to the text of signed conference reports. Mr. Speaker, under the previous House Republican leadership, several votes were held open for hours in order to change the outcome. The most notable example was the November 2003 vote on the conference report on Medicare legislation (PL 108-173) that was held open for two hours and 53 minutes, the longest recorded vote since electronic voting began in 1973. After the expiration of the 15 minute time limit, the measure lost 216 to 218. But the vote was held open hours to afford House Republican leaders, the president, and the Health and Human Services Department, enough time to lobby enough Republican members to change their votes, or cast votes, in favor of the measure, eventually achieving a majority of 220 to 215. This kind of unfair manipulation of the rules would not take place under the voting rules package we are considering today. With respect to Conference Reports, the rules package we consider today includes provisions intended to ensure that conferees have notice of conference meetings and the opportunity to participate, as well as to prevent the insertion of material into a conference agreement after the conferees have completed their work but before the House votes on the measure. These new rules also require House managers to ensure that conference meetings occur under circumstances that allow every House conferee to have notice of the meetings and reasonable opportunities to attend. Under the prior Republican leadership, Democratic conferees frequently were not invited to meetings of conferees, which prevented U.S. from having a meaningful role in crafting an agreement. The rules also require conferees to ensure that all provisions on which the House and Senate have disagreed be considered open to discussion at any meeting of the conference committee. Additionally, House conferees will be required to ensure that papers reflecting a conference agreement are held ``inviolate to change,'' unless there is a renewal of the opportunity of all House managers to reconsider their decision to sign or not to sign the agreement. This change is designed to prevent material from being inserted into a conference agreement after conferees have ``closed'' the measure. In this connection, the new reforms requires that House managers be provided with a single time and place, with access to at least one complete copy of the final conference agreement, for the purpose of recording their approval, or lack of approval, on the signature sheets that accompany the conference report and the joint statement of managers. Last, the new reforms bar the House from considering a conference report if the text differs materially, except clerical changes, from the text that reflects the action of the conferees when they signed the conference agreement. Mr. Speaker, to restore public confidence in this institution we must commit ourselves to being the most honest, most ethical, most responsive Congress in history. We can end the nightmare of the last six years by putting the needs of the American people ahead of partisan political advantage. To do that, we must start by adopting by Title III of H.R. 6, the civility reforms to the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 110th Congress.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, again, thank you for the leadership given today and yesterday by Speaker Pelosi and the House leadership for putting us on the right course. And it is interesting to listen to my good friends, and they are good friends, who are on the other side of the aisle and to listen to the conversation on the Nation's headline stations about the commitment Democrats have made to come to work. And we are delighted that in the last couple of votes we saw almost unanimous votes as relates to our open government. But let me, as a Member who comes from a district that depends a lot on the interests and concern of this Congress about issues of empowerment of nonprofits and charitable organizations who struggle every day to mentor children, to provide economic empowerment. Sometimes they provide assistance where government cannot. And they are the recipients of earmarks. And I think it is important that we define earmarks so that the maligning that has occurred because of some inappropriate use of earmarks really doesn't hide the value of allowing these tax dollars to go back, not through government bureaucracy but right to the people. An example of that is the Texas Southern University Laboratory School, a school that is placed in a public housing complex that educates the children and other surrounding children in that neighborhood in a progressive and op-educational system, so much so that their test scores have excelled beyond public school. It is, in fact, formerly a school that had been embraced by the public school system, and now has been spun off to Texas Southern University, a teaching college, and the housing authority. We have an earmark, of which I am very proud to have all of the scrutiny that anyone might want, that would provide dollars to continue this interesting and provocative way of teaching our children so that inner city children, children that would be pegged as not being able to be creative, are actually passing their science tests, their math tests, and they rush to school because they have a lust for learning. That is an earmark. What I believe in this bill has been passed on reform is transparency. And any day of the week, I would be willing to associate my name to track where these monies go and determine whether there are any special interests that come back to me. You will find a complete slate in this particular earmark. And all other earmarks as this bill will allow, we will be able to say this is what this earmark is for. It is not a special interest, it does not go back to give any individual Member any kind of advantage. These earmarks are crucial, such as earmarks for the Northeast YMCA, that deals again in the far reaches of the 18th Congressional District but helps youngsters develop leadership skills; or the earmarks that go to public health clinics that will help create a greater opportunity for first-line health care for the elderly and working Americans in the working class. Again, this should be a Congress not wracked with special interests but a Congress who really believes in the people who went out to vote in this last election. So I am proud to be associated with this lobbying reform that has as one of its key elements the right for the American people to know where their tax dollars are going. And any day that any one of us is fortunate enough to receive an earmark, you should have the ability to be able to review it. Let me also say as we move forward into the 100 hours of legislation how proud I am to be part of the overall package. And let me say to those of you throughout the community who have had those kinds of questions, like one of the questions that I have been asked, when are we going to raise the minimum wage, let me respond to the small businesses who might say this is going to be an extraordinary burden. I would remind you that when we raised it in 1997, you survived. It has been 10 years since we raised the minimum wage. Those individuals who receive an increase in the minimum wage are the consumers of America. They will be in your small stores in your neighborhoods. They will be in your small businesses. They will provide the backbone of your increased economic benefit. So we should not look to the increase in the minimum wage as undermining small businesses. It will not. It will create such an infusion of dollars and provide additional dollars of saving, even though it is a measured increase that it increases over a period of time. What a difference it will make for those individuals supporting families, single parents, double parents, working families still on the minimum wage. What a difference it will make for them to have an opportunity to grab hold or to aspire some day in their life to the American Dream. We cannot continue to be this great country without having this opportunity. As I close, Mr. Speaker, let me simply say the minimum wage is vital; as are the 9/11 Commission recommendations, finally to be able to secure America; and, lastly, I look forward to bringing to the floor what America has sent us here to do, which is to find a dignified way of bringing our soldiers home with dignity and respect, with a thank you for what they have done on the front lines of Iraq. That is the challenge for America. That is the challenge for those of us who have come in the majority this time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Title II of H.R. 6, the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 110th Congress. With the adoption of this title, we begin to make good on our pledge to ``drain the swamp'' and end the ``culture of corruption'' that pervaded the 109th Congress. Mr. Speaker, it is critically important that we adopt the ethics rules contained in Title II because Americans are paying for the cost of corruption in Washington with skyrocketing prices at the pump, spiraling drug costs, and the waste, fraud and no-bid contracts in the Gulf Coast and Iraq, for Administration cronies like Halliburton. Ethics and legal scandals plagued the Republican Congress--from the resignation of Reps. Tom DeLay and Duke Cunningham to the admission of illegal or improper conduct by Reps. Bob Ney and Mark Foley. The cozy relationship between Congress and special interests we saw during the 109th resulted in serious lobbying scandals, such as those involving Republican super lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In this scandal, a former congressman pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit fraud-- accepting all-expense-paid trips to play golf in Scotland and accepting meals, sports and concert tickets, while providing legislative favors for Abramoff's clients. But that is not all. Under the previous Republican leadership of the House, lobbyists were permitted to write legislation, 15-minute votes were held open for hours, and entirely new legislation was sneaked into signed conference reports in the dead of night. The American people registered their disgust at this sordid way of running the Congress last November and voted for reform. Democrats picked up 30 seats held by Republicans and exits polls indicated that 74 percent of voters cited corruption as an extremely important or a very important issue in their choice at the polls. Ending the culture of corruption and delivering ethics reform is one of the top priorities of the new majority of House Democrats. That is why as our first responsibility in fulfilling the mandate of this critical election, Democrats are offering an aggressive ethics reform package. We seek to end the excesses we witnessed under the Republican leadership and to restore the public's trust in the Congress of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Slaughter and the members of the Rules Committee for their excellent work in preparing this ethics reform package. The reforms contained in the package are tough but not nearly too tough for persons elected to represent the interests of the 600,000 constituents in their congressional districts. Indeed, similar bipartisan lobbying and government reform proposals were debated and passed by the House and Senate in 2006 but the Congress failed to reconcile the two versions. Mr. Speaker, I support each element of the ethics reform package, which bans gifts from lobbyists; bans lobbyist financed trips and travel; requires pre-approval and certification for travel financed by outside groups; prohibits use of corporate aircraft; ends the notorious K Street Project; and mandates ethics training for all House employees. bans gifts from lobbyists Members of Congress are paid enough by the taxpayers to afford to pay for their own meals. Lobbyists can make their case by providing Members of Congress accurate, reliable, and persuasive information. Thus, it is appropriate that the House rules should ban gifts, including meals and tickets, from lobbyists and the organizations that employ them, and require that tickets to sporting and other events given to Members and staff by non-lobbyists are valued at market price. bans lobbyist travel Another reform that I support is the ban on lobbyists and the organizations that employ them from financing travel for Members or staff, except for one-day travel to visit a site, attend a forum, participate in a panel, or give a speech. As the scandal involving Jack Abramoff revealed, lobbyist financed travel led to serious abuse. The new rules do not ban such travel altogether but directs the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to develop guidelines for minimal lobbyist involvement for one-day/one-night travel. It should be noted, however, that travel provided by a private university is not to be affected by anything in the rules package. requires certification and pre-approval for travel paid for by outside groups I also support the travel certification and pre-approval provisions. The new ethics rules require sponsors of all other permitted travel to certify that they have abided by all restrictions on lobbyist involvement and requires Members and staff to obtain pre-approval from the ethics committee for travel to ensure trips are connected to official duties, the amount spent is limited to reasonable expenses, and the destination is related to the purpose of the trip. The rules require the full disclosure of all travel within 15 days after the trip. Travel provisions take effect beginning on March 1, 2007. prohibits use of company planes Next, the new rules prohibit the use of official, personal or campaign funds to pay for the use of non-commercial, corporate jets. This provision does not apply to charter plane services or to airplanes owned by Members. ends the k street project Clarifies that no Member can take or withhold an official act, or influence, or offer or threaten to influence, the official act of another with the intent to influence on the basis of partisan political affiliation an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity. mandates ethics training Finally, and effective March 1, 2007, the new rules require the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to offer annual ethics training to members, delegates, the resident commissioner, officers and employees of the House. This training would be required to involve the classes of employees deemed appropriate by the committee and must include the aspects of the Code of Official Conduct and related House rules deemed appropriate. The required training is to be provided to new officers or employees within 60 days of their employment, and each officer or employee is to file a certification with the committee by January 31 certifying that they have attended training in the past year. Conclusion Mr. Speaker, it is wholly fitting and proper that the Members of this House, along with all of the American people, paid fitting tribute to the late President Gerald R. ``Jerry'' Ford, a former leader in this House, who did so much to heal our Nation in the aftermath of Watergate. Upon assuming the presidency, President Ford assured the Nation: ``My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.'' By his words and deeds, President Ford helped turn the country back on the right track. He will be forever remembered for his integrity, good character, and commitment to the national interest. This House today faces a similar challenge. To restore public confidence in this institution we must commit ourselves to being the most honest, most ethical, most responsive Congress in history. We can end the nightmare of the last 6 years by putting the needs of the American people before those of the lobbyists and special interests. To do that, we must start by adopting Title II of H.R. 6, the ethics reforms to the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 110th Congress.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, it is with great respect for my good friends I consider this conference report the right start in the face of challenge of nuclear nonproliferation. It is a start. And even though this conference report allows a relationship with India and the United States to pursue civilian nuclear research and investment, this is not the final stop. There is a responsibility that there is an agreement with the IAEA that the Indian Government must assure that their purposes are for civilian purposes only. We do need to continue the friendship between India, the United States, and Pakistan. And I would much rather affirm the fact that there are two governments who are allies of the United States in the South Asia region, India and Pakistan, and to include both of those countries in our discussions in the war against terror, and as well the isolation of Iran and certainly the resolution in Iraq. To do so we must show the respect and the friendship that India has shown to us. And so this is an important step. I might say that this conference report ensures that safeguards in the agreements between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency is finalized before the President can exempt India from certain legal restrictions. It also provides for end-use monitoring of U.S. exports to India, and as well it strengthens the Nuclear Supplier Group, the group of countries that try to stem nuclear nonproliferation around the world. It helps us, in fact, by having India in the family of nonproliferation, but also having civilian use. Madam Speaker, I am also glad that my amendment stayed in that I offered in the House, remained in the conference report. And that amendment particularly talks about the fact that there are two important countries in South Asia, and that is India and Pakistan, and that relationships should continue with both of them. Madam Speaker, this is, in fact, the right start. There is a second chance, and that second chance is the atomic energy agency. We do have the opportunity to maintain our friendship, to pass this legislation, to allow India to do its research in civilian nonproliferation nuclear use, and at the same time provide a buffer for those countries who refuse to adhere to international guidelines. India has shown itself a democracy, shown itself to be a friend, and I would encourage that this conference report be a roadmap, if you will, for ensuring the friendship of the United States with India and Pakistan, and at the same time recognizing the longstanding democracy that India has been. I believe it is a good step. I think it is a first step. I think that we have the checks and balances that would support the idea that we are not promoting the proliferation of nuclear use; we are helping to provide for the safe nonproliferation use of nuclear devices, particularly in the civilian area I thank the Gentleman for yielding, I thank the Rules Committee for making consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 5682, the ``United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006'' in order. Madam Speaker, the United States' relationship with India and Pakistan is of paramount importance to our nation's political and economic future. With the receding of the Cold War's global divisions and the new realities of globalization and trans-national terrorism, we have embarked on a new era of promise, possibility and uncertainty. This means the United States, the world's only superpower, bears an especially heavy responsibility to remain engaged in all regions of the world, with all nation-states. It is in the national interest for the United States to continue our policy of engagement, collaboration, and exchange which has served the nation well in the past, particularly in the South Asia region. It is important that we are considering this conference report today. I also want to thank my colleagues for adopting my amendment to H.R. 5682. My bipartisan amendment, which was endorsed and co-sponsored by Congressman Burton, and which was not opposed by either the Majority or Minority of the Committee on International Relations, simply states that the ``South Asia region is so important that the United States should continue its policy of engagement, collaboration, and exchanges with and between India and Pakistan.'' Peaceful nuclear cooperation with India can serve multiple U.S. foreign policy objectives so long as it is undertaken in a manner that minimizes potential risks to the nonproliferation regime. This will be best achieved by sustained and active engagement and cooperation between India and the United States. Similarly, Pakistan has been a critical ally in the global war on terror. Pakistan has been a good friend to the people of the United States. Although H.R. 5682 signals no change in this country's relationship with Pakistan, it is not difficult to understand why it may give pause to some supporters of Pakistan. This is another reason why it is vital for the United States to continue to engage both Pakistan and India in ongoing political engagement, economic and technological collaborations, and personal exchanges, which will bring the United States closer to these two vitally important democracies in the South Asia region and will bring India and Pakistan closer to each other. I support this Rule, this Bill with my Amendment, and this Conference Report. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would say that there is a kinship with many of my colleagues about the necessity of regular order. In the best of all worlds, we would have had a number of days to debate many of the very pithy and challenging issues that are in this particular rule that now will, ultimately, if this rule pass, will bring up any number of issues that require our thoughtful deliberation. But I would say that we are in the waning hours of the 109th Congress, and we look forward to a new day when the light of day will shine on issues dealing with conservation, dealing with the right relationship between patient and physician and the payment of their services and, yes, when we address the question of tax relief for people who really, really need it. I want to rebut Lou Dobbs' attack on the middle class and say that we stand for working Americans. And so I believe that there is a great need for some of the aspects of this legislation. We need the college tuition deduction extension. We need the State sales tax exemption for States who do not have State income tax, but the burden of taxation falls unfairly on those who are least able to pay it because they pay a high sales tax. We need the welfare-to-work tax credit, and we certainly need the tax that relieves teachers who pay their own money for books and supplies for children in inner-city and rural schools. I know it firsthand because my daughter, as a teacher, had to go in, because she desired to do it, and take her resources so her class could have an enthusiastic and challenging way of learning. These are vital aspects of what needs to be done. And then, who has not heard from their doctor who wants to do what is right in rural and urban areas who cannot get the complete respect, if you will, of CMS by the cuts in their Medicare payments every single year. We need this stability, this fund, that will help bring about stability in the payments to physicians. My friends, not only are we losing medical students in medical schools, meaning that the numbers are declining, doctors are giving up the ship, and they are doing it because we have not been fair to them. And now, of course, I am from Texas, and I believe in conservation. I had hoped that when we were talking about energy legislation, the President would open the door on conservation here in the United States. But let me tell you what this sharing of revenue is all about. It is not a giveaway. It is not a throwaway. I recognize that when we talk about the energy industry, we are certainly talking about those that cannot win a popularity contest. But we have got to address the question of coastal restoration. This is a key element to protecting the coastal line, not for the coastal States but for America. Do you want to see the ticking clock on what we have now expended for those folk in Louisiana who are still in need? My visit to Louisiana tells me that they are still in troubling times. People can't go home. Homes are not restored. But we are spending billions and billions of dollars for the most catastrophic evacuation and tragedy that we have seen most in the history of the United States. The coastal lines have deteriorated. The wetlands have deteriorated. And what this revenue sharing will do, in the exploration of the Outer Continental Shelf, it will provide it revenue to protect the coastal line. My understanding is that our friends from Florida, at least those who have engaged in this discussion, believe that there is sufficient protection for them as well. We did not ignore the concerns of coastal States. But it is imperative that, one, we engage in conservation, but we also engage in safe, environmentally safe exploration of natural gas. We are going to dispute this. We are going to disagree. We are going to castigate. We are going to suggest that we are falling victim to those who want to explore. We are going to be called the, if you will, explorer and giveaway on this particular bill. I would have preferred a more thorough, ongoing debate on this question. But I believe this is the right way to go right now. We have got to provide the resources for the restoration of those coastal areas. We have got to provide an environmentally safe way of exploration. We have got to have some domestic production. And LNG, or the natural gas production that is going on and has the ability of being done in the Outer Continental Shelf is vital for the aspect of conservation and energy independence of the United States of America. I ask my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I think it is imperative that we all agree on the vital importance of America achieving energy independence in the 21st century. We must end our addiction to foreign sources of oil, most of which are found in regions of the world which are unstable and in some cases, opposed to our interests. Accordingly, there is no issue more integral to our economic and national security than energy independence. Although I must admit that I do have reservations about certain aspects of this bill and the process with which this bill has arrived on the House floor, I nevertheless support it as a step in the right direction of America achieving energy independence. I think many of us in the House would agree that the issues central to this bill, the future of energy exploration off of our gulf coastlines, deserves more time for deliberation, debate, and a process for amendment. Some of these amendments which were incorporated into H.R. 4671 include my amendments which supported minority-serving universities and minority- owned businesses. These very important provisions were designed to ensure that sectors of our Nation and economy which are often overlooked, namely, minority-serving institutions and minority-owned business, were given an opportunity to benefit from and compete for the opportunities afforded in this bill. Nevertheless, I still support H.R. 6111 because it is a step in the right direction, a step towards energy independence, and a step away from being eternally beholden to foreign sources of oil. Moreover, this step includes an integral revenue sharing formula which ensures that 37.5 percent of the revenue from new areas of production and new leases go towards gulf producing States. Furthermore, 20 percent of the revenue allocated to gulf producing States must be allocated to the State's coastal subdivisions to be used for the purposes of: coastal protection, conservation, coastal restoration, hurricane protection, protecting coastal wetlands, and mitigating damage to fish and wildlife. In addition, 12.5 percent of the revenue will be allocated to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which ensures that the environmental impact of offshore drilling will be monitored, managed, and regulated to ensure that our coasts are protected. Energy is the lifeblood of every economy, especially ours. Producing more of it leads to more good jobs, cheaper goods, lower fuel prices, and greater economic and national security. However, the U.S. is more than 60 percent dependent on foreign sources of energy, twice as dependent today as we were just 30 years ago. Although energy is the lifeblood of America's economic security, this growing and dangerous dependence has resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of good American jobs, skyrocketing consumer prices, and vulnerabilities in our national security. Energy imports now make up one-third of America's trade deficit. Through this bill, America could improve the supply-demand imbalance, lower consumer prices, and increase jobs by producing more of its own energy resources. With my district of Houston being the energy capital of the world, I support the efforts that this bill makes to recognize State stakeholders and incorporate their interests in revenue sharing. According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, MMS, America's deep seas on the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, contain 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas--the U.S. consumes 23 TCF per year--and 86 billion barrels of oil--the U.S. imports 4.5 billion per year. Even with all these energy resources, the U.S. sends more than $300 billion--and countless American jobs--overseas every year for energy we can create at home. In some cases, the U.S. is facing much-higher energy prices than other countries. Natural gas, for example, is as much as ten times more expensive in the United States than it is in foreign nations. This fact alone has led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of high-paying American jobs, as natural gas-dependent factories are forced to close their doors and move overseas in search of more affordable energy. The outsourcing of American jobs is an issue of central importance to me and my constituents, and I believe this bill is a step in the right direction of bringing jobs back to hard-working Americans. Regarding the physician payment adjustment portion of this bill, beginning January 1, 2007, payments to physicians who treat Medicare patients will be cut 5.0 percent. Over the next 9 years, Medicare's trustees are projecting a total of 40 percent in Medicare payment cuts to physicians. If the January 1 cut is imposed, the average physician payment rate, accounting for increases in the cost of running a practice, will be less in 2007 than it was in 2001. This bill will eliminate that cut for at least 1 year. We certainly need to do more. The Medicare sustainable growth rate, SGR, formula, used in establishing payment rates under the physician fee schedule under the Medicare program, resulted in significant payment cuts to physicians and health care professionals in 2002. These cuts were for doctors only, not for hospitals or other medical facilities. The Medicare SGR formula would have resulted in payment cuts to physicians and health care professionals in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 had Congress not intervened. According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, and the board of trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, the Medicare SGR formula will result in substantial payment cuts to physicians and health care professionals through at least 2015. MedPAC is very well respected and a recognized authority on Medicare and healthcare issues. It does not support the impending payment cuts and is concerned that such consecutive annual payment cuts would threaten access to physician services over time, particularly primary care services. MedPAC has raised concerns over current payment policies that may discourage medical students and residents from becoming primary care physicians because many Medicare beneficiaries rely on primary care providers for important health care management. According to a 2006 American Medical Association survey, if payment cuts to physicians under the Medicare program go into effect: Half of physicians plan to decrease the number of new Medicare patients they accept; half of physicians plan to defer the purchase of information technology; 1 in 3 physicians who treat patients living in rural communities will discontinue rural outreach services; and almost half-- 43 percent--of physicians will decrease the number of new TRICARE patients they accept. The annual actions by Congress that have overridden the Medicare SGR formula have only resulted in instability and unpredictability for physicians, health care professionals, seniors, and individuals with disabilities. It does not solve the long-term systemic problem of rising costs. Stable, positive updates under the Medicare physician fee schedule that accurately reflect medical practice cost increases are vital for encouraging and economically supporting physicians' ability to make the significant financial investment required for health information technology and participation in quality improvement programs. A stable payment system for physicians is critical to preserve Medicare beneficiaries' access to high-quality health care. We cannot in good conscience establish barriers for doctors and health care professionals to surmount in order to continue to provide access to high-quality Medicare services for all Medicare beneficiaries. Congress must halt the impending January 1 cuts and develop an alternative payment system that accurately reflects the costs of providing care to Medicare beneficiaries. The biggest single flaw is that this payment schedule rubric recently announced by CMS has no connection to the actual cost of providing patient care. Starving doctor's practices will not decrease healthcare prices, or change unethical behavior. It will drive doctors out of business who are desperately needed to provide care to our elderly. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6111 as a step in the right direction towards securing energy independence and ensuring that Gulf Coast States share in the revenue from new areas of production while protecting our environment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Honorable Sherwood Boehlert for his outstanding service as Chairman of the House Science Committee. Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, in honor of your long-term commitment to scientific research, I congratulate you on all of your remarkable achievements as Chairman of the House Science Committee. It has been my pleasure to serve alongside you as we worked diligently on many scientific matters which affected every American across the country. While I congratulate you on your service and celebrate your retirement, I recognize without reservation that your valued insights and contributions to the Science Committee will be deeply missed. As Chairman of the Science Committee, you spearheaded advancement in nanotechnology through the ``21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act,'' that was signed in December 2003, by President George W. Bush. This was an important bill which allowed for a more coordinated and better funded interagency program in nanotechnology--an emerging field of science that the National Science Foundation estimates will be a $1 trillion industry within the next decade. You have also been an esteemed advocate for the environment having authored the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, which for the first time established a federal response to acid rain. Furthermore, your dedication did not stop there. In 1996, you authored the Conservation Title in the Farm bill, which provided over $9 billion for conservation programs critical to hunters and fishermen. Such crucial programs included the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. I can confidently say that through your distinguished 24 years of service, you have made a lasting and valuable impact on American society. Thank you for your unwavering dedication and successful efforts in drawing the necessary attention to the competitive challenges facing U.S. companies, and to the importance of math and science education in overcoming those challenges. I also thank you for your excellent efforts of ensuring that our nation remains number one in the global economy.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the Rules Committee for making consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 5682, the ``United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006'' in order. The United States' relationship with India and Pakistan is of paramount importance to our Nation's political and economic future. With the receding of the Cold War's global divisions and the new realities of globalization and trans-national terrorism, we have embarked on a new era of promise, possibility and uncertainty. This means the United States, the world's only superpower, bears an especially heavy responsibility to remain engaged in all regions of the world, with all nation-states. It is in the national interest for the United States to continue our policy of engagement, collaboration, and exchange which has served the Nation well in the past, particularly in the South Asia region. It is important that we are considering this conference report today. I also want to thank my colleagues for adopting my amendment to H.R. 5682. My bipartisan amendment, which was endorsed and co-sponsored by Congressman Burton, simply stated that the ``South Asia region is so important that the United States should continue its policy of engagement, collaboration, and exchanges with and between India and Pakistan.'' Pakistan has been a critical ally in the global war on terror. Pakistan has been a good friend to the people of the United States. Although H.R. 5682 signals no change in this country's relationship with Pakistan, it is not difficult to understand why it may give pause to some supporters of Pakistan. This is another reason why it is vital for the United States to continue to engage both Pakistan and India in ongoing political engagement, economic and technological collaborations, and personal exchanges, which will bring the United States closer to these two vitally important democracies in the South Asia region and will bring India and Pakistan closer to each other. Peaceful nuclear cooperation with India can serve multiple U.S. foreign policy objectives so long as it is undertaken in a manner that minimizes potential risks to the nonproliferation regime. This will be best achieved by sustained and active engagement and cooperation between the India and the United States. This landmark legislation serves both our strategic interests and our long-standing nonproliferation objectives. We should heed the sage words of the Iraq Study Group which recommends engaging rather than abandoning the possibilities dialogue offers. Our engagement and subsequent abandonment of Iran has resulted in their current pursuit of nuclear technology. We should not make the same mistake in South Asia. We need to remain engaged with India and Pakistan so that they remain our most important allies rather than our adversaries. We are on the path to fostering an enduring relationship of mutually beneficial cooperation with India. The new realities of globalization and interdependence have brought a convergence of interests between the world's largest democracy and the world's most powerful one. I accompanied President Clinton in his groundbreaking trip to India marking a new phase in the bonds that bind our two countries. This conference report builds on this relationship by permitting an invigorated relationship in the field of nuclear cooperation, an area of critical importance given India's increasing energy demands. This conference report incorporates a host of important nonproliferation measures that will anchor India in the international nonproliferation framework by including: safeguards between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); end use monitoring of U.S. exports to India; and strengthening the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which are the group of countries that restrict nuclear proliferation throughout the world. In addition, this conference report maintains Congressional oversight over the ongoing relationship of nuclear cooperation between U.S.- India. By implementing this legislation, we are furthering our critical nonproliferation objectives of advancing the IAEA's Additional Protocol by allowing the U.S. to become a party to this critical nonproliferation arrangement. We will enhance our nonproliferation policy and bolster our argument that the rest of the world should agree to this robust inspection regime. In conclusion, I support the United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006 with my Amendment, and this conference report. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the committee, and I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, and I believe this may be Mr. Hyde's last time as chairman on the International Relations Committee, and I want to offer to him my sincerest appreciation for his service to America. I have had the honor and privilege of serving with him on the Judiciary Committee, and I thank him for his service. I thank Mr. Lantos for the cooperative spirit that has been evidenced by this conference report and certainly congratulate him on his ascending to be Chair in this next Congress of the International Relations Committee. I listened to Lee Hamilton and Jim Baker as they began to try to bridge the gap and the schism in the Iraq war. One of the most, or more stranger, recommendations for many was the engagement of Syria and Iran, for many were aghast that we would talk to those who have been so reckless in their relationship with the United States. I believe in engagement, but is it not interesting that a democracy, the largest, a nation that has embedded itself in democracy since its birth, India, is a friend of the United States, and yet we are hesitant to engage India. That is what this legislation represents. It is an engagement of a friend, working with them on the civilian use of nuclear power, addressing the concerns of enormous population and enormous poverty. Although the middle class of India is growing, this legislation will begin the engagement of a friend, and it will provide a fixture in the South Asian community that has both the capabilities to use nuclear materials in a friendly way and it will be an engagement of a friend with the United States. I happen to be, of course, engaged with the people of Pakistan, and I am grateful that my amendment remained in this legislation that said that we continue to engage in the South Asian region with India and Pakistan. For even though there may be citing of the inequities or the issues as it relates to Pakistan, they too should be engaged with. But what we are doing today is a start. And I am very grateful, Mr. Lantos, that there are bridges and firewalls in this legislation. This legislation allows the vetting of India to begin. It allows the International Atomic Energy Agency to vet this program. And before the President goes forward, he must be convinced or she must be convinced that this is an appropriate step to make. If we can engage with Iran and Syria, though it is a difficult proposition for many, why not engage with a democracy and a friend who will benefit by the utilization of nuclear power? And so I would hope that we would look at this in a manner that says this is a good step for there is control over what is being utilized, unlike so many of those who have the access to nuclear power. I hope my colleagues will support this forward step and that they will see the checks and balances that are so necessary and continue to support the South Asia region that includes not only India but Pakistan.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, despite my reservations regarding the lack of deliberation and transparency in how this bill has come to the floor, I nevertheless rise in support of H.R. 6406, however, I believe there are serious concerns regarding the process and the fairness of this administration trade bill. This bill includes several important provisions which promote the competitiveness of the United States in the global economy, ensure greater economic opportunities for the United States, and to foster broader U.S. national interests, especially in helping the people of Haiti overcome the poverty with which many of them are afflicted. Indeed, the inclusion of the provisions relating to Haiti is the main reason I support this bill. This legislation includes several key trade measures, such as crucial provisions to expand trade with Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Without the increased economic engagement with Haiti that this legislation provides, Haiti's situation will undoubtedly worsen, undermining broader U.S. goals for the region. This legislation also renews several expiring longstanding U.S. trade programs that are important for promoting economic opportunities in the United States, as well as in developing countries in Africa and elsewhere. The programs include the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), and provisions of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). This legislation would also authorize Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with Vietnam, which is critical to ensure that U.S. companies, farmers and workers will be able to benefit fully from the market-opening commitments that U.S. negotiators secured from Vietnam. It will also ensure that the U.S. Government has the ability to enforce Vietnam's WTO commitments. Without this legislation, the United States would be put at a severe competitive disadvantage and would be denied rights to enforce Vietnam's WTO commitments when it joins the WTO in early January 2007. The Haitian HOPE Act encourages hemispheric integration and promotes the use of U.S. and other trade bill inputs in apparel assembled in Haiti. The Haitian HOPE Act will help Haiti while expanding opportunities for U.S. textile interests. Just over two-thirds of Haitian apparel exports to the United States are assembled from U.S. and CBI fabric, made from U.S. yarn. The Haitian HOPE Act encourages this partnership to continue to thrive, rather than to switch to China. President Preval needs our help and this bill can do a lot for the struggling people of Haiti. Put simply, H.R. 6406 would provide new economic opportunities for the world's poorest people. H.R. 6406 is one of the most important humanitarian steps that Congress can take for some of the poorest countries in the world, including some of the nations of sub-Saharan Africa, Haiti, and the Andean countries. One of the best ways to lift people out of poverty is to promote economic activity through increased trade and investment. There are 314 million sub-Saharan Africans living in poverty, which is nearly half the African population. Likewise, Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, with over 80 percent of its population living in abject poverty. The textile provisions for sub-Saharan Africa and Haiti will bring economic opportunities to these least developed countries and, in the case of Haiti, also expand opportunities for U.S. textile and apparel interests. The Haiti/AGOA provisions will greatly benefit those countries while having a minimal impact on overall U.S. imports of apparel and U.S. domestic markets. Apparel imports from Africa and Haiti barely register in U.S markets while millions of workers in Peru, Colombia, Bolivia and Ecuador owe their livelihoods to the Andean trade preferences. In addition to Haiti, other nations in Latin America will also benefit from this bill. Peru and Colombia have extended their hands in economic cooperation by negotiating comprehensive, commercially meaningful trade promotion agreements. However, the Administration did not submit for Congressional consideration these two agreements with democratically elected governments before the expiration of preferences. It would add insult to injury if Congress does not provide a short-term extension of preferences until the agreements can be considered early next year. Similarly, extending trade preferences to Ecuador and Bolivia will encourage those countries to follow the lead of Peru and Colombia and act quickly to conclude trade promotion agreements with the United States. Furthermore, granting PNTR to Vietnam furthers bilateral relations, fosters economic growth, and will serve as a catalyst for much needed political reforms in Vietnam. Granting permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status to Vietnam represents a significant milestone in our efforts to mend the wounds of one of the most divisive conflicts in our nation's history . Vietnam's membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO) will serve as a catalyst for continued economic and political reform in Vietnam. The State Department's 2005 Human Rights report notes that economic developments in Vietnam are a ``major influence on the human rights situation, and economic reforms and the rising standard of living continue to reduce ``government control over, and intrusion into, daily life'' in that country. However, I do continue to express grave concern about Vietnam's continuing Human Rights Violations. Vietnam will officially join the WTO later this month, and its membership will bring substantial economic benefits to American businesses, farmers, workers, and consumers. However, if PNTR is not granted before Vietnam joins the WTO, the United States would not be able to take full advantage of many of Vietnam's WTO commitments until PNTR is approved. For all of these reasons, and especially for the benefit of the people of Haiti, I rise in support of H.R. 6406.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6111, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. I do so for three reasons. First, the bill extends and modifies certain key tax relief provisions through 2007, which provide much needed relief to working and middle-class taxpayers. Second, I believe that among the most urgent challenges confronting the Nation, none is more important than lessening, and ultimately ending, America's dependence on foreign energy sources. H.R. 6111 advances this goal in a small but appreciable way by permitting oil and gas production in an 8.3-million acre area of the Gulf of Mexico, with 37.5 percent of the lease income allocated to the Gulf Coast States closest to the drilling area, excluding the Florida gulf coast. Third, the bill blocks the scheduled 5 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors, and provides for a 1.5 percent increase in such payments next July for physicians who submit data relating to certain quality of care standards. I. Extension of Tax Relief for Working and Middle Class Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6111 extends through 2007 several tax provisions under current law, including provisions that expired at the end of 2005 and some that are set to expire at the end of this year. Many of these provisions are targeted to middle- and working-class taxpayers. I strongly support this portion of the bill. I would like to discuss several of the more important middle class tax relief provisions. State and Local Sales Tax Deduction H.R. 6111 extends by 2 years the provision allowing taxpayers the option of deducting general sales taxes paid. This provision is of particular benefit to taxpayers living in States that do not impose a State income tax. Taxpayers have long been permitted to claim an itemized deduction for certain State and local taxes, including personal income tax, real property taxes and personal property taxes, but they have not been to deduct general sales taxes since 1986. The 2004 corporate tax bill allowed taxpayers, in 2004 and 2005 only, to claim instead an itemized deduction for State and local sales taxes, either by accumulating receipts and deducting the total amount or using tables produced by the Internal Revenue Service. In States without State income tax, this provision provided a new deduction for individuals. Higher Education Expenses Deduction Similarly, the bill renews and extends through 2007 the ``above-the- line'' deduction that taxpayers may claim for higher education expenses: An ``above-the-line'' deduction is a deduction that may be claimed by a taxpayer even if he or she does not itemize his or her deductions. Under the provision of law that would be extended, taxpayers can deduct up to $4,000 of such expenses if their adjusted gross income does not exceed $65,000 for a single return or $130,000 for a joint return, and up to $2,000 if their income does not exceed $80,000 for a single return or $160,000 for a joint return. In this increasingly globalized economy, a college education is becoming a necessity. We must do all we can to ensure that access to higher education remains affordable to the working and middle class. That is why I support strongly the renewal and extension of the deductibility of higher education expenses. Teacher Classroom Deduction Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6111 also extends through 2007 a provision that expired at the end of 2005, under which teachers may claim an ``above- the-line'' deduction up to $250 of the expenses for certain supplies that they purchase for their elementary or secondary classrooms with their own money. Mr. Speaker, my daughter taught in elementary schools and I know how devoted she and her colleagues were to providing their students with the most enriching educational experience possible. It is not uncommon for them to dip into their personal funds to buy supplies and materials to supplement those provided by the schools. Teachers go this extra mile because they love what they do; everyone knows it is not because they are overpaid. I approve the teacher classroom deduction included in the bill. I hope we will be able to increase the amount of this deduction in the future. II. Energy Independence and Security It is imperative that America achieves energy independence in the 21st century. We must end our addiction to foreign sources of oil, most of which are found in regions of the world which are unstable and in some cases, opposed to our interests. Accordingly, there is no issue more integral to our economic and national security than energy independence. Although I must admit that I do have reservations about certain aspects of this bill and the process with which this bill has arrived on the House floor, I nevertheless support it as a step in the right direction of America achieving energy independence. I think many of us in the House would agree that the issues central to this bill, the future of energy exploration off of our gulf coastlines, deserves more time for deliberation, debate, and a process for amendment. Some of these provisions which were incorporated into H.R. 4671 include my amendments which supported minority-serving universities and minority- owned businesses. These very important provisions were designed to ensure that sectors of our Nation and economy which are often overlooked, namely, minority- serving institutions and minority-owned businesses, were given an opportunity to benefit from and compete for the opportunities afforded in this bill. Nevertheless, I still support H.R. 6111 because it is a step in the right direction, a step towards energy independence, and a step away from being eternally beholden to foreign sources of oil. Additionally, I believe the energy aspects of the bill lay the foundation for the development of a new model for reclaiming wetlands; will help the Gulf Coast States affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to recover from the disaster and prosper in the future; provide thousands of good- paying jobs for the middle class; and serve as a blueprint for general revenue sharing in the 21st century. In this connection, I would like to emphasize that the revenue sharing formula in the bill ensures that 37.5 percent of the revenue from new areas of production and new leases go towards gulf producing States. Furthermore, 20 percent of the revenue allocated to gulf producing States must be allocated to the State's coastal subdivisions to be used for the purposes of: coastal protection, conservation, coastal restoration, hurricane protection, protecting coastal wetlands, and mitigating damage to fish and wildlife. In addition, 12.5 percent of the revenue will be allocated to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which ensures that the environmental impact of offshore drilling will be monitored, managed, and regulated to ensure that our coasts are protected. Energy is the lifeblood of every economy, especially ours. Producing more of it leads to more good jobs, cheaper goods, lower fuel prices, and greater economic and national security. However, the U.S. is more than 60 percent dependent on foreign sources of energy, twice as dependent today as we were just 30 years ago. Although energy is the lifeblood of America's economic security, this growing and dangerous dependence has resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of good American jobs, skyrocketing consumer prices, and vulnerabilities in our national security. Energy imports now make up one-third of America's trade deficit. Through this bill, America could improve the supply-demand imbalance, lower consumer prices, and increase jobs by producing more of its own energy resources. With my district of Houston being the energy capital of the world, I support the efforts that this bill makes to recognize State stakeholders and incorporate their interests in revenue sharing. According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, MMS, America's deep seas on the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, contain 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas--the U.S. consumes 23 TCF per year--and 86 billion barrels of oil--the U.S. imports 4.5 billion per year. Even with all these energy resources, the U.S. sends more than $300 billion--and countless American jobs--overseas every year for energy we can create at home. In some cases, the U.S. is facing much-higher energy prices than other countries. Natural gas, for example, is as much as ten times more expensive in the United States than it is in foreign nations. This fact alone has led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of high-paying American jobs, as natural gas-dependent factories are forced to close their doors and move overseas in search of more affordable energy. The outsourcing of American jobs is an issue of central importance to me and my constituents, and I believe this bill is a step in the right direction of bringing jobs back to hard-working Americans. iii. h.r. 6111 blocks medicare cuts in physician payments Finally, Mr. Speaker, I support the bill because it blocks the 5 percent cut in payments to physicians who treat Medicare patients which otherwise would go into effect on January 1, 2007. Over the next 9 years, Medicare's trustees are projecting a total of 40 percent in Medicare payment cuts to physicians. If the January 1 cut is imposed, the average physician payment rate, accounting for increases in the cost of running a practice, will be less in 2007 than it was in 2001. The Medicare sustainable growth rate, SGR, formula, used in establishing payment rates under the physician fee schedule under the Medicare program, resulted in significant payment cuts to physicians and health care professionals in 2002. These cuts were for doctors only, not for hospitals or other medical facilities. The Medicare SGR formula would have resulted in payment cuts to physicians and health care professionals in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 had Congress not intervened. According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC, and the board of trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, the Medicare SGR formula will result in substantial payment cuts to physicians and health care professionals through at least 2015. MedPAC is very well respected and a recognized authority on Medicare and healthcare issues. It does not support the impending payment cuts and is concerned that such consecutive annual payment cuts would threaten access to physician services over time, particularly primary care servIces. MedPAC has raised concerns over current payment policies that may discourage medical students and residents from becoming primary care physicians because many Medicare beneficiaries rely on primary care providers for important health care management. According to a 2006 American Medical Association, survey, if payment cuts to physicians under the Medicare program go into effect: half of physicians plan to decrease the number of new Medicare patients they accept; half of physicians plan to defer the purchase of information technology; 1 in 3 physicians who treat patients living in rural communities will discontinue rural outreach services; and almost half-- 43 percent--of physicians will decrease the number of new TRICARE patients they accept. The annual actions by Congress that have overridden the Medicare SGR formula have only resulted in instability and unpredictability for physicians, health care professionals, seniors, and individuals with disabilities. It does not solve the long-term systemic problem of rising costs. Stable, positive updates under the Medicare physician fee schedule that accurately reflect medical practice cost increases are vital for encouraging and economically supporting physicians' ability to make the significant financial investment required for health information technology and participation in quality improvement programs. A stable payment system for physicians is critical to preserve Medicare beneficiaries' access to high-quality health care. We cannot in good conscience establish barriers for doctors and health care professionals to surmount in order to continue to provide access to high-quality Medicare services for all Medicare beneficiaries. Congress must halt the impending January 1 cuts and develop an alternative payment system that accurately reflects the costs of providing care to Medicare beneficiaries. The biggest single flaw is that this payment schedule rubric recently announced by CMS has no connection to the actual cost of providing patient care. Starving doctor's practices will not decrease healthcare prices, or change unethical behavior. It will drive doctors out of business who are desperately needed to provide care to our elderly. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6111 because it takes three steps in the right direction: (1) It provides much needed tax relief to working and middle class taxpayers; (2) It reduces the Nation's dependence on foreign energy supplies and ensures that Gulf Coast States share in the revenue from new areas of production while protecting our environment; and (3) It blocks draconian cuts by Medicare in payments to physicians. I urge all members to support the bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would like to add my appreciation to all of the staff, majority and minority, who helped in the waning hours of this particular Congress, the 109th Congress, to help move this bill to suspension and to help move it forward. And I do thank Kristen Wells and Nolan Rappaport for their excellent cooperation and work on the minority staff in generating what I think is an important extension for doctors across America.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding, and I look forward to his leadership in the 110th Congress. I thank him for his leadership on this legislation. I thank the full committee chairman as well. I pay great respect to my good friend from Kansas, Mr. Moran, for his leadership and authoring of this bill and for his very careful, meticulous work with the committee of jurisdiction, the Judiciary Committee, and the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. This is what you call a stellar example of real immigration reform. Rational, reasonable thinking, putting immigration in a good light. And it is a right light and a positive light. And it is, as Mr. Moran has just previously said, about good health care. And I am delighted to hear his noted examples that this is a real question for good health care in America. The Physicians for Underserved Areas Act that I have worked on with the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Hostettler, would reinstate and extend the J-1 visa waiver program. Foreign doctors who want to receive medical training in the United States on J visas are required to leave the country afterwards. They must return to their own countries for 2 years before they can receive a visa to work in the United States as physicians. In 1994, Congress established a waiver of this requirement. The waiver is available to doctors who will commit to practicing medicine for no less than 3 years in a geographic area designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as having a shortage of health care professionals. The good news is that it is both in rural and urban areas that we can find this very vital and important tool. Just a few weeks ago, I saw a doctors hospital in Houston literally shut down. Shut down for a number of reasons, management care problems. But that means that those doctors will be scattered in many different places. Urban areas can also be the victims of a lack of doctors. The waiver program has been successful for more than a decade. It permits each State to obtain waivers permitting up to 30 physicians to work in medically underserved areas. It is not a permanent program. It is sunsetted on June 1 of this year. That is why we need the Physicians for Underserved Areas Act. H.R. 4997 would reinstate and extend the program for 2 years. This is the second time that we have co-sponsored this extension with Mr. Hostettler. We have a longstanding commitment to ensuring that legislation that can be bipartisan moves through this committee and the full committee. The need for physicians in underserved areas is not a partisan issue. The J-1 visa waiver is also known as a Conrad program to reflect the fact that Senator Conrad established it. Senator Conrad and I have worked together on the program and decided that more data was needed on how successfully the program is being implemented. So we asked the General Accounting Office to investigate the implementation of the J-1 visa program. GAO issued a report in November of this year, and among other things, GAO found that the use of the J-1 visa waiver is a major means of providing physicians to practice in underserved areas of the United States. More than 1,000 waivers were requested in each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2005 by States and three Federal agencies, the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Delta Regional Authority, and the Department of HHS. GAO also found that the present system of providing up to 30 waivers per State is not working. A substantial percentage of States do not need 30 waivers. There were 664 unused waivers in fiscal year 2005. Other States need more than 30 waivers a year for their medically underserved areas. The States that report needing more than 30 waivers only want between 5 and 50 more physicians. Their needs can be met by redistributing some of the unused waivers, but this must be done carefully. Some States expressed concern to GAO about redistributing unused waivers. They are afraid that physicians would wait and apply to more populous States that would be receiving the redistributed waivers. This problem has to be resolved before we can move forward with the development of a redistribution plan. That was a very important issue for some States such as Texas, but out of a commitment to bipartisanship but really the recognition that the J-1 visa extension is so crucial to the health needs of so many Americans, we have come together to look forward into the 110th Congress for the leaders who are going forward on this issue to begin to address how do we make more fair the redistribution of these visas and to ensure the best health care for Americans. We are hoping that the other body will likewise see the wisdom of delaying this issue which hospitals in the State of Texas have worked very hard on. And I want to make it very clear that I look forward to working with hospitals around America to ensure that this redistribution process is fairly put in place so that we will have the kind of doctor distribution that will help all of us. Let me also acknowledge, as I bring my remarks to a close, that although this is a bill that simply generates an extension, might I say to you that this has been a long journey to come this far, and I want to thank all of the staff. I want to thank, of course, Mr. Pomeroy, who I hope will make remarks. We worked very closely with his office. And Mr. Moran. As I said, the chair of the full committee, the chair and the ranking member. As I close, let me acknowledge the fact that this may be the last bill that I will have the opportunity of working with Mr. Hostettler on, and I simply wanted to acknowledge his integrity and his commitment and dedication to important principles, and his work on this particular legislation as we worked together, and thank him again for his service, and also his attentive concern to legislation that we hope will be seen in the next Congress, and that is the energy workers compensation bill, which we have just had five hearings on, which the last one was yesterday, and that will help to compensate many victims. I conclude by thanking all of the sponsors and saying this a good bill, and I ask my colleagues to support it. I rise in support of the Physicians for Underserved Areas Act, H.R. 4997, that I have offered with my colleague Representative John Hostettler. It would reinstate and extend the J-l Visa Waiver Program. Foreign doctors who want to receive medical training in the United States on J visas are required to leave the country afterwards. They must return to their own countries for two years before they can receive a visa to work in the United States as physicians. In 1994, Congress established a waiver of this requirement. The waiver is available to doctors who will commit to practicing medicine for no less than three years in a geographic area designated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as having a shortage of health care professionals. The waiver program has been successful for more than a decade. It permits each state to obtain waivers permitting up to 30 physicians to work in medically underserved areas. It is not a permanent program. It sunsetted on June 1st of this year. The Physicians for Underserved Areas Act, H.R. 4997, would reinstate and extend the program for two years. This is the second time that I have cosponsored an extension with Representative Hostettler. We have a long standing relationship of cooperation on this issue. The need for physicians in underserved areas is not a partisan issue. The J-l Visa Waiver is also known as the Conrad program, to reflect the fact that Senator Kent Conrad established it. Senator Conrad and I have worked together on the program. We decided that more data was needed on how successfully the program is being implemented, so we asked the General Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the implementation of the J-l Visa Waiver Program. GAO issued a report in November of this year. Among other things, GAO found that the use of J-l visa waivers is a major means of providing physicians to practice in underserved areas of the United States. More than 1,000 waivers were requested in each of fiscal years 2003 through 2005 by states and three federal agencies--the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Delta Regional Authority, and the Department of Health and Human Services. GAO also found that the present system of providing up to 30 waivers per state is not working well. A substantial percentage of the states do not need 30 waivers a year. There were 664 unused waivers in FY2005. Other states need more than 30 waivers a year for their medically undeserved areas. The states that reported needing more than 30 waivers only want between 5 and 50 more physicians. Their needs can be met by redistributing some of the unused waivers, but this must be done carefully. Some states expressed concern to GAO about redistributing unused waivers. They are afraid that physicians would wait and apply to the more popular states that would be receiving the redistributed waivers. This problem has to be resolved before we can move forward with the development of a redistribution plan. We will continue to work on a distribution system next year. I am confident that we will succeed in developing a new version of the J-l Visa Waiver Program that would facilitate the use of all of the available waivers and place the physicians where they are needed most. It has been a long journey to get this bill to the floor. In addition to the work it took to get subcommittee and full committee markups, we have had an ongoing dialogue with our counterparts in the Senate. They wanted the program to have a redistribution program now. They do not want to wait until next year. I share their desire for a redistribution system. It would be a great help to my state, the State of Texas. Nevertheless, I do not want to do it at the cost of hurting the states that are finding it difficult to attract waiver physicians. My staff has advised me that the senators are very close to reaching an agreement on postponing consideration of redistribution. We will work on a resdribution program in the 110th Congress. In closing, I would like to say a few words about my colleague, Representative Hostettler. I have enjoyed working with Mr. Hostettler. He is an honest and sincere man who is dedicated to his principles. Recently, we worked together to respond to attempts by the administration to impose cost containment measures on the Energy Worker's Compensation bill. We both felt that this was outrageous, and we have cooperated in conducting a series of 5 oversight hearings to ensure that everything about the situation would be out in the open and to leave a roadmap for the next Congress. Mr. Hostettler has led this subcommittee with distinction. I wish him well in whatever he chooses to do in the future. I urge you to vote ``yes'' for H.R. 4997--For good health care in America.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, soccer anyone? Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Houston Dynamo, located in the 18th Congressional District, who are now the 2006 Major League Soccer Cup champions, as they won it just yesterday in front of thousands of soccer fans at Pizza Hut Park. The Houston Dynamo emerged victorious against the New England Revolution. A bet was made with the mayor of the City of Houston and the mayor of Boston now has to pay up, legally. The win was with a score of 4-3 on penalty kicks after the team played to a 1-1 draw through regulation and extra time. This is a young team that moved from San Jose, and we in Houston are enthusiastic and absolutely dynamic about the Dynamo. Congratulations to Kelly Gray, Stuart Holden, Dwayne De Rosario and Brian Ching who successfully converted from the penalty spot in the shoot-out. Brian Ching was recognized as the match's most valuable player. This is the Dynamo's first season in Houston. They have surely made a warm welcome for themselves. The team is led by 2005 Major League Soccer Coach of the Year, Dominic Kinnear. Let me acknowledge Dynamo investor-operator Philip Anschutz for the time and commitment he has given to U.S. soccer and the City of Houston. Let me also thank Oliver Luck and all of the management team family. I also congratulate the players and their families for making the transition from their other city to Houston, Texas. Let me also say that the Dynamo are great civic leaders and participants. I am delighted that they are going to be involved with our school districts in Houston, the North Forest Independent School District to be able to uplift those students and let them know that staying in school is the right thing to do. Soccer, anyone? The Houston Dynamo, they are the Major League Soccer Cup winners of 2006. We are proud of them. I yield back knowing that we can play soccer in Houston, Texas.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Houston Dynamo and the city of Houston for winning its first 2006 Major League Soccer Cup. In front of thousands of soccer fans at Pizza Hut Park, the Houston Dynamo emerged victorious against the New England Revolution with a score of 4 to 3 on penalty kicks after the teams played to a 1-1 draw through regulation and extra time. This is a fitting conclusion to an amazing season. Congratulations to Kelly Gray, Stuart Holden, Dwayne De Rosario and Brian Ching who successfully converted from the penalty spot in the shootout. Brian Ching was recognized as the match's Most Valuable Player. This is the Dynamo's first season in Houston, and they have surely made a warm welcome for themselves. The team is lead by 2005 Major League Soccer Coach of the Year, Dominic Kinnear. Let me acknowledge Dynamo investor/operator Philip Anschutz for the time and commitment he has given to U.S. soccer and the city of Houston. I also congratulate the players and their families for making the transition (from San Jose) to Houston. For the players and their families to pick up and come to Houston, Texas and do what they've done this year is impressive. We welcome you with open arms, and we remain devoted to your success. Also, a big thank you and congratulations to Oliver Luck and the entire Dynamo management team family! The team was created on December 15, 2005 when the San Jose Earthquakes were relocated, allegedly due to San Jose's failure to secure a soccer-specific stadium. Even though all of San Jose's players and coaches moved to Houston, the team's name, logo, history and statistics were not transferred. The name ``Dynamo'' refers to Houston's industrial economy and is an allusion to the various Eastern European soccer teams who are called ``Dynamo'', most notably Dynamo Dresden, FC Dynamo Kyiv and FC Dynamo Moscow. Although unrelated, there was a previous professional soccer team called the Houston Dynamos that played in the old United Soccer League in 1984. The team colors are orange, white, and black. The Houston Dynamo play their home matches at Robertson Stadium--a 33,000-seat sports stadium located on the University of Houston campus in southeast Houston. A three-year lease was signed to play at the stadium while plans for a soccer-specific stadium are finalized. This is the Dynamo's first championship in this league, though several of their players won titles with the team's previous incarnation, the San Jose Earthquakes. My heartiest congratulations, and I look forward to many more celebrations with Houston Dynamo in Houston, Texas. I look forward to a community-based celebration in heir home stadium in the 18th Congressional district at Robertson Stadium.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services for his very insightful, instructive messages on the dilemma we face in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let me also acknowledge that there are individuals who have had firsthand experience in the military courts. Having gone to a law school that had a very outstanding JAG school, I understand the importance of military law and was one time a member of the U.S. Military Court of Appeals. But I think it is important that we make this argument understandable, because in a few hours the President will give to my friends on the other side of the aisle an opportunity of bragging rights by having signed a bill that has been rushed through this process and has totally ignored the Supreme Court's decision. Why are we standing here on this side of the aisle seemingly making arguments that don't promote security and safety in the United States? Well, that interpretation is totally wrong, because not one of us wants to take away the tools that would ensure America's security. But what we are concerned about are the faces here who represent those who have lost their lives on the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan, and they continue over and over again. We have concerns about the life they sacrifice and the soldiers that they left behind. We know that soldiers don't leave comrades on the battlefield, injured or lost in the line of battle. Today, this military tribunal commission will leave our soldiers on the battlefield, for what it does is it creates the atmosphere, no matter whether we are in a guerilla war or we are in the confrontational wars that we know of World War I and II. It is to ensure that the treatment of our soldiers, if caught by the enemy, will reflect the lack of treatment that we have given here. Mr. Skelton has made it very clear, we could fix this, because he would have provided an expedited Constitution review of the entire matter to give the opportunity for entry into the courts under habeas. It would also require that these military commissions, because they are eliminating rights, we are not saying releasing people, we are saying eliminating rights, that then get translated to the miserable treatment of those who were incarcerated or taken off the battlefield that are our soldiers. Secondly, it refuses to give reauthorization language to the military commissions. We don't know where we will be in 3 years. We don't know how negatively this will impact our soldiers on the battlefield, which next conflict that, God forbid, we may have to be engaged in. Also, the language that my friends have go beyond the scope of the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan to decide whether or not detainees have habeas rights. The court already decided they do. Or whether or not the habeas provisions in the Detainee Treatment Act are constitutionally legal. The habeas provisions in the legislation are contrary to congressional intent in the Detainee Treatment Act. In that act, Congress did not intend to strip the courts of jurisdiction over the pending habeas. In addition, although my friends say they fixed it, they also deny the rights which I had an amendment to to utilize the Geneva Conventions language to say that you were tortured or not tortured, even if you would put that defense in a classified presentation. So in concluding, let me say we owe them a debt of gratitude. Let's vote down this tribunal to save future lives. I rise in strong opposition to S. 3930, the Military Commissions Act. I oppose this bill because I stand strong for our troops. I stand strong for the Constitution. I stand strong for the values that have made our country, the United States of America, the greatest country in the history of the world. I oppose this legislation because it is not becoming a nation that is strong in its values, confident of its future, and proud of its ancient heritage. Mr. Speaker, let us be crystal clear: All Americans, and Democrats especially, want those responsible for 9/11 and other terrorist acts to be tried fairly and punished accordingly, and we want those convictions to be upheld by our courts. Democrats want the President to have the best possible intelligence to prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States and its allies. Democrats agreed with the President when he said ``whether the terrorists are brought to justice or justice brought to the terrorists, justice will be done.'' But Democrats understand that justice requires the Congress to establish a system for trying suspected terrorists that not only is fundamentally fair but also consistent with the Geneva Convention. We should abide by the Geneva Convention not out of some slavish devotion to international law or desire to coddle terrorists, but because adherence to the Geneva Convention protects American troops and affirms American values. S. 3930, the compromise before us, includes some improvements that I strongly support. For example, evidence obtained through torture can no longer be used against the accused. Similarly, the compromise bill provides that hearsay evidence can be challenged as unreliable. Perhaps the most important improvement over the bill passed by the House is that accused terrorists will have the right to rebut all evidence offered by the prosecution. As is the case in the existing military justice system, classified evidence can be summarized, redacted, declassified, or otherwise made available to the accused without compromising sources or methods. This change to the bill goes a long way toward minimizing the chance that an accused may be convicted with secret evidence, a shameful practice favored by dictators and totalitarians but beneath the dignity of a great nation like the United States. As Senator John McCain said: I think it's important that we stand by 200 years of legal precedents concerning classified information because the defendant should have a right to know what evidence is being used. However, I am concerned that there is reason to believe that even with this compromise legislation, this system of military commissions may lead to endless litigation and get struck down by the courts. Then we would find ourselves back here again next year, or five years from now, trying to develop a system that can finally bring the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohammed to justice. Why would we want to give terrorist detainees a ``get out of jail free'' card when we can avoid that by establishing military commissions that work. As currently written, the compromise bill has provisions that could lead to the reversal of a conviction. Specifically, the bill contains a section that strips the federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions filed prior to the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act last December on behalf of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Mr. Speaker, nine former federal judges were so alarmed by this prospect that they were compelled go public with their concerns: Congress would thus be skating on this constitutional ice in depriving the federal courts of their power to hear the cases of Guantanamo detainees. . . . If one goal of the provision is to bring these cases to a speedy conclusion, we can assure from our considerable experience that eliminating habeas would be unconstitutional. Mr. Speaker, common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention requires that a military commission be a regularly constituted court affording all the necessary ``judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Notwithstanding the provision in the House bill that the military commissions established therein satisfy this standard, the fact is that other nations will agree. Simply saying so does not make it so. Moreover, they may well be right. Consider this, Mr. Speaker: The compromise allows statements to be entered into evidence that were obtained through cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and lesser forms of coercion if the statement was obtained before passage of the Detainee Treatment Act last December. To provide limited immunity to government agents involved in the CIA detention and interrogation program, the bill amends the War Crimes Act of 1996 to encompass only ``grave breaches'' of the Geneva Conventions. U.S. agents could not be tried under the War Crimes Act of 1996 to encompass only ``grave breaches'' of the Geneva Convention. U.S. agents could not be tried under the War Crimes Act for past actions that degraded and humiliated detainees. The bill also limits any use of international law such as the Geneva Convention in interpreting the War Crimes Act. Mr. Speaker, what is sometimes lost sight of in all the tumult and commotion is that the reason we have observed the Geneva Conventions `` since their adoption in 1949 is to protect members of our military. But as the Judge Advocate Generals pointed out, the compromise bill could place United States servicemembers at risk by establishing an entirely new international standard that American troops could be subjected to if captured overseas. As Rear Admiral Bruce McDonald testified: I go back to the reciprocity issue that we raised earlier, that I would be very concerned about other nations looking in on the United States and making a determination that, if it's good enough for the United States, it's good enough for us, and perhaps doing a lot of damage and harm internationally if one of our servicemen or -women were taken and held as a detainee. What's more, Mr. Speaker, the Geneva Conventions also protect those not in uniform--special forces personnel, diplomatic personnel, CIA agents, contractors, journalists, missionaries, relief workers and all other civilians. Changing our commitment to this treaty could endanger them, as well. We can fix these deficiencies easily if we only we have the will. What we should do is recommit the bill with instructions to add two important elements: (1) expedited constitutional review of the legislation; and (2) a requirement that these military commissions be reauthorized after three years. Under expedited review, the constitutionality of the military commission system could be tested and determined quickly and early-- before there are trials and convictions. And it would help provide stability and sure-footing for novel legislation that sets up a military commissions system unlike anything in American history. Such an approach provides no additional rights to alleged terrorists. All it does is give the Supreme Court of the United States the ability to decide whether the military commissions system under this act is legal or not. It simply guarantees rapid judicial review. requiring reauthorization in three years Second, any system of military commissions to deal with detainees should be required to be reauthorized in three years. There are several good for requiring Congress to reaffirm its judgment that such tribunals are necessary: The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is a far-reaching measure that implements an entirely new kind of military justice system outside the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It has many complex provisions. This legislation has been rushed to the floor. It has numerous provisions that are still poorly understood by many in Congress. By requiring a reauthorization in three years, we give Congress the ability to carefully review how this statute is working in the real world. Providing for a reauthorization in three years is the best way to ensure congressional oversight. This reauthorization requirement will allow Congress to evaluate the effectiveness of the military commission provisions and decide whether they need any modifications in the future. The reauthorization requirement in the PATRIOT Act has worked well-- compelling Congress to review how various provisions in the PATRIOT Act have worked. As a result of congressional review, important modifications in the PATRIOT Act were signed into law in January 2006 when 16 provisions were reauthorized. Mr. Speaker, even Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee admitted that the only way Congress was able to get information out of the Justice Department about the operation of the PATRIOT Act was that Congress had to reauthorize it--similarly, the only way Congress will be able to perform proper oversight on military commissions is this similar requirement that the program must be reauthorized. The reauthorization requirement is a critical tool in Congress' ability to hold the Administration accountable and review the military commission program's performance. Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall being asked to render final judgment on a matter of such scope, consequence, and moment in so short a period of time with such a sparsely developed legislative record. Now is not the time to rush blindly forward. Rather, now more than ever, it is important to take our time and make the right decision and establish the right policy. And the right policy is not to jettison the Geneva Convention. We should not try to redefine the Geneva Convention. We should not do anything to alter our international obligations in an election-year rush. We cannot use international law only when it is convenient and expedient. Our commitment to the Geneva Conventions gives us the moral high ground. This is true in both a long war against radical terrorists and a war for the hearts and minds of people from every religion and every nation. If we compromise our values, the terrorists win. As Senator McCain has said: ``This is not about the terrorists are, this is about who we are.'' The United States was one of the prime architects of the Geneva Conventions and other international laws. Our goal was to protect prisoners of war in all kinds of armed conflicts and insure that no one would be outside the law of war. Coming shortly after World War II, they knew the horrors of war but they still chose to limit the inhumanity of war by establishing minimum protections of due process and humane treatment, even for those accused of grave breaches of the Conventions. Mr. Speaker, our nation has the finest military in the world. Our nation also deserves to have the finest military justice system in the world. I oppose S. 3930 because it departs significantly from the tried and true procedures established in the UCMJ. The United States has long served as the model for the world of a civilized society that effectively blends security and human liberty. When we refuse to observe the very international standards for the treatment of detainees, which we were so instrumental in developing, we provide encouragement for others around the world to do the same. Our British allies have demonstrated that these traditional principles can be adhered to without distinguishing the ability to provide for the security of its citizens. We must do likewise. Mr. Speaker, the treatment and trials of detainees by the United States is too important not to do it right. In the words of Jonathan Winthrop, often quoted by President Reagan, ``for we must consider that we shall be as a City upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.'' Let us act worthy of ourselves and our nation. So Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to this legislation. But I do not stand alone. I stand with former Secretary of State Colin Powell. I stand with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs John Vesey. I stand with the 911 Families Opposed to Administration Efforts to Undermine Geneva Conventions. I stand with the retired federal judges and admirals and Judge Advocate Generals. The bill before us is not the right way to do justice by the American people. I therefore cannot support it and I urge my colleagues to reject it. We have time to come up with a better product and we should. The American people deserve no less. The eyes of the world are upon us. Let us act worthy of ourselves.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman. He has waged a powerful argument. My good friend from California is arguing, if we had taken the time to clarify this bill. Let me tell you what is really in the bill. First of all, as I continue to acknowledge the existence of the lost lives of our soldiers, the bill does not clarify this whole definition. We have 11,000 non-U.S. citizens serving in the United States Army. We have individuals who are U.S. legal aliens, United States citizens. There is no clarification that they could not be defined as an unlawful enemy combatant. The definition of ``alien'' is unclear. In some places it is defined; in some places it is not. In addition, the Geneva Conventions is not respected. We have taken this away from the McCain-Warner compromise, and we have destroyed it because what we have done is given the President, not this President, any President, the ability to adjudge what the Geneva Conventions, how to interpret it, how to utilize it. This is a wrong way to ago. This should have more time. This is not a political opportunity. This is not a campaign speech. These are the lives of our soldiers. Mr. Speaker, at this time I will insert into the Record a letter from admirals and, as well, the 9/11 families opposing the military tribunal commission. September 12, 2006. Senator John Warner, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services, Russell Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Senator Carl Levin, Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services, Russell Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. We find it necessary yet again to communicate with you about issues arising out of our policies concerning detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. It would appear that each time the U.S. Supreme Court speaks, efforts are taken to reverse by legislation the decision of the Court. We refer, of course, to the Supreme Court's Rasul and Hamdan decisions and to the provision in the Administration's proposed Military Comissions Act of 2006 that would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over even the pending habeas cases that have been brought by the detainees at Guantanamo to challenge the basis for their detention. We urge you to reject any such habeas-stripping provision. As we have argued and agreed since 9/11, it is necessary for Congress to enact legislation to create military commissions that recognize both the basic notions of due process and the need for specialized rules and procedures to deal with the new paradigm we call the war on terror. This effort must cover those already charged with violating the laws of war and those newly transferred to Guantanamo Bay. But the military commissions we are now fashioning will have no application to the vast majority of the detainees who have never been charged, and most likely never will be charged. These detainees will not go before any commissions, but will continue to be held as ``enemy combatants.'' It is critical to these detainees, who have not been charged with any crime, that Congress not strip the courts of jurisdiction to hear their pending habeas cases. The habeas cases are the only avenue open for them to challenge the bases for their detention--potentially life imprisonment--as ``enemy combatants.'' We strongly agree with those who have argued that we must arrive at a position worthy of American values, i.e., that we will not allow military commissions to rely on secret evidence, hearsay, and evidence obtained by torture. But it would be utterly inconsistent, and unworthy of American values, to include language in the draft bill that would, at the same time, strip the courts of habeas jurisdiction and allow detainees to be held, potentially for life, based on CSRT determinations that relied on just such evidence. The effect would be to give greater protections to the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed than to the vast majority of the Guantanamo detainees, who claim that they had nothing to do with al Qaeda or the Taliban. We are on a course that should have been plotted and navigated years ago, and we might be close to consensus. We ask that, in the closing moments of your consideration of this vital bill, you restore the faith of those who long have been a voice for simple commitment to our longstanding basic principles, to our integrity as a nation, and to the rule of law. We urge you to oppose any further erosion of the proper authority of our courts and to reject any provision that would strip the courts of habeas jurisdiction. As Alexander Hamilton and James Madison emphasized in the Federalist Papers, the writ of habeas corpus embodies principles fundamental to our nation. It is the essence of the rule of law, ensuring that neither king nor executive may deprive a person of liberty without some independent review to ensure that the detention has a reasonable basis in law and fact. That right must be preserved. Fair hearings do not jeopardize our security. They are what our country stands for. Sincerely, John D. Hutson, Rear Admiral, JAGC, USN (Ret.). Donald J. Guter, Rear Admiral JAGC, USN (Ret.). David M. Brahms, Brigadier General, USMC (Ret.).

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If the gentlewoman would yield just for a moment. I thank you for your comments. I think it should be clear that the framework for soldiers may not be habeas in civilian language, but there is a procedure that soldiers would have to be able to petition their detention, and it is a military term. And what we are seeing in the military tribunals commission language is that doesn't exist.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 3930, the Military Commissions Act. I oppose this bill because I stand strong for our troops. I stand strong for the Constitution. I stand strong for the values that have made our country, the United States of America, the greatest country in the history of the world. I oppose this legislation because it is not becoming a nation that is strong in its values, confident of its future, and proud of its ancient heritage. Mr. Speaker, let us be crystal clear: All Americans, and Democrats especially, want those responsible for 9/11 and other terrorist acts to be tried fairly and punished accordingly, and we want those convictions to be upheld by our courts. Democrats want the President to have the best possible intelligence to prevent future terrorist attacks on the United States and its allies. Democrats agreed with the President when he said ``whether the terrorists are brought to justice or justice brought to the terrorists, justice will be done.'' But Democrats understand that justice requires the Congress to establish a system for trying suspected terrorists that is fundamentally fair and consistent with the Geneva Conventions. We should abide by the Geneva Conventions not out of some slavish devotion to international law or desire to coddle terrorists, but because adherence to the Geneva Conventions protects American troops and affirms American values. S. 3930, the compromise before us, includes some improvements that I strongly support. For example, evidence obtained through torture can no longer be used against the accused. Similarly, the compromise bill provides that hearsay evidence can be challenged as unreliable. Perhaps the most important improvement over the bill passed by the House is that accused terrorists will have the right to rebut all evidence offered by the prosecution. As is the case in the existing military justice system, classified evidence can be summarized, redacted, declassified, or otherwise made available to the accused without compromising sources or methods. This change to the bill goes a long way toward minimizing the chance that an accused may be convicted with secret evidence, a shameful practice favored by dictators and totalitarians but beneath the dignity of a great nation like the United States. As Senator John McCain said: ``I think it's important that we stand by 200 years of legal precedents concerning classified information because the defendant should have a right to know what evidence is being used.'' However, I am concerned that there is reason to believe that even with this compromise legislation, this system of military commissions may lead to endless litigation and get struck down by the courts. Then we would find ourselves back here again next year, or 5 years from now, trying to develop a system that can finally bring the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohammed to justice. Why would we want to give terrorist detainees a ``get out of jail free'' card when we can avoid that by establishing military commissions that work. As currently written, the compromise bill has provisions that could lead to the reversal of a conviction. Specifically, the bill contains a section that strips the federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions filed prior to the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act last December on behalf of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Mr. Speaker, nine former federal judges were so alarmed by this prospect that they were compelled go public with their concerns: ``Congress would thus be skating on this constitutional ice in depriving the federal courts of their power to hear the cases of Guantanamo detainees. . . . If one goal of the provision is to bring these cases to a speedy conclusion, we can assure from our considerable experience that eliminating habeas would be unconstitutional.'' Mr. Speaker, common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention requires that a military commission be a regularly constituted court affording all the necessary ``judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.'' Notwithstanding the provision in the House bill asserting that the military commissions established therein satisfy this standard, the fact is that many other nations will disagree. Simply saying so does not make it so. Moreover, they may well be right. Consider this, Mr. Speaker: The compromise allows statements to be entered into evidence that were obtained through cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and lesser forms of coercion if the statement was obtained before passage of the Detainee Treatment Act last December. To provide limited immunity to government agents involved in the CIA detention and interrogation program, the bill amends the War Crimes Act of 1996 to encompass only ``grave breaches'' of the Geneva Conventions. U.S. agents could not be tried under the War Crimes Act for past actions that degraded and humiliated detainees. The bill also limits any use of international law such as the Geneva Convention in interpreting the War Crimes Act. Mr. Speaker, what is sometimes lost sight of in all the tumult and commotion is that the reason we have observed the Geneva Conventions since their adoption in 1949 is to protect members of our military. But as the Judge Advocate Generals pointed out, the compromise bill could place United States service members at risk by establishing an entirely new international standard that American troops could be subjected to if captured overseas. As Rear Admiral Bruce McDonald testified: ``I go back to the reciprocity issue that we raised earlier, that I would be very concerned about other nations looking in on the United States and making a determination that, if it's good enough for the United States, it's good enough for us, and perhaps doing a lot of damage and harm internationally if one of our servicemen--or women--were taken and held as a detainee.'' What's more, Mr. Speaker, the Geneva Conventions also protect those not in uniform--special forces personnel, diplomatic personnel, CIA agents, contractors, journalists, missionaries, relief workers and all other civilians. Changing our commitment to this treaty could endanger them, as well. We can fix these deficiencies easily if we only have the will. What we should do is recommit the bill with instructions to add two important elements: (1) expedited constitutional review of the legislation; and (2) a requirement that these military commissions be reauthorized after 3 years. Under expedited review, the constitutionality of the military commission system could be tested and determined quickly and early-- before there are trials and convictions. And it would help provide stability and sure-footing for novel legislation that sets up a military commissions system unlike anything in American history. Such an approach provides no additional rights to alleged terrorists. All it does is give the Supreme Court of the United States the ability to decide whether the military commissions system under this act is legal or not. It simply guarantees rapid judicial review. Second, any system of military commissions to deal with detainees should be required to be reauthorized in 3 years. There are several good reasons for requiring Congress to reaffirm its judgment that such tribunals are necessary: The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is a far-reaching measure that implements an entirely new kind of military justice system outside the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It has many complex provisions. This legislation has been rushed to the floor. It has numerous provisions that are still poorly understood by many in Congress. By requiring a reauthorization in 3 years, we give Congress the ability to carefully review how this statute is working in the real world. Providing for a reauthorization in 3 years is the best way to ensure congressional oversight. This reauthorization requirement will allow Congress to evaluate the effectiveness of the military commission provisions and decide whether they need any modifications in the future. The reauthorization requirement in the Patriot Act has worked well-- compelling Congress to review how various provisions in the Patriot Act have worked. As a result of congressional review, important modifications in the Patriot Act were signed into law in January 2006 when 16 provisions were reauthorized. Mr. Speaker, even Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee admitted that the only way Congress was able to get information out of the Justice Department about the operation of the Patriot Act was that Congress had to reauthorize it--similarly, the only way Congress will be able to perform proper oversight on military commissions is this similar requirement that the program must be reauthorized. The reauthorization requirement is a critical tool in Congress' ability to hold the administration accountable and review the military commission program's performance. Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall being asked to render final judgment on a matter of such scope, consequence, and moment in so short a period of time with such a sparsely developed legislative record. Now is not the time to rush blindly forward. Rather, now more than ever, it is important to take our time and make the right decision and establish the right policy. And the right policy is not to jettison the Geneva Convention. We should not try to redefine the Geneva Convention. We should not do anything to alter our international obligations in an election-year rush. We cannot use international law only when it is convenient and expedient. Our commitment to the Geneva Conventions gives us the moral high ground. This is true in both a long war against radical terrorists and a war for the hearts and minds of people from every religion and every nation. If we compromise our values, the terrorists win. As Senator McCain has said: ``This is not about who the terrorists are, this is about who we are.'' The United States was one of the prime architects of the Geneva Conventions and other international laws. Our goal was to protect prisoners of war in all kinds of armed conflicts and insure that no one would be outside the law of war. Coming shortly after World War II, they knew the horrors of war but they still chose to limit the inhumanity of war by establishing minimum protections of due process and humane treatment, even for those accused of grave breaches of the Conventions. Mr. Speaker, our Nation has the finest military in the world. Our Nation also deserves to have the finest military justice system in the world. I oppose S. 3930 because it departs significantly from the tried and true procedures established in the UCMJ. The United States has long served as the model for the world of a civilized society that effectively blends security and human liberty. When we refuse to observe the very international standards for the treatment of detainees, which we were so instrumental in developing, we provide encouragement for others around the world to do the same. Our British allies have demonstrated that these traditional principles can be adhered to without distinguishing the ability to provide for the security of its citizens. We must do likewise. Mr. Speaker, the treatment and trials of detainees by the United States is too important not to do it right. In the words of Jonathan Winthrop, often quoted by President Reagan, ``for we must consider that we shall be as a City upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.'' Let us act worthy of ourselves and our Nation. So, Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to this legislation. But I do not stand alone. I stand with former Secretary of State Colin Powell. I stand with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs John Vesey. I stand with the 9/11 Families Opposed to Administration Efforts to Undermine Geneva Conventions. I stand with the retired federal judges and admirals and Judge Advocate Generals. The bill before us is not the right way to do justice by the American people. I therefore cannot support it and I urge my colleagues to reject it. We have time to come up with a better product and we should. The American people deserve no less. The eyes of the world are upon us. Let us act worthy of ourselves.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3661, the Wright Amendment Reform Act. This legislation implements a locally achieved compromise resolving the longstanding controversy over the 1979 Wright amendment, which imposed Federal restrictions on commercial airline service to and from Dallas Love Field. I note Mr. Speaker that all of the key stakeholders--Southwest Airlines, Fort Worth, DFW Airport, American Airlines, and the city of Dallas--support the locally achieved Wright amendment compromise and urge Congress to approve this legislation. But as Southwest CEO, Herb Kelleher, states: ``The only victor, the only sure fire winner from this locally achieved agreement, is the public--the public citizens who will find it easier and far less expensive to travel to and from North Texas for business and personal reasons; the citizens who will reap vast economic benefits in their communities from enhanced travel and tourism, at a lower cost.'' A key component of the compromise is the change in Federal law embodied in the legislation allowing Southwest Airlines to immediately begin selling ``through tickets'' for travel to and from Dallas Love Field. This change will enable Love Field customers to travel on a one- stop basis to and from cities within our nationwide system which are outside the limited number of States Southwest currently is allowed to serve under the terms of the Wright amendment. A recent study indicates that through ticketing at Dallas Love Field will increase passengers traveling to and from north Texas by 2 million annually and produce $259 million per year in fare savings. Additionally, the study found that through ticketing will generate over $2 billion annually in spending and related economic activity for north Texas and for many communities outside the current Wright amendment perimeter. Because of through ticketing, the local compromise will have a very significant and widespread economic impact from the beginning. Further, the local compromise calls for the Wright amendment to be repealed in its entirety in 8 years, allowing airlines serving Love Field to fly nonstop to any domestic destination--generating substantial additional economic benefits for consumers nationwide. Approval of this legislation by the Congress will bring to a close a dispute that preoccupied the Dallas Metroplex for nearly 30 years all the while negatively impacting the rest of the Nation. I applaud Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson and other members of the Texas congressional delegation for their yeoman work in bringing this saga to a happy conclusion. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I ask you to vote for S. 3661.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member, I thank the chairman, and I wish best wishes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado for his service. Everyone, though, knows that Texas has given the full measure in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, as have our soldiers across the Nation. But to our soldiers in Texas, I pay great tribute. I rise to simply applaud this conference on its emphasis on military quality of life, military health care that has been improved, and certainly military pay and bonuses. I also want to acknowledge a very important project that speaks to the partnership between institutions of higher learning, like Historically Black Colleges, and a Center For Human Materials Resources that will occur at Texas Southern University that addresses testing of uniforms and equipment. What a new and exciting opportunity for new partners. Lastly, I would hope that in the future we will be able to address the question I have raised, which is the ability of individuals who are receiving their loved ones who have fallen in battle at Dover Air Force Base to be able to have a public display if they so desire. It is an executive order that there are no cameras there for families who desire that. I hope we will be able to address that. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to a support this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, allow me to thank the distinguished gentleman and pay him a great debt of gratitude for his service and for his fight. Martin Sabo knows his business, and he gets the job done, and I simply want to thank him very much. I wish as we proceed in this bill that there were elements of it that really could answer the questions that the American people ask about homeland security. I am disappointed we could not work out the right kind of approach to chemical security, primarily because I live in a region that has a sizable number of chemical plants and, most recently, we have experienced a number of incidents that have impacted the surrounding neighborhoods. So I would have hoped we would have been able to implement a plan that had a great deal more teeth to it than what we now have in this bill. Also, I would like to mention that, although the Homeland Security Committee looked at and does agree with FEMA remaining in the Homeland Security Department at this time, I am disappointed that the monies, which we really do need to reconstruct FEMA and to make it work, one, are missing; and, two, that the question of the FEMA staffing is a question that has not been answered. Also, as my good friend from New Jersey indicated, we are still fighting the battle of interoperability, and that is a key element, as reflected in the 9/11 Commission report. We also determined that the local law enforcement is very, very unhappy with the presence of the UASI grants in FEMA. I wish we had had more time for consultation to work with the Nation's chiefs of police to be able to ensure them that these grants would be distributed fairly. Much can be said about the improvement of this bill, but, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would have the opportunity to ensure that there is full funding for homeland security and full staffing. Without that, it cannot work. I rise in support of the Conference Report to the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007 to H.R. 5441. Although the compromise is far from perfect, on balance it contains enough good things to warrant my support. I am pleased that the legislation includes all of the recommendations that the Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee released in February, entitled ``Directing FEMA Towards Success: A Democratic Report and Legislative Solution.'' The legislation combines some of the Department's preparedness functions (Grants and Training, U.S. Fire Administration, and the National Capital Region office) with FEMA and keeps the new entity within the Department. It requires that the Administrator of FEMA possess a demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security and have no less than 5 years of executive leadership and management experience. Finally, the legislation designates the Administrator as the principal advisor to the President for all matters pertaining to emergency management and authorizes the President to designate the Administrator to serve as a member of the Cabinet during emergencies. Interoperability Funding to Meet the Needs of Local Responders It is unfortunate that Republicans opposed the inclusion of $3.1 billion dedicated interoperability funding for state and local first responders. Five years after the 9/11 attacks and one year after Hurricane Katrina, the Department still does not have a dedicated interoperability grant program. As a result, states and localities are still robbing Peter to pay Paul by using a huge amount of their homeland security grant funding--in some instances 80%--to purchase communications equipment. States and localities are forced to short- change first responder training, local terrorism prevention activities and securing the nation's critical infrastructure. Although the bill shortchanges interoperability, the legislation does include increased authorizations in FY 2008 for a variety of programs that Democrats have championed throughout the process. These include: A $20 million increase for the Urban Search and Rescue Teams; A $30 million increase for the Metropolitan Medical Response System; A $175 million increase in FY 2008 for the Emergency Management Performance Grant program; and $4 million in grants for the administration of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, which is used to coordinate assistance between the states during disasters.