Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me rise in support of this legislation and ask my colleagues to support it and thank the gentlewoman from Illinois and the gentleman from Tennessee for their leadership and to comment on how the Science Committee provides such a contribution in a bipartisan way of looking at the next generation of alternative fuels. Representing what has been called the ``energy capital of the world,'' I know the use of fossil fuels, oil, gas, coal. And, frankly, I believe that energy connotes opportunity, new energy alternatives, and our companies are called ``energy companies.'' So this gives us the opportunity in a bipartisan way to take this country forward. I will drop tonight legislation that deals with cellulose research on ethanol to encourage the production of ethanol in a different manner. And I hope that as we are dependent at this time on oil, gas, and coal that we will also look to the research opportunities that have been created by this legislation and the forward-thinking aspects that this legislation generates. Research, investment in research, generates value for the consumers, efficiency for the consumers, and low cost for the consumers. And, frankly, all of the dialogue that we have had, whether we are for or against wars that are raging around the world, all of us have discussed the question of dependency on foreign energy resources. This legislation allows us in a thoughtful manner to create a pathway of independence for America. And I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and thank the gentlewoman and ask my colleagues to support this legislation. And I hope in the Science Committee in the 110th Congress we will be in the forefront of alternative energies because I would be delighted to have those same energy companies in Houston, Texas, of which I know may be listening and certainly not fearful because we are using oil and we are using gas, but in any event to diversify and utilize alternative fuels, and I think we will be the better for it. I ask my colleagues to support it.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman. As there is a great deal of admiration in this room, let me say that I too admire the staff and the authors of this bill, Ms. Sanchez, Ms. Harman, Mr. Thompson, and the work of Mr. Lungren and Mr. King, but it is obvious we could have done more. And I listened to the distinguished gentleman talking about regular order. We have not had regular order this entire day. I do want to say the good work shows that we are concerned about port security, with $400 million in port security grants, training for port workers, such as longshoremen, transportation workers' I.D. cards, screening of the 22 busiest airports, establishing the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, additional Customs and border protection personnel and port security plans. But I am very proud of the language of training residents of seaport communities, that the conferees agreed that it is crucial to involve communities in disaster preparedness by providing for an annual community update to the homeland security training program described in this bill. This was language that I included because of the area in which we live in Houston where there is sizable populations living around the community. The port security training program is designed for the purpose of enhancing the capabilities of each of the Nation's commercial seaports to prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from threatened or actual acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies. The language I contributed extends this training program to include communities and neighborhoods in proximity of the seaports by educating, training, and involving population at-risk neighborhoods around ports, including training on an annual basis to learn what to watch for. However, I would hope that we would move toward in the next few months 100 percent screening of container cargo, which we have not done. I also hope that we realize, as my colleagues have said and as Mr. Thompson's overwhelming motion to instruct said, we have to be concerned about rail security. I mentioned during his motion to instruct that rail security is not just people riding Amtrak. It is the railroads that travel through neighborhoods throughout the regions of the Nation, including the South. I would also note that I live around a very large port, and this will have a positive impact on the Houston port. I ask my colleagues to support it, though I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that we have extraneous material, such as the Internet gambling, on this bill. I rise in support of the Conference Report to the SAFE Port Act of 2006, H.R. 4954, which represents a significant step forward toward national security and safety for our seaports. I am proud of my colleagues who have crafted this bill to be inclusive of many issues that members of the Committee on Homeland Security and other Members of the Congress have expressed over the last few years, and more intensely over the last few months. All of us share the common goal of all Americans of making the movement of cargo through the global supply chain as secure as possible, and are committed to doing everything feasible to ensure the security of the Nation's ports. Many elements of this legislation are beneficial: $400 million in port security grants for each of fiscal years 2007-2012; training for port workers, such as longshoremen; Transportation Workers Identification Credential (TWIC) cards to workers with access to secure areas of ports and background checks; screening at the 22 busiest seaports; establishment of the Domestic Nuclear Detection office, DNDO, within the Department of Homeland Security; additional Customs and Border Protection personnel; requires port security plans to include training for residents of neighborhoods around facilities. Safe and secure seaports are an essential element in building efficient and technologically advanced supply chains that move cargo quickly to distribution centers, stores, and factories around the world. Although we have made progress since the 9/11 attacks in enhancing the security of the nation's ports, we cannot afford to be complacent. Incorporated Amendment: Training for Residents of Seaport Communities I am proud and thankful that the conferees agreed that it is crucial to involve communities in disaster preparedness by providing for an annual community update to the Homeland Security Training Program described in this bill. The Port Security Training Program is designed for the purpose of enhancing the capabilities of each of the Nation's commercial seaports to prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from threatened or actual acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies. The language I contributed extends this training program to include communities and neighborhoods in proximity of the seaports by educating, training, and involving populations of at-risk neighborhoods around ports, including training on an annual basis to learn what to watch for. Many communities across the country have a ``Neighborhood Watch'' program that teaches citizens to watch for suspicious activity or other signs of danger. This language provides for a similar ``citizens corps'' preparation program in anticipation of a national security threat. The intent is to mimic the Citizen Corps initiative begun by the White House and the Department of Homeland Security in 2002. While 44 percent of Americans say their neighborhood has a plan to help reduce crime, only 13 percent report having a neighborhood plan for disasters. Nearly two-thirds of respondents, 63 percent, believe it is important for neighborhoods to have a way to work together on emergency preparedness. Fifty-two states and territories have formed state level Citizen Corps Councils to support local efforts. My hope is that before the next disaster, our citizens will be aware and trained to react effectively and timely, and perform as local responders themselves. More Must Be Done 100% screening While there are good elements of this bill, I am compelled to discuss the fact that this bill could have been so much more, and could have definitively contributed to national security efforts. I am dismayed at the fact that there are gaps in this report wide enough to let terrorists through. Apparently, it is not important to know what is arriving by sea cargo. This bill fails to require 100 percent scanning of contents bound for our borders before they leave other nations. By the time they arrive and are unloaded onto our soil, it is too late. We have the technology to do this--the ports of Hong Kong and Boston already screen most inbound cargo for both radiation and lead shielding (to hide the radiological materials) using commercially available technology without interrupting the flow of commerce. As we continue to fight to protect our borders, we need to continue to develop cutting edge technologies to detect and defeat next generation threats to port security. According to security expert Steve Flynn, the cost would be about $50--$100 per container--minimal compared to the $4000 per container it costs to ship from Asia to the U.S., and to the $66,000 in average worth that each container carries. This is accessible, technologically feasible, and necessary. It is beyond me why it is not a part of this bill. rail and mass transit It is unacceptable to consider rail and mass transit security, as Secretary Chertoff stated, ``goulash.'' I fear the day when a tragedy will strike on a subway, or on a bus, and we will suddenly discover how large a mistake it was to miss this opportunity . We know how easy a target mass transportation can be-witness Israel, London, Madrid, and Mumbai amongst so many others. We have focused so much effort on securing our borders. I wonder why Republicans are not just as concerned with securing us. I am disappointed that this provision is not included in this conference report. At the very least, yesterday's Motion to Instruct the Conferees, which passed 281-170, instructed the conferees to accept the rail and mass transit provisions from the Senate. It takes gall to ignore an on-record vote of the House of Representatives. Houston Port and Economic Data The Port of Houston is a 25-mile-long complex of public and private facilities located just a few hours' sailing time from the Gulf of Mexico. The port is ranked first in the United States in foreign waterborne commerce, second in total tonnage, and sixth in the world. About 200 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston in 2005. A total of 7,057 vessel calls were recorded at the Port of Houston during the year 2003. Economic studies reveal that ship channel-related businesses support more than 287,000 direct and indirect jobs throughout Texas while generating nearly $11 billion in economic impact. Additionally, more than $649 million in state and local tax revenues are generated by business activities related to the port. Approximately 87,000 jobs are connected with the Port of Houston itself, and over 80% of those people live in the Houston metropolitan area. Centrally located on the Gulf Coast, Houston is a strategic gateway for cargo originating in or destined for the U.S. West and Midwest. Houston lies within close reach of one of the nation's largest concentrations of consumers. More than 17 million people live within 300 miles of the city, and approximately 60 million live within 700 miles. Conclusion The danger is very real that we may be escorting a weapon of mass destruction to its target. For every mile along the Houston Ship Channel that dangerous cargo passes, an additional 2000 people are at risk. Clearly, once the cargo reaches the city, the risk is greatest. There are many such cities and states across the country that are vulnerable and need the federal government's leadership for security and protection. The legislation is a good start, yet it will not be sufficient. I challenge my colleagues on the Homeland Security Committee to consider this only the first step in securing and protecting our nation's ports, and a necessary gateway to addressing the vulnerabilities of rail and mass transit.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate this opportunity to explain my concerns with the bill, H.R. 4772, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2005. I oppose the bill because I am concerned that it will weaken local land use, zoning, and environmental laws by encouraging costly and unwarranted ``takings'' litigation in Federal court against local officials. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4772 would fundamentally alter the procedures governing regulatory takings litigation. Those procedures are required by the U.S. Constitution and have been repeatedly reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, as recently as last year. The bill purports to alter these requirements by giving developers, corporate hog farms, adult bookstores, and other takings claimants the ability to bypass local land use procedures and State courts. Indeed, the National Association of Home Builders candidly referred to a prior version of the bill as a ``hammer to the head'' of local officials. Developers could use this hammer to side-step land use negotiations and avoid compliance with local laws that protect neighboring property owners and the community at large. In addition, section 5 of the bill purports to dramatically change substantive takings law as articulated by the Supreme Court and other Federal courts by redefining the constitutional rules that apply to permit conditions, subdivisions, and claims under the Due Process Clause. The existing rules, developed over many decades, allow courts to strike a fair balance between takings claimants, neighboring property owners, and the public. The proposed rules would tilt the playing field further in favor of corporate developers and other takings claimants, even in the many localities across the country where developers already have an advantage. As a result, H.R. 4772 would allow big developers and other takings claimants to use the threat of premature Federal court litigation as a club to coerce small communities to approve projects that would harm the public. By short-circuiting local land use procedures, H.R. 4772 also would curtail democratic participation in local land use decisions by the very people who could be harmed by those decisions. The bill also raises serious constitutional issues. The provisions that purport to redefine constitutional violations ignore the fundamental principle established in Marbury v. Madison (1803) that it is ``emphatically the province and duty'' of the Federal courts to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. Moreover, under longstanding precedent, a landowner has no claim against a State or local government under the Fifth Amendment until the claimant first seeks and is denied compensation in State court. Federal courts would continue to dismiss these claims, as well as claims that lack an adequate record where claimants use the bill to side-step local land use procedures. The bill will create more delay and confusion by offering the false hope of an immediate Federal forum for those who have not suffered a Federal constitutional injury. In short, this bill is a great threat to federalism, our local land use protections, neighboring property owners, and the environment. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against the bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the Federal judiciary, I know that as they take an oath of office that their commitment is to serve the American people and the United States of America with the dignity and respect of that office. It has not come to my attention there are any number of ``rogue judges'' that would undermine the Constitution. But I do believe that it is crucial that the facts of this debate be established and why there is such opposition to an initiative that deals with the security of America. There is no divide, I have said this, I think, on any number of occasions, on the commitment of members of the Democratic Caucus on securing America. In fact, there are any number of experts who have engaged in the issues of security and intelligence for a very long period of time. But, frankly, we are arguing against the broad brush that this Congress has now given to the Bush administration, and the Bush administration has made no convincing case to Congress justifying the need to change the law and to satisfy Congress, nor has Congress been able to satisfy itself that any recommended changes would be constitutionally permissible. Chairman Hoekstra said that Congress simply should not have to play 20 questions to get the information that it deserves under our Constitution. That is the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Frankly, I think it is important to note that the President, this administration, has not identified any technological barriers to the operation of FISA. I believe in modernizing it. However, most of the legislative proposals to amend FISA do not attempt to modernize the law, but rather erode the fourth amendment protection, since available technology allows the interception of more communications. Let me tell you what happens in this legislation. First of all, there is an opportunity to drag in the innocent. This new bill could drag in journalists and foreign workers of high-tech companies. This bill, for example, radically lifts the universe of warrantless searches. It drastically amends existing definitions in a manner that will permit government to retain indefinitely information collected on Americans. This is about protecting Americans with this broad brush. This is about not going back to McCarthyism. This is about making sure that we secure us within our borders, northern and southern and otherwise, but it is to say do not turn us into terrorizing ourselves. The fourth amendment has not been abolished. This could have been amended in collaboration with our colleagues to protect civil liberties, the 4th Amendment, and to secure America. This is a rush to the election. I ask my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. * * *

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I think it is important to note that my good friend from Florida is a great debater and orator on this floor, but I think some of the debate has been skewed. The passion here is because we feel let down. We have let many American people down. My good friend from Wisconsin is simply saying that, in spite of the procedural responsibility of moving to the end of this session, what has not been done is we have not done what the American people need: The minimum wage, responding to the crisis of Medicare part D. And let me give a personal story and I will answer the gentleman's question about security. My mother is now paying more than she has ever paid before under Medicare part D. And all of my seniors are now crying because they are over the top in the donut hole. This is a personal story and a personal testimony. And I would suggest to the gentleman that he knows the rules of this body and he knows that many times we ask the other side to yield and they do not. So there is no commentary on your understanding of the rules by not yielding to someone who is interjecting in your statements. It is a question of passion and commitment. And I would simply say that I am prepared to discuss, as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, the failures of this body regarding security. The 9/11 Commission Report issued some 2 years ago rendered to this body Ds and Fs for every aspect of homeland security you could ever imagine. And Abraham Lincoln said: We cannot escape history, right after the Civil War, 1862, his mission during the Civil War. We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. We will be doing the electronic surveillance. But as we speak, the leaders of Hewlett-Packard are in our committee rooms in the Rayburn room discussing why they abused technology. There is nothing on the record that suggests that we cannot use the FISA proceedings to deal with securing America. We know that there have been 19,000 FISA requests and less than five refused by the tribunal. The only necessity is to restate the authorization of FISA and to ensure that it is utilized. But this body will come and try to take away the very rights and protection from privacy for the American people. That is not homeland security. There is no basis for abusing America's military. When I say that, let me qualify it. By jeopardizing their status as an MIA and a POW, in this instance, a POW, in any conflict around the world by what we are doing with the military tribunal system here, which is, ignoring the Geneva Convention. And might I just show to my colleagues the faces and faces of the fallen, pages and pages in the Nation's newspapers of those who have lost their lives on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is well documented in recent intelligence reports that have been declassified that we have created a pool for insurgency and terrorists, a breeding ground, in Iraq. So now my friends want to abuse the habeas corpus system of America. We want to ignore the Geneva Convention, which simply provides for no torture provisions and a respect for that incarcerated person. Now, we have called these people enemy combatants, but we are now prepared to suspend the habeas corpus for an indefinite period of time. We are prepared now to ensure that there is not any real protection against torture. And, of course, this bill will be an amended bill that will come here to the floor that we will be debating, but the question is the reasonableness in protecting those who are offering their lives. The Military Tribunal Commission bill will still put U.S. soldiers in harm's way.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would simply say, we know about homeland security. They don't, they failed. That is what we are doing today. Vote ``no'' on this rule.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. * * *

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is very sad to say that what we are doing today is simply a march toward the November election. There is a certain calculated plan as to what Republicans need to be able to do to win the House, and obviously it has to do with the security of America. There is no divide among Democrats and Republicans about our resolve to secure this Nation. Not a one of us in this Congress if asked or if needed to defend this Nation in the immediacy of time would refuse that request. The reason why there is such a sharp divide is because this is not a serious attempt to secure America. It is, frankly, a serious attempt to eliminate for the American people rights that are a part of their birthright. This is a closed rule, and I oppose it because security and civil liberties of those who are citizens of the United States can be intertwined, and you can secure the Nation with rights protected, therefore there should have been open rule. I would have offered an amendment that would have improved the bill immeasurably by striking the golden mean between providing the President the emergency tools needed to respond to an act of war against our country, while at the same time protecting all Americans from the dangerous secret exercise of unchecked and unreviewable power to surveil and search any person deemed by the President to pose a threat to the country. This would have provided the President the authority to conduct surveillance and searches without a warrant for 15 days following either a declaration of war or an authorization for the use of military force. In addition, it is very clear that the FISA provisions now allow for the President to act without judicial authority. Authority can be given after the fact, and the evidence that is given to the court can be and is secret. It is worthwhile saying that this, again, is not a question of can we resolve this and give this bill. It is a rush to judgment to ensure that this would be a good political sound bite for Republicans who are running for re-election. This is a bad way to secure America, and I ask my colleagues to oppose this rule because the American people frankly, are not prepared to give up their civil liberties when we can do both-- civil liberties and a secure Nation. I rise in opposition to this closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5825, the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act. I oppose the rule because it forecloses members from offering constructive amendments that would improve a bill that otherwise will represent an unwarranted and dangerous delegation of authority to the executive branch. Specifically, the bill does not impose limits on the President's powers; it remains silent on the NSA's warrantless surveillance and expands the government's powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to collect information on Americans without judicial review. This sad state of affairs could have been avoided if the Rules Committee had fashioned an open rule, allowing consideration of amendments of the type I and my colleagues offered during the Judiciary Committee markup. For example, I offered an amendment that would have provided the President authority to conduct surveillance and searches without a warrant for 15 days following either: (1) a declaration of war; or (2) ``an authorization for the use of military force'' (AUMF) within the meaning of Section 2(c)(2) of the War Powers Act. This amendment improves the bill immeasurably by striking the golden mean between providing the President the emergency tools needed to respond to an act of war against our country, while at the same time protecting all Americans from the danger of secret exercise of unchecked and unreviewable power to surveil and search any person deemed by the President to pose a threat to the country. Mr. Speaker, it is worth remembering that while armies fight battles, it is a nation that goes to war. And the Constitution is neither silent nor coy as to where the power to take a nation to war rests: it is vested in the Congress of the United States, not the President. The power to conduct secret, warrantless surveillance and searches in response to an act of war or a terrorist attack fundamentally is a war power. That is why the acquisition and exercise of that power properly must flow from a congressional declaration of war or authorization to use military force in response to an act of war. I believe we should have an open rule to permit such an amendment because it keeps faith with the Founding Fathers and honors the Constitution that every member of Congress, and each of our brave troops who risk their lives to keep us free, take an oath to uphold. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5825 goes dangerously far afield by authorizing the President to conduct warrantless surveillance and searches for 90 days after ``an armed attack against the territory of the United States,'' or a ``terrorist attack against the United States.'' Moreover, this new surveillance power would extend to U.S. soil, regardless of any nexus to the actual event that triggered the exercise of emergency surveillance authority. Mr. Speaker, the phrases ``armed attack against the territory of the United States'' and ``terrorist attack against the United States'' are so broad that they can be triggered by nearly any act of violence directed against the interests of the United States, including: The recent bombing of the U.S. embassy in Syria. If H.R. 5825 were in effect today, we could have a warrant-free environment in the United States right now. An attack on U.S. armed forces abroad, including any attack on soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, which according to press reports, is a daily occurrence. Mr. Speaker, we do not need to surrender the liberties of the American people in order to protect the security of the American people. As the Framers understood so well when they devised our magnificent Constitution, we can have both liberty and security. All we need is wisdom and good counsel, what the Greeks called ``euboule''. That is what is lacking in this rule and with respect to H.R. 5825, the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act. Another amendment that could have been offered if we had an open rule is an amendment that reiterates that FISA is the exclusive procedure and authority for wiretapping Americans to gather foreign intelligence. In the absence of the reaffirmation of this critically important principle, H.R. 5825 would have the unacceptable consequence of rewarding the President's refusal to follow FISA by exempting him from following these procedures. The effect of this would be to allow any president to make up his own ``rules'' for wiretapping Americans and secretly implementing those rules unless and until a court finds such rules unconstitutional. This would make tangible President Nixon's 1977 claim to David Frost that ``when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.'' By flirting with the misguided and dangerous idea of inherent presidential power to wiretap, H.R. 5825 would resurrect the very provision in the criminal code that President Nixon relied upon in his warrantless wiretaps of countless Americans based on their political views. The legislative history of FISA provides an important rebuttal to the Administration's claims regarding inherent authority to ignore federal law: ``[E]ven if the president has the inherent authority in the absence of legislation to authorize warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, Congress has the power to regulate the conduct of such surveillance by legislating a reasonable procedure, which then becomes the exclusive means by which such surveillance may be conducted.'' H.R. Rep. No. 95-1283, pt. 1, at 24 (1978). By eliminating the exclusivity of these procedures, Congress would be acquiescing in the destruction of one of the pillars of FISA that has helped to protect the civil liberties of hundreds of millions of Americans from unilateral spying by the executive branch. To paraphrase the Supreme Court, our Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if electronic surveillance may be conducted solely within the discretion of the president. See United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972). Without such language, H.R. 5825 would undo the Congress' manifest intent in passing FISA, which ``was designed . . . to curb the practice by which the Executive Branch may conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on its own unilateral determination that national security justifies it.'' (See S. Rep. No. 95-604(1), at 7, 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3904, 3908). By eliminating the requirement that the president follow FISA and get a court order to search based on evidence an American is conspiring with a foreign agent, H.R. 5825 would places our rights at the secret will of the president--any president. Mr. Speaker, it is more than a truism that real security for the American people comes not from deferring to the President but from preserving the separation of powers and adhering to the rule of law. I therefore cannot support this closed rule and urge my colleagues to vote against the rule. We have time to come up with a better product and we should. The American people deserve no less.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for a very instructive motion to instruct. I would say to the chairman that we have worked together on this committee as best that we could in a bipartisan manner. But let me tell you why I think this motion to instruct is particularly important. And I was drawn to the floor, I had a bill on the floor and several meetings, at the same time as several committee hearings that had to do with rail security. I believe the Committee on Homeland Security, of which I am a member, knows that this is an important issue. But we are operating against a backdrop of a Department that questions whether or not this is an important challenge that we have to face. I respect, Mr. Thompson, the fact that the leadership of our Department may have a different view from us. But the Secretary recently said in the last year that the truth of the matter is that a fully loaded airplane with jet fuel, a commercial airliner, has the capacity to kill 3,000 people, but a bomb in a subway may kill only 30. I do not know how many of us are experts on the type of bomb or the type of transit that may be impacted, but I think that narrow view of rail security brings us to where we are today. That is why this motion to instruct is so important, because we have an atmosphere and a sense at the Homeland Security Department that rail security or the devastation that could occur by attacking, whether it is Amtrak or whether it is a subway or some other form of rail, that it is not serious. Let me tell you why it is serious. I live in Houston, Texas, and the symbol for Houston is the crossing of two railroads. We are a railroad town, and that means that all throughout my district and all throughout my neighborhoods are railroad tracks that then have the opportunity for a cargo train or a passenger train to travel right next to a residential house. My husband might not care for me to say it, but he says he went to sleep with the railroad ring in his ears because his original home was near the railroad tracks. So this motion to instruct is crucial to save lives, because it would authorize $3.5 billion for a mass transit security grant program and $1.2 billion for freight and passenger rail security. Why can't we take the Senate bill? There are large populations that are impacted by rail transportation and/or cargo. The Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security told Congress just in March of this year that aviation security by law is a Federal responsibility. That is not the case with transit security. And he ends it at that. But homeland security is a Federal responsibility; and, therefore, I would argue that the reasonableness of the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi's motion to instruct is an important step towards recognizing that rail and mass transit can be vulnerable. And I cite which has already been cited: Worldwide terrorist attacks on trains average 30 per year. The 9/11 Commission noted that rail and mass transit are particularly vulnerable, and our workers on mass transit are saying that as well. So I simply want to applaud the gentleman and ask that my colleagues support this and realize that we have a challenge and that the reason why Congress has to act is because we need to instruct the Executive that we do have a problem because leadership at the Homeland Security Department has said, one, ``It's not my job.'' We have heard that. And, two, ``Don't worry about it; only two or three are going to be lost.'' Well, I would simply say to my good friends at the Homeland Security Department, come to Houston, Texas, and weave your way through neighborhoods that are at the high economic level and low, and you will find that it would result in a terrible, horrific tragedy, Mr. Speaker, if there was a rail catastrophe. I ask my colleagues to support the motion to instruct to provide real rail security. I rise in strong support of the Motion to Instruct Conferees to accept the Senate amendments to H.R. 5494 the ``SAFE Port Act.'' I particularly wish to thank the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, the Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Committee, for introducing this important and much needed motion. The SAFE Port Act, H.R. 4954, was reported out by the Homeland Security Committee and passed by the House in May of this year. On balance, the SAFE Port Act is a good bill but it only addresses port and shipping container security. The Senate bill contains similar port security provisions, but also includes several provisions which will have the salutary effect of substantially enhancing the safety and security of America's rail, subway, buses and trucking systems. The Senate bill also strengthens aviation security, border security, and creates a National Warning and Alert System which provides first responders with post-disaster health monitoring. Mr. Speaker, the House Republican Leadership has had many opportunities to address these security issues, but it has failed to do so. The time for action has long since passed. We need a new direction. We need a new approach. It is time for action and a new approach. The Senate bill is a bipartisan step in the right direction. We should take advantage of this opportunity to strengthen security and assist first responders. The final Conference Report should reflect the Senate's positions on rail, mass transit, and border security; and warning and alert systems. Mr. Speaker, unlike the House, the Senate approved an amendment that would authorize $3.5 billion for mass transit security grant programs and $1.2 billion for freight and passenger rail security. This is reason alone to instruct the Conferees to accede to the Senate position on mass transit and rail security. America's rail and mass transit systems remain vulnerable on the watch of the House Republican leadership. We need a new direction. Consider the following: Worldwide Terrorist Attacks on Trains Average 30 Per Year; The 9/11 Commission Noted That Rail and Mass Transit Are Particularly Vulnerable; International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) Found a Lack of Security Along Railroad Tracks and in Rail Yards Across the County; Mass Transit Becomes More Vulnerable to Terrorist Attack as Airline Security Improves. Rail Security in the Senate Bill The Senate bill also advances the ball on meaningful rail security by requiring the Departments of Homeland Security and Transportation to conduct vulnerability assessments for freight and passenger rail systems. The bill authorizes $5 million in FY 2007 to carry out this requirement. Without any requirements that these agencies conduct comprehensive reviews of rail security, how can we move in a meaningful direction to protecting America's rail systems? This bill also authorizes for fiscal years 2007-2010 critical fire and life-safety improvements to Amtrak tunnels on the Northeast Corridor in New York City, New York ($470 million); Baltimore, Maryland ($47 million); and Washington, DC ($32 million). This money will be spent specifically on communication, lighting, and passenger egress upgrades. If a terrorist attack were to occur in these cities, it is vitally important that riders be able to successfully leave the tunnels--this could mean the difference between life and death. The Senate bill authorizes $350 million for FY 2007 for security grants to freight railroad, Alaska Railroad, hazardous materials shippers and AMTRAK. This is badly needed funding and not just lip- service about rail security. This bill also requires that hazardous material shippers create and implement threat mitigation plans to be reviewed by the Departments of Homeland Security and Transportation. Research and development is also important component in making sure that our rail systems are secure. This bill authorizes $50 million in fiscal years 2007 and 2008. The money will be used to test new emergency response techniques and technologies; develop improved freight technologies; and test wayside detectors. Rail employees are the vital eyes and ears of the system. They will be the first ones to know if there is a problem. However, they must be protected. The Senate bill provides them with whistleblower protections in order to ensure that they won't be penalized for reporting problems. These are just some of the reasons I support the Motion to Instruct Conferees to accede to the Senate position on the SAFE Port Act, H.R. 5494. I urge my colleagues to join me. I yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished gentlemen, the ranking member and the chairman of the Management Subcommittee on Homeland Security, that deal with these crucial issues. I rise to support the Secure Border Initiative Financial Accountability Act and offer that there is an overall vision that this is a very important component of, and I hope that as we move this legislation along we still may have a window of opportunity to ensure that the Secure Border Initiative that Secretary Chertoff speaks of, that this is a major component of, is in place. And I just want to thank both gentlemen for your leadership and acknowledge that, even with this Financial Accountability Act, we are still missing and need to move forward on: More agents to patrol our borders, secure our ports of entry and enforce immigration laws; expanded detention and removal capabilities to eliminate ``catch and release'' once and for all; a comprehensive and systematic upgrading of the technology used in controlling the border, including increased manned aerial assets, expanded use of UAVs, and next-generation detection technology; increased investment in infrastructure improvements at the border, providing additional physical security to sharply reduce illegal border crossings; and greatly increased interior enforcement of our immigration laws, including more robust work site enforcement; and, of course, an earned access to legalization. We must not frighten America. Let them know that we are doing the job. But we can do both. We can account for everyone that is inside our borders, and we can work to protect and secure our northern and southern border. This initiative, the Financial Accountability, is crucial because it gives the Inspector General oversight and we, as the Management Subcommittee of the Homeland Security Committee, have seen the fractures in the oversight of spending money. This is an important way to provide the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General to immediately review any Secure Border Initiative contract valued at $20 million or more. Let me thank the two gentlemen, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Meek, who spent hours and hours reviewing some of the mishaps that have occurred with contracts that have not fulfilled the responsibility of securing America, contracts that have violated our trust. They have not had the right equipment, the technology. It hasn't worked. They haven't had the right staff. This way, the Inspector General can make findings, including cost overruns, delays in contract execution, lack of rigorous contract management, insufficient Department oversight, and limitations on small business participation, which now will be able to be reported under this particular bill. Within 30 days of receiving the Inspector General's report, the Secretary must submit a corrective action plan to Congress, and as well we must ensure open opportunity. Let me congratulate the ranking member, Mr. Thompson, and I joined him on these amendments that will highlight small businesses, automatically triggers oversight based on the award of contracts once a certain monetary amount has been reached, requires that the Inspector General conduct a review during the pendency of the project and requires that the Inspector General assess the inclusion of small, minority, and women-owned businesses in the SBI subcontracting plans as a factor in its review. If that is not one of the larger pieces, everywhere we go, as this Department grows larger and larger and larger, Homeland Security spends more and more money, the question is, why can't the homegrown people do the job, the small businesses, the women-owned businesses, the minority-owned businesses? And the answer is a blank. We don't have an answer. This committee has been in the leadership realm, this subcommittee with Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Meek. You have been in the driver's seat on pushing the Homeland Security Department and our subcommittee in ensuring that the little guys get the work. We are now suffering in Louisiana and the Gulf Region because the little guys have been ignored, and the jurisdictions down there say we have got the little guys willing to work but the big guys have thrown us out the door and not allowed us to be able to do an efficient, cost- efficient, good job. It has been the layered contracts with multinationals, and it never gets down to small business persons. So I rise to support this initiative, the Secure Border Initiative Financial Accountability Act, and I want to thank Cherri Branson and Rosaline Cohen for their leadership of staff. I thank the ranking member for yielding to me, and I ask my colleagues to support it. But our work is yet undone until we finish comprehensive immigration reform. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6162, requiring financial accountability with respect to certain contract actions related to the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) of the Department of Homeland Security . The Secure Border Initiative, SBI, is a comprehensive multi-year plan to secure America's borders and reduce illegal migration. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chert-off has announced an overall vision for the SBI which includes: more agents to patrol our borders, secure our ports of entry and enforce immigration laws; expanded detention and removal capabilities to eliminate ``catch and release'' once and for all; a comprehensive and systemic upgrading of the technology used in controlling the border, including increased manned aerial assets, expanded use of UAVs, and next-generation detection technology; increased investment in infrastructure improvements at the border--providing additional physical security to sharply reduce illegal border crossings; and greatly increased interior enforcement of our immigration laws--including more robust work site enforcement. Mr. Speaker, an earlier version of this important bill passed the House as part of a border security measure in December 2005. Furthermore, the language of this bill also appears in fiscal year 2007 DHS authorization measure that passed the Committee on Homeland Security in July 2006. This bill requires the DHS's Inspector General to immediately and automatically review any Secure Border Initiative contract valued at more than $20 million. This review necessarily entails examining the cost requirements, performance objectives, and program timelines set by the Department for the SBI project and requires an assessment of the inclusion of small, minority and women-owned businesses in any subcontracting plans. The Inspector General's review must be completed within 60 days after its initiation and reported to the Secretary of DHS. Within 30 days of receiving the Inspector General's report, the Secretary of DHS must submit to the Committee on Homeland Security a report on the Inspector General's findings and the corrective action plan the Secretary has taken and plans to take. This automatic triggering of oversight by the Inspector General for contracts greater than $20 million is critical to minimize the waste, abuse, and fraud, which unfortunately has plagued many of DHS's contracts. In addition, this review will occur during the pendency of the project rather than at its termination to minimize waste and ensure redemptive steps are taken expeditiously. The Inspector General's findings will include cost overruns, delays in contract execution, lack of rigorous Department contract management, insufficient Department financial oversight, limitations on small business participation, and other high risk business practices. Moreover, this bill requires that the Inspector General assess the inclusion of small, minority and women-owned businesses in the SBI subcontracting plans as a factor in its review. Historically, small, minority and women-owned businesses have been disadvantaged in seeking and winning these types of contracts. There may be inherent disadvantages for these businesses, but it is clear their potential is tremendous. It is critical that DHS ensures that these businesses have the ability to compete fairly for these lucrative opportunities. I am very proud that my district, Harris County and Houston ranks sixth and Texas ranks fifth in the country for the largest number of African-American owned firms, following New York, California, Florida, and Georgia. Minority and women-owned businesses across the country will appreciate the effort to preserve their opportunity to compete for these contracts. I encourage my colleagues to remember that there are a great many barriers to minority and women business professionals, and provisions such as these preserve equal access and open opportunities. In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, small, minority and disadvantaged businesses from the region were shut out of disaster-related contracts because goals and preferences were not in place. Since the late 1960s, it has been the policy of the Federal Government to assist small businesses owned by minorities and women to become fully competitive, viable business concerns. As a result, the Small Business Administration has set forth government-wide goals to level the playing field for small and minority businesses seeking Federal Government contracts. Leveling the playing field continues to be a central concern for me and should continue to be a central concern for this Congress. The oversight required in this bill is integral because SBlnet is expected to be a $2.5 billion procurement and the contracts allocated through SBI will be substantial. For example, last week, DHS awarded a contract valued at $80 million to a team led by Boeing under the SBInet program. Furthermore, the predecessors to SBI--ISIS and American Shield--fell far short of expectations. The Department spent over $429 million and protected 4 percent of the border, which is about $100 million for every 1 percent of the border. Similarly, the Inspector General has found that the Department's failure in these past programs has been due to poor planning, lax program management, inappropriate equipment purchases and spotty implementation. This bill is the first step in requiring effective oversight. Realistically, effective oversight cannot be the sole province of Inspectors General. It is Congress's constitutional duty to conduct systematic oversight of the programs and activities of the executive branch. Just as the Department cannot contract out its responsibilities, neither can we. Consequently, I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I appreciate this opportunity to express my strong support for H.R. 2322, which designates the Federal building located at 320 North Main Street in McAllen, Texas, as the ``Kika de la Garza Federal Building.'' This honor is well-deserved recognition to the former Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, co-founder of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and one of the most beloved members to have served in this House with distinction for more than thirty years. Elected in 1964 to the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas' 15th District, Kika de la Garza served the people of the Rio Grande Valley and the nation for 16 terms before retiring in 1996. He was one of the first Hispanics elected to Congress and the first to chair the Committee on Agriculture. Born Eligio de la Garza in Mercedes, Hidalgo County, Texas on September 22, 1927, ``Kika'' de la Garza grew up in Mission where he attended Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic School and Mission High School. At age 17, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy and served until 1946. He continued his education at Edinburg Junior College and the U.S. Army Artillery School at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. De la Garza served in the Korean conflict as a second lieutenant with the Army's Thirty-seventh Division Artillery. In 1952, he earned a law degree from St. Mary's University in San Antonio (where he was later awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws degree). That same year he was elected to the Texas House of Representatives, where he served for 12 years until his election in 1964 to the U.S. House of Representatives. As a member of the Texas House of Representatives, Kika de la Garza had numerous legislative accomplishments, including the absorption of Pan American University into the University of Texas system, the creation of the Texas Water Commission, and the establishment of the Reagan/de la Garza coastal wetlands. He was the driving force behind legislation creating the nation's first state-run system of English language instruction for pre-school age children. He also sponsored a bill allowing Texas' border cities and counties to build their own international bridges. Because he hailed from a district with a large agricultural base, de la Garza joined the House Committee on Agriculture. In 1967 he served as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Department Operations and Foreign Agriculture. From 1981 to 1994, he chaired the Committee on Agriculture, becoming the first Hispanic since 191 7 (when Ladislas Lazaro chaired the Enrolled Bills Committee) to chair a standing committee in the U.S. House of Representatives. During his tenure as Agriculture Chairman, Representative de la Garza successfully led the way for the House to pass three omnibus farm bills (1981, 1985, and 1990), a major overhaul of the agricultural lending system, federal crop insurance reform, a major reorganization of the USDA, reforms in federal pesticide laws, and numerous other measures relating to agriculture, rural economic development, and nutrition. During Kika de la Garza's 13 years of leadership as Chairman of the Agriculture Committee, major agricultural legislation was enacted, including the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981; the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983, which authorized distribution of government- owned surplus commodities to indigent persons; and the Food Security Act, which included provisions to shift the direction of farm programs to more market-oriented levels, strengthened export programs, and created a conservation reserve targeted at highly erosive croplands. His Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 revised credit assistance programs, restructured the Farm Credit System, and facilitated creation of a secondary market for agricultural loans. In 1988 and 1989, he managed to passage the Disaster Assistance Acts to provide assistance to farmers and ranchers who lost crop production due to drought and other natural disasters that occurred during this period. A strong supporter of civil rights safeguard for minorities, de la Garza has successfully fought for improved access to health care for the elderly and veterans, better living conditions for low-income individuals and the impoverished, and access to educational opportunities for all Americans. An influential proponent of free trade, de la Garza also was instrumental in the passage of both the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the expansion of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). One of Congress' leading experts on U.S.-Mexican relations, de la Garza worked to improve relations and trade between the two countries throughout his congressional career. In 1966, he became the first congressman from the Texas-Mexico border area to serve on the Mexico- United States Inter-Parliamentary Group, which promotes dialogue between legislators from the two countries. All in all, Kika de la Garza gave remarkable service to the people of Texas, the United States, and this chamber. He was a great congressmen and great American. For these reasons, I strongly support H.R. 2322, which gives well- deserved and long overdue recognition to this great American and former member of this House.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6166, the Military Commissions Act of 2006. I oppose the bill because it creates an unfair trial system for military detainees, and does almost nothing to curb the President's power to authorize interrogation tactics that are widely recognized as torture. Mr. Speaker, this so-called compromise bill, is actually nearly identical to what the administration has sought all along. The bill continues to allow secret evidence in trials, prohibits detainees from challenging the merits of their detention in courts, and effectively allows the President to authorize the CIA to continue inhumane detention and interrogation. The Supreme Court ruled in the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case that the President's system to try terrorist suspects is unlawful. All of us here and Americans everywhere want to see al Qaeda fighters tried and convicted for their crimes. The measure the House is considering, however, does not go far enough to ensure that military trials will be conducted in a fair and open fashion. For instance, the bill still allows certain classified evidence to be kept secret from defendants, giving them access only to evidence with large redacted portions. And it still permits certain cases under which a military judge could allow a trial in absentia. Perhaps most egregiously, the measure actually blocks the ability of innocent detainees to challenge the validity of their detention in an independent judicial tribunal because the bill denies the right of detainees to bring a habeas corpus action. Mr. Speaker, habeas corpus is not ``special treatment for terrorists,'' as proponents of the measure claim. Rather, it is a legal procedure that has the power to exonerate innocent detainees--not terrorists--who have been imprisoned and not brought to trial. Indeed, the writ of habeas corpus is the bedrock of the rule of law and traces its heritage back to the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 A.D. Denying habeas corpus review for detainees in U.S. custody is simply another unwarranted attempt by the Executive branch to arrogate powers vested by the Constitution in the Federal judiciary. If the bill before us becomes law, the administration could pick and choose not only who could be tried, but could hold them in prison indefinitely with no possibility of judicial review. Although the bill does not technically redefine the Geneva Conventions, the measure does nothing to curb the power of an executive branch, like the current one, with a track record of abusing the human rights of secret military detainees. The bill states that the President has the `` authority to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions,'' and could do so through executive orders. There is no question that President Bush fully intends to authorize the CIA to continue what it euphemistically refers to as ``alternative interrogation techniques.'' We know now that most of these interrogations using ``alternative techniques'' have occurred in secret ``black site'' prisons in Eastern Europe and other foreign lands in clear and direct violation of Common Article 3, which prohibits signatories from inflicting ``cruel treatment and torture'' and ``humiliating and degrading treatment'' upon individuals who are not actively engaging in combat, including soldiers who have surrendered or been arrested and become prisoners of war. The bill may technically skirt the issue of America's conduct under the Geneva Conventions. But if American personnel blithely toss aside our international treaty obligations to uphold standards in the detention and interrogation of wartime prisoners, America will alienate our long-time allies who are crucial partners in the fight against terrorism. If America whisks people from the streets into secret detention facilities, and then uses secret evidence to convict them in special courts, it will do more to embolden our enemies than any extremist jihad web site ever could. Mr. Speaker, this is far too serious an issue to be used as a script for the mud-slinging commercials of campaign season. The very fact that the House is considering such legislation shows that Congress has not been exercising adequate authority over an arrogant and overbearing executive branch. There is a great need for a system to try suspected terrorists, both for the sake of the families of the victims of the September 11 attacks and for the sake of our American men and women fighting overseas. But the bill before the House--despite being labeled as a ``compromise''--fails to provide truly open trials and does not even allow innocent detainees to challenge their imprisonment. It is just another opportunity to rubber-stamp the President's ill-advised plan, and should be defeated. Mr. Speaker, in the final analysis, the debate today is not about the terrorists or America's enemies; it is about the character of our country. It is not about them; it is about us. It is not about the terrorists; it is about who we are. We are the United States of America. We fight hard but we fight fair. We fight to defend our families, our friends, the powerless and unprotected. We fight to preserve our way of life and the ideas we believe in. And here is what we believe: We believe in equal justice under law. We believe in the dignity of the human being. We believe in fair play and square dealing. We believe in opportunity for all, responsibility from all, and community of all. We believe in personal liberty and the public interest. We believe in freedom of conscience and worship. Mr. Speaker, the Global War on Terror is not just a battle of arms, though arms we need. It is also a battle of ideas over how we should live. If we jettison the principles bequeathed us by our forebears to gain a temporary and fleeting advantage over our enemies, then we will succeed in doing something no adversary ever could do and that is to defeat ourselves. Mr. Speaker, we do not need to surrender our cherished beliefs, values, and liberties to prevail against our enemies. We need only conduct our affairs by the principles of honor and freedom that have made this nation the strongest, most powerful, and most admired nation in the history of the world. I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-conceived and unwise legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Skelton motion to recommit with instructions to the Armed Services Committee the bill H.R. 6166, the Military Commissions Act of 2006. I support the Skelton motion because it provides for expedited judicial review of the bill's constitutionality. The need for expedited judicial review of the constitutionality of this proposed law is clear. Already, the Administration's military commissions plan has already been found fatally defective by the Supreme Court. That the majority has worked closely with the Administration to produce the bill before us provides little comfort or confidence that this bill will pass constitutional muster. It would be a shame to go prosecute detainees under the regime established in this bill only to have any convictions set aside because the procedures are later found to be constitutionally infirm. Mr. Speaker, Congress should pass legislation that will provide the President with a tough and fair system of military commissions that will ensure swift convictions for terrorists and protect our men and women in uniform. But the legislation must also respond to the United States Supreme Court's ruling in the Hamdan case and withstand judicial scrutiny, or it may not serve its other purposes. Many legal experts have raised serious questions about this bill's constitutionality. That is why it is critically important to quickly determine whether the statute will survive judicial scrutiny. Just think. If this bill is tied up in years of litigation and eventually struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, this could have disastrous implications: Convictions would be overturned; terrorists would have a ``get-out-of-jail-free'' card; and the United States would once again be left without a working military commissions system. Mr. Speaker, there is a right way to remedy this situation and it is simple. Under the Skelton provision, the judicial review would occur early on and quickly--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. For this reason, I support the Motion to Recommit.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, because of my attending the funeral of Officer Rodney Joseph Johnson, a Houston Police Department officer who lost his life in the line of duty, I missed the following votes: Adjournment resolution, rollcall vote 487, if I had been present, I would have voted ``no''; the previous question, rollcall vote No. 488, if I had been present, I would have voted ``no''; H. Res. 1042, the rule regarding the military commissions resolution, rollcall vote 489, if I had been present, I would have voted ``no''; on the motion to recommit, the Skelton motion that would establish a process for expedited judicial review and require reauthorization of the act after December 31, 2009, rollcall vote 490, I would have voted ``aye''; rollcall vote 491, final passage of H.R. 6166, the Military Commissions Act, I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6138, a bill intended to extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965. The Higher Education Act--HEA--authorizes the major Federal student aid programs that are responsible for the majority of financial assistance to postsecondary students. The provisions in this bill will ensure that the HEA will not expire at the end of this fiscal year by extending its provisions another 9 months through June 30, 2007. In 1965, the Higher Education Act was established to help low- and middle-income students pursue higher education. Today, the Federal Government invests more than $70 billion in direct financial aid to students and families, and hundreds of millions of dollars are provided to colleges and universities so that they may better serve their students. However, it seems as though every time we extend this crucial legislation, the provisions it contains divert the resources further and further away from where they are most needed. Eighty-six percent of high school graduates from families with incomes over $80,750 go on to college while only 57 percent of graduates from families earning less than $33,000 do so. Pell grants and student loans are supposed to help narrow this gap. And yet, when dollar amounts are scoffed at as expenses rather than investments, it is our next generation of doctors, lawyers, teachers, civil servants, and other professionals who suffer. This will be the fifth time this Congress that we have extended the Higher Education Act. Although I am disappointed that we have not been able to reauthorize this crucial bill, I am pleased that we can manage to keep these programs active for the time being. In addition to the existing provisions for Pell grants, teacher training, student loans, and distance education, H.R. 6138 contributes further language to increase the accessibility of higher education by: reducing red tape for Hispanic-serving institutions by eliminating the 2-year wait-out period between grant applications; continues funding payments made to guaranty agencies so that those agencies can continue working to help students avoid defaulting on their loans; provides loan forgiveness to spouses and parents of those who died or became disabled in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, what an honor to be able to join my colleagues this evening and to again thank the distinguished gentleman from Illinois for using the terminology: There are no throwaways. Let me thank the manager Member, Mr. Osborne, for his leadership; Mr. Gilchrest, delighted to have a good Speaker in the Chair from Texas. I rise today because I believe that this is an important statement that is being made today on the floor of the House. I do want to capture those words again that our young people are not throw, there are no throwaways. I say it very often as I go to schools or interact with young people that we meet in our congressional districts and really around the Nation. I spent some time with Covenant House and spent some time on the streets as they invited me in one of their night outs to be able to interact with homeless youth, to hear their stories, to hear their feeling about, in essence, being thrown away or thrown out. I do not think most Americans dwell on the fact that there are some 1.6 million to 2.8 million homeless young people. That means that they have barely a place to be more than one night. And there are these good Samaritans, these people who hold vigils on the streets of America, trying to protect our young people. It was a shocking experience as I stood on a cold night in Houston, Texas, gets a little cold there sometimes in the wintertime, as we gathered under a streetlight. The word had gone out that Covenant House was out and about, that you could come and hear a little music, get a little food and talk, to hear some of the stories of these young people who had either been sexually abused or who had been emotionally abused or had been physically abused, to hear them tell stories of guardians or parents who themselves were addicted and other problems that were associated with the household, and there was no comfort. So I find that this resolution should do a number of things. As my colleagues have said, it should reemphasize and thank those who are out with our young people, the various ministries, the Boys and Girls Club, the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, but, as well, the agencies that go out during the night to find these young people. But, again, it should say that we are not doing enough. And we should also say that there are role models, that there is something to live for, and that we should not be ashamed of trying to enhance the funding to provide transitional pathways for young people to transition into adulthood, provide them with interim housing as they move from 17, 18, 19, which causes them to be homeless. Because one of the major problems is what we call ``aging out'' in foster care, where you have gotten to a certain age at 18, 17, 18 in some States. And many of us who have young people in our homes, we raised our children, they are in their 20s, and you are taking care of them. So you age out in a foster care system, and you have no place to go, and you have been in foster care for 10, 15 years, or 10 years or 5 years. We see this as a prevalent situation that leads to disaster. This may be indirect, but I want young people to understand that they are important. I raise this picture of this beautiful young lady on the front page of the Washington Post today by the name of Emily J.T. Perez. The headline reads, West Point Mourns a Font of Energy, Laid to Rest By War. The story is about a young woman who, unfortunately, lost her life on the front lines of Iraq. But the story describes an outstanding, energetic, committed patriot and the first African American woman sergeant at West Point. She was a young person. She lost her life. But she certainly represents the best of our youth. In the midst of homeless youth, there are those who are the best. And this resolution, I think, focuses our attention on providing more resources so that we can ensure that the young people, homeless that they may be, will not have despair but will have a future and will be affirmed by this Nation that they can contribute. I rise in support of this legislation, but I ask my colleagues as this session wanes down, let us commit ourselves, if we are fortunate enough to be reelected by our constituents, to come back and fund opportunities for providing for homeless youth, to give them a future.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1009, a bill supporting efforts to promote greater public awareness of effective runaway youth prevention programs and the need for safe and productive alternatives, resources, and support for homeless youth and youth in other high-risk situations. As the Chairwoman of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I am integrally involved in the efforts of Congress to help protect and look after the children of this Nation, and to ensure that they have an equal opportunity to learn, to grow, to achieve, and most importantly, to dream. Youth that end up on the streets or in emergency shelters are often those who have been thrown out of their homes by their families. These youth are also, tragically, more likely to have been physically, sexually, or emotionally abused at home. It is also common for these youth to have been discharged by State custodial systems without adequate transition plans. Many have lost their parents through death or divorce, and many are too poor to secure their own basic needs. It is clear that this situation is a family, community, and national concern. The prevalence of runaway and homeless youth in the Nation is an epidemic. Studies suggest that between 1,600,000 and 2,800,000 young people live on the streets of the United States each year. Running away from home occurs across the country. A staggering 1 out of every 7 children in the United States running away before the age of 18. The future well-being of the Nation is dependent upon how we value our young people. The opportunities we provide for our youth to attain the ability and the knowledge needed to develop into safe, healthy, and productive adults. When it comes to our young people--all of our young people--including our runaway, throwaway and homeless youth--we must always be willing to stand up, to speak up, and to never give up. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 1042, a closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 6166, the Military Commissions Act of 2006. I oppose the rule because it forecloses members from offering constructive amendments that would improve a bill that otherwise is unlikely to pass constitutional muster. Mr. Speaker, among other things, H.R. 6166, seeks to correct the deficiencies in the Administration's regime of military commissions identified by the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. __, 05- 184 (June 29, 2006). Although there were more than a dozen amendments offered, the Rules Committee did not see fit to make any of them order. This is very unfortunate because many of these amendments would lessen the likelihood the bill would be found unconstitutional. For example, I offered a simple and uncontroversial amendment. It simply provided that any costs incurred by the United States to ensure that an unlawful enemy combatant receives a fair trial under the system of military commissions established by the Act by affording him the right to a civilian attorney, interpreter fluent in his native language, and expert witnesses where necessary can and shall be recouped from any assets confiscated or seized from the terrorist organization to which the accused belongs. I offered this amendment, Mr. Speaker, because the American people are generous and fair-minded. We believe in fundamental fairness and due process. We believe that the accused in a penal proceeding is entitled to the effective assistance of counsel. We believe that the adversary legal system depends upon vigorous advocacy, which in turns requires that the accused feel free to communicate with his counsel candidly and fully, secure in the knowledge that his communications to his counsel are privileged from disclosure. We believe that in a criminal case, the Government must bear the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and it should be able to do so without resorting to secret evidence or evidence it unlawfully obtained. But Americans are not foolish. And it would be foolish to expect Americans to pick up the tab to pay for competent counsel and expert witnesses to testify on his behalf when the accused, or his organization, has the means to pay for these services himself. Nothing in the Constitution, our law, traditions, or way of life entitles an accused to these services free of charge. After all, even in a regular criminal case, the Government is obligated to provide the accused an attorney only if he cannot afford one. It would be passing strange indeed if in our desire to afford an unlawful enemy combatant a fair trial, we treated the accused better than we do a common criminal. My amendment would have ensured that if a member of al Qaeda is tried in a military commission, the costs of his defense would be paid out of the captured or confiscated resources of al Qaeda and it allies, and not out of the pockets of the American people. This common sense amendment was not made in order, as were other sensible and constructive amendments offered by my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, the treatment and trials of detainees by the United States is too important not to do it right. This closed rule is not the right way to justice by the American people. I therefore cannot support this closed rule and urge my colleagues to vote against the rule. We have time to come up with a better product and we should. The American people deserve no less.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2679, the so-called ``Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005.'' The central purpose of this legislation is to bar damages and awards of attorneys' fees to prevailing parties asserting their fundamental constitutional rights in cases brought under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. H.R. 2679 would limit the longstanding remedies available in cases brought under the Establishment Clause under 42 U.S.C. 1988, which provides for attorneys' fees and costs in all successful cases involving constitutional and civil rights violations. I oppose H.R. 2679 for three very important reasons. First, the bill limits access to justice and makes it virtually impossible for an injured party to obtain remedial relief from a serious deprivation of a fundamental, constitutionally protected right. Second, H.R. 2679 would jettison a legal and constitutional principle that has stood the nation in good stead for over two centuries: that an injured party is entitled to just compensation for the injury he or she has sustained caused by the intentional wrongdoing or negligent conduct of others. Third, H.R. 2679 discriminates against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in favor of the Free Exercise Clause. I will address each of the fatal deficiencies in turn. 1. H.R. 2679 limits access to justice for those seeking to vindicate Constitutional Rights. If H.R. 2679 were to become law, Congress would, for the first time, single out one area protected by the Bill of Rights and prevent its full enforcement. The only remedy available to plaintiffs bringing Establishment Clause lawsuits would be injunctive relief. This prohibition would apply even to cases involving illegal religious coercion of public school students or blatant discrimination against particular religions. Awards of attorneys' fees in civil rights and constitutional cases, including Establishment Clause cases, are necessary not merely to help prevailing parties vindicate their civil rights but also to provide an incentive for vigorous enforcement of these protections, which the Framers put in place to protect the Nation. Since widespread observance of the rights and protections set forth in the First Amendment is above a collective good, it is vitally important that there be an incentive for individuals to act as ``private Attorneys General'' to vindicate their individual rights and the public interest in a robust First Amendment. Our sister committee in the other body has found these fees ``an integral part of the remedies necessary to obtain . . . compliance'' and emphasized that ``[i]f the cost of private enforcement actions becomes too great, there will be no private enforcement.'' H.R. 2679 would turn the Establishment Clause into a hollow pronouncement. Indeed, the very purpose of this bill is to make it more difficult for citizens to challenge violations of the Establishment Clause. It would require plaintiffs who have successfully proven that the government has violated their constitutional rights to pay their legal fees--often totaling tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. Few citizens can afford to do so, but more importantly, citizens should not be required to do so where there is a finding that our government has engaged in unconstitutional behavior. If our civil rights laws are not to become empty words written on parchment which the average citizen cannot enforce, we must maintain the traditionally effective remedy of fee shifting in these cases.'' In sum, I oppose H.R. 2679 because I believe the elimination of attorneys' fees for Establishment Clause cases would deter attorneys from taking cases in which the Government has violated the Constitution; thereby leaving injured parties without representation and without a remedy. It will insulate serious constitutional violations from judicial review. This effectively leaves religious minorities subject to the unbridled whims of the majority, which is precisely the evil the First Amendment, including its Establishment Clause, was intended to combat. 2. H.R. 2679 Denies Just Compensation. I am a former judge and, like many members of this Committee, an attorney. We know that attorneys' fees are not awarded in Establishment Clause cases as a punitive measure. Rather, as in any case where the Government violates its citizens' civil or constitutional rights, the award of attorneys' fees is reasonable compensation for the expenses of litigation awarded at the discretion of the court. In fact, after intensive fact-finding, Congress determined that the amount of attorneys fees awarded after review by the court ``are adequate to attract competent counsel, but . . . do not produce windfalls to attorneys.'' Thus, H.R. 2679 is contrary to good public policy because it reduces enforcement of constitutional rights; it has a chilling effect on those who have been harmed by the Government; it makes it exceedingly difficult for plaintiffs to avail themselves of the services of attorneys experienced and skilled in constitutional litigation, and it prevents attorneys from acting in the public's good. 3. H.R. 2679 Favors Enforcement of the Free Exercise Clause Over the Establishment Clause. Finally, one cannot help but notice that H.R. 2679 creates an arbitrary congressional policy in favor of the enforcement of the Free Exercise Clause, while simultaneously impeding individuals injured by governmental conduct under the Establishment Clause. Among the greatest religious protections granted to American citizens are the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The right to practice religion, or no religion at all, is among the most fundamental of the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Religious liberty can only truly flourish when a government protects the Free Exercise of religion while prohibiting government-sponsored endorsement, coercion and funding of religion. Through the denial of attorneys' fee awards under H.R. 2679, plaintiffs will be able to afford the expense of litigation only when they are seeking to protect certain constitutional rights but not others. This bad congressional policy serves to create a dangerous double standard by favoring cases brought under the Free Exercise Clause, but severely restricting cases under the Establishment clause. 4. Conclusion If the Constitution is to be meaningful, every American must have equal access to the federal courts to vindicate his or her fundamental constitutional rights. The ability to recover attorneys' fees in successful cases is an essential component of the enforcement of these rights, as Congress has long recognized. H.R. 2679 is a direct attack on the religious freedoms of individuals. Therefore, I cannot support it. I am pleased to learn that I am supported in my opposition to this ill-conceived and unwarranted assault on the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by some of the most thoughtful and knowledgeable groups on this subject in America, including: African American Ministers in Action, American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, American Civil Liberties Unions, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Jewish Counsel for Public Affairs, People for the American Way, The Urban League, American-Arab Anti- Discrimination Committee, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Senior Citizens Law Center. I urge my colleagues to uphold the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and join me in opposing this shameful piece of legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I think the discussion my good friend has just enunciated is the basis of the frustration of so many of us here in the United States Congress. In fact, we have done a horrible job of oversight and explaining to the American people that we, frankly, this government, this White House, frankly made a horrific mistake. We are not more safe because of the conflict in Iraq, and a lieutenant general of the United States Army, retired, who had been in Vietnam, said we have the exact same mess that we had in Vietnam. In fact, Iran is the one that is ecstatic, because we actually fought their war for them in terms of the actions of Saddam Hussein against Iran. We have boosted Iran's status in the region. That is, of course, of no interest to the United States. We have created an atmosphere that threatens Israel even more. The longer it goes on, it benefits al Qaeda and the insurgents. As we speak before this House on the defense appropriations, we remain committed to our U.S. soldiers. We thank them for their service. But in tribute to them, the 2,700 that are dead as we speak, and dying, the 18,000 that have been injured severely, this is not worth staying the course. And my words are an anecdote that is taken from this lieutenant general: ``It is like a person jumping off the Empire State Building, getting down to the 50th floor, waving at those in the window and saying, I am staying the course, and then plopping to the ground having committed suicide.'' We are committing suicide in Iraq. We are not safer than we were. This Congress has failed. I support the troops and the appropriations dealing with their issues, but to support and give tribute to those who have died, we need to bring our troops home and bring them home now, claiming victory, transitioning leadership into Iraq and into their surrounding allies and stopping the divide. We have depleted NATO. We have depleted our military resources. And we realize when we left Vietnam, our standing in the world was higher than it had ever been. When we leave Iraq, we will have a higher standing. We will be able to fight the war on terror. I am so sad that my colleague keeps saying the same old thing over and over again, staying the course and committing suicide.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues that are listening to this debate will probably claim its defining moment as redundancy. It is redundant because this is a bill that has been debated and discussed, and now it is an amendment to S. 403 which creates a lack of opportunity for any legislative initiative to get to the President's desk. Far be it for any of us who happen to be parents and have young women as daughters in our family to try to allow legislation to drive a barrier between a child and her parents. Nor can we morally allow the creation of chilling factors that prevent a youth from seeking help when they desperately need it. There lies the angst and the confusion and the misrepresentation of this debate. This is not a helpful legislative initiative. This is, in fact, a divisive initiative because we find that more than 61 percent of parents in States without mandatory parental consent or at least 61 percent with notice laws have knowledge of their daughter's pregnancy. The normal relationship of child and parent proceeds along a very helpful manner as long as we do not provide unnecessary intrusion beyond what has been accepted by the individual States. The State of Texas has provided that kind of barrier. Twenty-three States have, but another 23 have not committed to dividing parent from child. The greatest downside of this particular legislation is that it doesn't come to this floor with clean hands. If it did, it would have allowed us to have amendments, and this was a closed rule. I offered just a year ago or so an amendment with Mr. Nadler that expanded the exceptions to the prohibitions in this act of being able to assist a young lady in her time of trouble, to give exemptions to clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, and first cousins, family members and clergy that would be giving comfort to this particular individual who may be a victim of incest or rape and afraid and confused about the utilization or the act of going to their parents. Although I said that 61 percent do have that relationship, there may be others that don't. And so that would have been a responsible approach so that clergy would not become felons, as well as godparents and aunts or uncles, close family members. This country is used to and welcomes an extended family, families of different configurations. And so this legislation attempts to ignore that. And, sadly, what it does is it makes a political point just days away from elections, but it doesn't help our young people who may be suffering with the decision that they have to make. It may be because of incest or rape, or maybe they have been brutalized or they may be frightened, and the comfort this particular relative can give them is the kind of nurturing advice that will help them make a right decision. Maybe we want to subject our young people who may be subjected to decisions by parents who are forcing an abortion. It happens on either side, and it happened in the case of a 19-year-old girl from Maine because she was impregnated by an incarcerated person. So this is not a question of getting an abortion or not getting an abortion. This is a question of imploding family relations, and also altering the health system of America. It is a health issue. It is a health issue if the individual is injured, a health issue if it is jeopardizing the life of the young lady. And the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the American Public Health Association, all oppose mandatory involvement laws because of the dangers they pose to young women and the need for confidential access to physicians. So we are being redundant because this is around and around and around. This is over and over again. But there is no sincerity in passing this legislation because instead of taking S. 403, we have offered an alternative. That alternative will have to go back to the Senate. There is some tongue-in-cheek comment about we hope the Senate will consider our bill. Well, they are four days before the end of the session before we go off for our work in the district. Then, of course, there is a lame duck because this majority, Republican majority, has not finished its work, as usual. I don't think this is a reality that is going to happen. My prayer is that we will come together for the young people and for those impacted by this great tragedy and allow families to make decisions as they should. Vote down this bill. It serves no purpose, and it hurts the young people of America and divides families. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the legislation before the House, S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act. The provisions contained within this proposal are very inflexible and unreasonably punitive. Given the usual slant of my good colleagues on the other side of the aisle to favor uniformity in legislation, this bill is inconsistent with that purpose. Overall, S. 403 would force physicians to learn and enforce 49 other States' laws with respect to parental-involvement requirements. On its face, one of the policies that this bill seeks to enforce, the mandate that every parent will receive notice and can get involved when their daughter faces a crisis pregnancy, is a good one. However, one of its harmful effects is that it is unnecessarily punitive. In the absence of laws mandating parental involvement, young women come to their parents before or while they consider abortion. A study found that 61 percent of parents in States without mandatory parental consent or notice laws had knowledge of their daughter's pregnancy. Major health associations such as the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the American Public Health Association strongly oppose mandatory parental-involvement laws because of the dangers they pose to young women and the need for confidential access to physicians. This legislation poses such a risk by increasing the risk of harm to adolescents by obstructing their access to healthcare that could save their lives. In addition, well-respected organizations such as Planned Parenthood, Pro Choice America, and People for the American Way have expressed their opposition to this bill, which effectively isolates young women in need of help, and forces to seek alternative illegal and unsafe venues for terminating their pregnancy. After all, if you cannot trust your parents or your doctor to help you, what are your alternatives? According to an article by Lawrence B. Finer and Stanley K. Henshaw, only 13 percent of U.S. counties have abortion providers. Therefore, the fact that many young women seek abortions outside of their home state is not solely attributable to an avoidance of home state law. The last time we saw this bill, I offered an amendment with Mr. Nadler of New York that expanded the exceptions to the prohibitions of this act to include ``conduct by clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, or first cousins.'' This amendment was a very simple but necessary dampening of the excessive punitive nature of this legislation. This amendment is also demonstrative of the negative consequences this bill would directly and inadvertently cause. A young woman should not lose her right to seek counsel and guidance from a member of the clergy, her godparent, or the family member if she so desires. The mandatory parental-involvement laws already create a draconian framework under which a young woman loses many of her civil rights. My state, Texas, is one of 23 states (AL, AZ, AR, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, ND, PA, RI, SD, TN, UT, TX, VA, WY) that follow old provisions of the ``Child Custody Protection Act'' which make it a Federal crime for an adult to accompany a minor across State lines for abortion services if a woman comes from a State with a strict parental- involvement mandate. There are 10 States (CO, DE, IA, ME, MD, NC, OR, SC, WI, WV) that are ``non-compliant,'' or require some parental notice but other adults may be notified, may give consent, or the requirement may be waived by a health care provider in lieu of the parental consent. Finally, there are 17 States (AK, CA, CT, DC, FL, ID, IL, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OK, OR, VT, WA) that have no law restricting a woman's access to abortion in this case. Given the disparity in State law requirements for the parental- notification requirement, not giving a young woman the right to seek assistance in deciding from a member of the clergy, a godparent, or family member could increase the health risks that she faces. Young women as a population group are more likely to seek abortion later in their pregnancy. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have shown that adolescents obtain 30 percent of all abortions after the first trimester, and younger women are more likely to obtain an abortion at 21 weeks or more gestation. The provisions of S. 403 will exacerbate this dangerous trend. Mr. Speaker, this bill will add an unnecessary layer of legality, travel time, and mandatory delay to the already difficult job that physicians have in providing quality care to their patients. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have consistently advocated for protection of health care providers by way of tort reform. This legislation flies in the face of that initiative and is totally inconsistent with it. We cannot let legislation drive a barrier between a child and her parents, nor can we morally allow the creation of chilling factors that prevents a youth from seeking help when it is desperately needed. I ask my colleagues to reject this bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Meek both for their leadership. This has been a committee that has found common ground in many instances, and certainly I rise to support the More Border Patrol Agents Now Act of 2006, which would help develop a plan that would give us a long-term opportunity to plan over the years for recruitment of our Border Patrol agents. Let me tell you what else I think is needed that I hope will be included in our long-range plan, an affirmation of the Border Patrol agents, of the value of their work, the necessity of their work. Certainly we know that there have been some ups and downs. Right now, we are confronting an issue in Texas about the prosecution of Border Patrol agents and whether the facts were in order, but I think it is important that they know the rules, they have professional development, and as well there is a definitive way to recruit. But let me say to you that I hope that as we move toward legislation that addresses the question of Border Patrol agents, we will address the question of professional development, their civil service status. And I would commend to you H.R. 4044, legislation that I wrote, that I had the endorsement of the National Border Patrol Council. Mr. T.J. Bonner is president, who is seeking to ensure that there is a civil service protection for Border Patrol agents and there is a certain elevation of their level that speaks to their compensation. So that has to be a part of the package of recruitment as well. And, of course, advancement, salary increases, these are real, hard-core issues that will help retain those that we hire. Lastly, let me say that, in addition, we do want to ensure that they have the equipment; and I know we have had a series of amendments taken from H.R. 4044, the leadership of Mr. Thompson and the full committee for body armor and special weapons and night vision and computers. We have to give them the equipment that they need to ensure that they can do the job. And I know, as I see Mr. Rogers and my good friend, the ranking member, I see the word ``accountability,'' not wasting dollars and making sure that we go in the right direction in terms of expending these dollars for our Border Patrol so that we make sure that we are an efficient department. I want to do that, too. I close on this note: The question is always asked whether or not we are safer today than we were 5 years ago. Certainly what is missing is we have not kept up with the 9/11 Commission report in providing Border Patrol agents in the numbers that we should have provided. Certainly any statement that we make today on the floor that commends Border Patrol agents and thanks them but also talks about having more of them is a step in the right direction. And I would only ask my colleagues to realize that in being safe at home, we have to confront the issues dealing with our conflict in Iraq. But I do rise to support this legislation. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I ask my colleagues to support the More Border Patrol Agents Now Act of 2006. And I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida and the full committee. I rise in support of the More Border Patrol Agents Now Act of 2006, H.R. 6160. The More Border Patrol Agents Now Act would require the Homeland Security Secretary to develop a plan to determine how the Border Patrol can better recruit and retain Border Patrol agents. It also would establish bonuses for agents who agree to serve for a specified period of time. In addition, it would waive the offset that reemployed annuitants currently have to pay if they return to government service after retirement. The authority to provide these incentives would terminate five years after the enactment of H.R. 6160. I agree that we should require the Homeland Security Secretary to develop a plan to determine how the Border Patrol can better recruit and retain Border Patrol agents. I also agree that we should authorize the incentives. But much more is needed to deal effectively with the retention and recruitment issues of the Border Patrol. We also need to provide the Border Patrol with the equipment and resources they need to secure the border. I have introduced a bill that would provide the Border Patrol with the equipment and resources they need, the Rapid Response Border Protection Act of 2005, H.R. 4044. H.R. 4044 would add 15,000 Border Patrol agents over the next five years, increasing the number of agents from 11,000 to 26,000. With more than 8,000 miles of land and coastal borders to patrol continuously, it is evident that this increase is desperately needed, particularly if they are to be able to respond in sufficient numbers when heavily armed smugglers are encountered. H.R. 4044 also has provisions for body armor, special weapons, and night vision equipment. H.R. 4044 is strongly endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council and the National Homeland Security Council, organizations that represent the front-line employees who enforce our immigration and customs laws. I have said often that a piecemeal approach to immigration reform will not work. We need comprehensive immigration reform that will fix our broken immigration system, such as would be provided by my Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act, H.R. 2092. But even a good immigration system will not stop drug smugglers from crossing our borders illegally. For that, we need a Border Patrol with enough agents to patrol the entire border effectively, and they have to have the weapons and other equipment that is necessary for confrontations with heavily armed drug smugglers and the other dangerous criminals who cross the border illegally. Nevertheless, the More Border Patrol Agents Now Act is a step in the right direction. I urge you to vote for it.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished member of our committee, the gentlewoman from California, and we acknowledge her ongoing leadership on these issues, certainly Mr. Souder for his leadership, and my good friend, Mr. Jones from North Carolina. We have had a common discussion on those very important issues. Let me applaud you for bringing this resolution to the floor of the House which gives us an opportunity to affirm our commitment and appreciation for the Border Patrol agents that serve America's front lines. Let me share with you the good work, impressive work that our Border Patrol agents have been involved in. First of all, they have patrolled our borders since 1924. They are, in fact, the Nation's front liners. For example, in fiscal year 2005, Border Patrol agents made almost 1.2 million arrests of people for illegally entering the country. They seized more than 12,300 pounds of cocaine, more than 1.2 million pounds of marijuana. The total street value of drugs interdicted in fiscal year 2005 was more than $1.4 billion. We are long overdue in affirming and applauding the Border Patrol agents of America, both on the northern and southern border. The Border Patrol also is charged with the responsibility of preventing terrorists and terrorists' weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, from entering the United States. They are there day in and day out. They are there Sunday through Sunday, 7 days a week, year in and year out, holidays and nonholidays. The Border Patrol agents are there when we are asleep, and they are there when we are awake. But of course in terms of responding to the concerns that they have, I would be remiss if I did not mention that we have legislation, H.R. 4044, to provide more equipment, 15,000 Border Patrol agents over the next 5 years, increasing the number of agents from 11,000 to 26,000. With more than 8,000 miles of land and coastal borders to patrol continuously, it is evident that an increase is needed, but more importantly resources are needed and professionalism is needed. Mr. Speaker, let me speak for a moment on professionalism. This tragedy that has occurred in Texas, my own State, cries out for relief. We are looking to address this question by getting the facts and moving, hopefully expeditiously, for hearings in this Congress. Mr. Jones, I hope that you will encourage, as I am, the committees of jurisdiction to go ahead and hold hearings. Because what we are are fact finders. We do not misspeak, we hope. We do not pass myths and untruths, we hope. We tell the American people the truth, we hope. I say that, because, of course, I have debated many bills on this floor where there is a great disagreement on the facts that are involved. And many of us have had our differences on the Iraq war and still believe in the misdirection of that issue. But in this instance, I think we can find common ground that the men and women that are on the front lines, whether they are DEA, drug enforcement agents, FBI, whether they be ATF, whether they are U.S. marshals, deserve the opportunity to have their story fairly told. And what I can glean from the facts of this case in Texas is there are questions about whether their facts have been told correctly and whether or not they have been told appropriately. So to the Border Patrol agents as we stand here and congratulate you, I know that you ask us whether there is a bite in our bark, whether or not as we stand here and affirm you, we promise that we will look into the issues of professionalism and your civil service status and your right to arbitration and your right to address your issues of workplace questions in an organized manner. You are asking us whether we are going to provide you with the necessary new Border Patrol agents, whether or not we are going to give you the equipment that includes power boats and includes night goggles and computers and a number of other equipment, helicopters, that will give you what you need to have. And then you ask the question, when you are in the line of duty, will we stand by you with the facts? Will we have the wherewithal to ensure that all of the facts are on the table, so that the miscarriage of justice, prosecution, ultimate incarceration, destruction of your family, does not occur on the clock of Members of the United States Congress? So I rise to support this initiative of my friend, Mr. Jones from North Carolina, H. Res. 1030, and I enthusiastically affirm the invaluable service that the United States Border Patrol agents are performing for America as they stand in the way, in the bridge, if you will, on the northern and southern border. In the darkness of night, in the coldness of night, in the warmness of night, in the rainiest of nights, and in the greatest disasters that may face us, Border Patrol agents are there to protect us. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I ask that we be able to address the questions that are being raised in Texas in fairness and opportunity for fairness. I rise in support of House Resolution 1030, which would express the sense of the House of Representatives that the Border Patrol is performing an invaluable service to the United States, and that the House of Representatives fully supports the more than 12,000 Border Patrol agents. Border Patrol agents have patrolled our borders since 1924, and they have an impressive record of accomplishments. For instance, in FY 2005, Border Patrol Agents made almost 1.2 million arrests of people for illegally entering the country, and they seized more than 12,300 pounds of cocaine and more than 1.2 million pounds of marijuana. The total street value of drugs interdicted in FY 2005 was more than $1.4 billion. The Border Patrol also is charged with the responsibility of preventing terrorists and terrorists weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, from entering the United States. Although we should express our support for the Border Patrol, we also should provide the Border Patrol agents with the equipment and resources they need to secure the border. We need a Border Patrol with enough agents to patrol the entire border effectively, and they have to have the weapons and other equipment that is necessary for confrontations with heavily armed drug smugglers and the other dangerous criminals who cross the border illegally. I have introduced a bill that would provide the Border Patrol with the equipment and resources they need, the Rapid Response Border Protection Act of 2005, H.R. 4044. H.R. 4044 would add 15,000 Border Patrol agents over the next five years, increasing the number of agents from 11,000 to 26,000. With more than 8,000 miles of land and coastal borders to patrol continuously, it is evident that this increase is desperately needed, particularly if they are to be able to respond in sufficient numbers when heavily armed smugglers are encountered. H.R. 4044 also has provisions for body armor, special weapons, and night vision equipment. H.R. 4044 is strongly endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council and the National Homeland Security Council, organizations that represent the front-line employees who enforce our immigration and customs laws. Nevertheless, it also is important to express our support for the hard work and dedication of the men and women in the Border Patrol, and of course I further salute all of the men and women who provide service in the securing of our Homeland at the northern and southern borders and at our ports, ports of entry and coastlines. I ask my colleagues to vote for H. Res. 1030.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 5835, to amend Title 38, United States Code 106-348, to improve information management within the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. In June, the Defense Department revealed that the personal information of about 2.2 million National Guard and Reserve troops was stolen from a government employee's house. In August of this year, the Department of Veterans Affairs reported that a subcontractor's missing laptop contained personal information of some 16,000 veterans and their families who were treated in VA medical centers in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. Even more astonishing is the fact that earlier this month, the Commerce Department reported that 1,100 of its laptops were missing from the last five years, some containing personal data from the U.S. Census Bureau. These incidences of missing sensitive personal data are no small matters of concern. All of us as citizens of this great country expect to enjoy the privilege of privacy when it comes to our often sensitive personal data. As we are all well aware, such information can be easily mishandled and misused to the detriment of anyone who becomes so- victimized. This reason alone is why it is crucial to provide sufficient safeguards to prevent or at the very least minimize the degree to which the privacy of sensitive personal data of our veterans as well as all the citizens of this country may become compromised. H.R. 5835 provides safeguards to: Amend FISMA (Federal Information Security Management Act) to authorize the Director of OMB to establish data breach policies for agencies to follow in the event of a breach of data security involving the disclosure of sensitive personal information and which harm to an individual could reasonably be expected to result; Amend FISMA to clarify authority of Chief Information Officer to enforce data breach policies and develop and maintain IT inventories; Amend FISMA to define sensitive personal information as ``any information about an individual maintained by an agency, including: education, financial transactions, medical history, criminal or employment history; information that can be used to distinguish or trace the individual's identity, including name, Social Security number, date and place of birth, mother's maiden name, or biometric records; or any other personal information that is linked or linkable to the individual; Create the position of Under Secretary for Information Services in the VA and mandates that this individual serve as the VA's CIO; Mandate that the office of the Under Secretary for Information Services shall consist of the three Deputy Under Secretaries (at least one of whom is to be a career employee); Call for the VA to ensure that the CIO has the authority and control necessary to execute responsibilities under FISMA and requires an annual FISMA compliance report to be submitted to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the House and Senate, the House Government Reform Committee, and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee; it also requires a monthly report from the VA CIO to the VA Secretary regarding compliance deficiencies; and to require immediate notification by the CIO to the VA Secretary of any data breach, and notice by the VA to the Director of OMB, VA IG, and if appropriate, to the FTC and Secret Service; Require quarterly reports from the VA to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the House and Senate on any data breach that occurred in the previous quarter and to also require prompt notice in the event of a significant data breach; Require the VA to undertake, as soon as possible after a data breach, an independent risk analysis (conducted by a non-VA entity). The Secretary shall then make a determination, based upon this analysis, if there exists a reasonable risk for potential misuse of the compromised data. If the Secretary does determine that this potential exists, then the VA is required to provide credit protection services. In the event of any data breach, the VA shall notify all affected individuals of the breach and inform them that they may request, at no charge, a fraud alert and a credit security freeze for a period of one year. The notification is to clearly spell out the advantages and disadvantages to requesting these actions; Require the VA to provide credit protection services, including data breach analysis, credit monitoring services and identity theft insurance, to covered individuals (defined as individuals whose sensitive personal information is involved in a data breach, on or after August 1, 2005 for which the Secretary determines a reasonable risk exists for the potential misuse of the sensitive personal information). Authorizes the VA to contract with other government agencies and credit reporting agencies to provide these services; Require that when the VA enters into a contract that the contractor shall not compromise any sensitive personal information. In the event of a breach, the contractor shall pay liquidated damages (which will then be used by the VA to provide credit protection services); Require the VA to submit a report not later than 180 days after enactment concerning the feasibility of using Personal Identification Numbers for identification purposes in lieu of Social Security numbers; Require the President to nominate the Under Secretary for Information Services and the VA to appoint the Deputy Under Secretaries within 180 days of enactment. Requires a report on the progress of the nomination and appointments every 30 days. All of these measures are essential pieces to ensuring that the privacy of personal sensitive data of all of our citizens is not compromised. We are far behind in taking action to ensure that integrity of information in this nation. This bill is an important first step. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.