Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Res. 1016 to encourage all offices of the House of Representatives to hire disabled veterans. The men and women of our Armed Forces play a central role in preserving our Nation's freedom. In this role, these men and women gain very valuable skills, and knowledge which is crucial to the successful operations and functions of our military. The vast array of valuable skills that disabled veterans possess include those in intelligence, medicine, law and beyond. Such knowledge is not to be undervalued. There are over 3 million living disabled veterans in this country, a number which unfortunately continues to rise as we remain engaged in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Let us respect and honor the invaluable service of all past and future disabled veterans by ensuring that they may continue to use their unique talents, knowledge and skills. Congress relies on knowledgeable staff to help formulate policy. Disabled veterans provide unique perspectives on a range of issues, especially regarding national security. Disabled veterans have sacrificed greatly for this country. It is indeed no sacrifice at all for us to take advantage of the unique education and experience that our veterans will bring as administrative, legislative and support staff to the House offices. This Nation can repay its debt to those disabled veterans by helping disabled veterans continue to support the many important functions of our government, as well as continue to serve their country. Such a partnership is a win-win situation, and yet I am inclined to think that it is we who will benefit most from the contributions. Mr. Speaker, we must ensure that when our veterans become disabled as a result of their military service, their service and skills do not dry up like a raisin in the sun but continue to bear fruit that can serve this great Nation well. By employing disabled veterans, we show that we have confidence in and value their skills. We all know that it is exceedingly difficult to gain employment as a disabled individual, let alone as a veteran adjusting to civilian life. This is simply one step we can make as a legislative body to ease the transition and assist a population in need. I am virtually certain that we all value the time and service of all of our veterans who have faithfully served to protect the interests of this great Nation and its citizens. We certainly would like to express that sentiment here today by passage of H.R. 1016 to encourage all offices of the House of Representatives to hire disabled veterans. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Green Chemistry Research and Development Program is intended to promote and coordinate Federal green chemistry research, development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer activities. 1. Prevent waste: Design chemical syntheses to prevent waste, leaving no waste to treat or clean up. 2. Design safer chemicals and products: Design chemical products to be fully effective, yet have little or no toxicity. 3. Design less hazardous chemical syntheses: Design syntheses to use and generate substances with little or no toxicity to humans and the environment. 4. Use renewable feedstocks: Use raw materials and feedstocks that are renewable rather than depleting. Renewable feedstocks are often made from agricultural products or are the wastes of other processes; depleting feedstocks are made from fossil fuels (petroleum, natural gas, or coal) or are mined. 5. Use catalysts, not stoichiometric reagents: Minimize waste by using catalytic reactions. Catalysts are used in small amounts and can carry out a single reaction many times. They are preferable to stoichiometric reagents, which are used in excess and work only once. 6. Avoid chemical derivatives: Avoid using blocking or protecting groups or any temporary modifications if possible. Derivatives use additional reagents and generate waste. 7. Maximize atom economy: Design syntheses so that the final product contains the maximum proportion of the starting materials. There should be few, if any, wasted atoms. 8. Use safer solvents and reaction conditions: Avoid using solvents, separation agents, or other auxiliary chemicals. If these chemicals are necessary, use innocuous chemicals. 9. Increase energy efficiency: Run chemical reactions at ambient temperature and pressure whenever possible. 10. Design chemicals and products to degrade after use: Design chemical products to break down to innocuous substances after use so that they do not accumulate in the environment. 11. Analyze in real time to prevent pollution: Include in-process real-time monitoring and control during syntheses to minimize or eliminate the formation of byproducts. 12. Minimize the potential for accidents: Design chemicals and their forms (solid, liquid, or gas) to minimize the potential for chemical accidents including explosions, fires, and releases to the environment. This bill provides for sustained support for green chemistry research, development, demonstration, education, and technology transfer through merit-reviewed competitive grants to individual investigators and teams of investigators, including young investigators. The legislation includes grants to fund collaborative research and development partnerships among universities, industry, and nonprofit organizations. Additionally, provisions provide for green chemistry research, development, demonstration, and technology transfer conducted at Federal laboratories. H.R. 1215 will establish an Interagency Working Group, which will include representatives from the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and any other agency that the President designates. The Director of the National Science Foundation and the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development of the Environmental Protection Agency will serve as co-chairs of the Interagency Working Group. The Interagency Working Group shall oversee the planning, management, and coordination of the Program. As part of the Program activities under Section 3, the Director of the National Science Foundation shall carry out a program to award grants to institutions of higher education to support efforts by such institutions to revise their undergraduate curriculum in chemistry and chemical engineering to incorporate green chemistry concepts and strategies. It is important to encourage sustainable and environmentally sound research goals, and I encourage my colleagues to support this measure.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5136, the National Integrated Drought Information System Act of 2006. The National Integrated Drought Information System within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is intended to improve drought monitoring and forecasting capabilities. Droughts can lead to a deficiency in surface or subsurface water supplies, including rivers, streams, wetlands, ground water, soil moisture, economic or social impact, as well as substantial physical damage or injury to individuals, property, or the environment. A drought is defined as ``a period of abnormally dry weather sufficiently prolonged for the lack of water to cause serious hydrologic imbalance in the affected area.'' The worst drought in 50 years affected at least 35 States during the long hot summer of 1988. In some areas the lack of rainfall dated back to 1984. In 1988, rainfall totals over the Midwest, Northern Plains, and the Rockies were 50-85 percent below normal. Crops and livestock died and some areas became desert. The economic and environmental impact is clear, and this legislation addresses a direct need. This legislation establishes the National Integrated Drought Information System in order to provide an effective drought early warning system that acts as a comprehensive system that collects and integrates information on the key indicators of drought. The goal is to make usable, reliable, and timely drought forecasts and assessments of drought, including assessments of the severity of drought conditions and impacts. Ideally, this information network would communicate drought forecasts, drought conditions, and drought impacts on an ongoing basis to decisionmakers at the Federal, regional, State, tribal, and local levels of government, as well as to the private sector and the public. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 948, recognizing the dedication of the employees at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Stennis Space Center. I cannot honor and commend these employees enough for their heroism during and after Hurricane Katrina's assault on Mississippi. The Stennis Space Center employees provided shelter and medical care to storm evacuees and logistical support for storm recovery efforts, while effectively maintaining critical facilities at the center. During Hurricane Katrina, some 3,700 persons, including employees, their immediate and extended families, and members of the general public, sought shelter at the Stennis Space Center. The Stennis cafeteria, which normally serves about 175 breakfasts and 600 lunches each day, served 3,000 meals 3 times a day to evacuees, for a period of a week following the storm. Before, during, and in the immediate aftermath of the storm, the small staff of the Stennis Medical Clinic provided medical care to all who needed it among the evacuees onsite. This included some 20 special needs patients, and soon after the storm, the Stennis clinic staff was complemented by medical personnel airlifted from other National Aeronautics and Space Administration Centers. Although commercial electrical power was not available to Stennis for 10 days following the storm, electrical power was maintained to all essential buildings through the extensive use of diesel-powered generators and the around the clock efforts of a team of individuals who mechanically maintained those generators and kept them fueled. This also enabled the pumps on Stennis's deep-water wells to provide a continuous supply of potable water for drinking, cooking, and sanitation to support the 3,700 people onsite. These brave individuals include: Cheryl Bennett, James Bevis, Terry Bordelon, Steve Brettel, Vicki Brown, Bill Brumfield, Kirt Bush, Paul Byrd, Ethan Calder, Marla Carpenter, David Carstens, Jonathan Clemens, Eric Crawford, Cheri Cuevas, John Davenport, David Del Santo, Isaac DeLancey, Jim Freeman, Greg Garrett, Dave Geiger, Stan Gill, Don Griffith, Haynes Haselmaier, Coby Holloway, Gay Irby, Manning ``JJ'' Jones, Catriona Ladner, David Ladner, Richard Ladner, Stanley Lee, Michelle Logan, Ron Magee, Sharlene Majors, Steve McCord, Pat McCullough, Michael McDaniel, Mike McKinion, Kirk Miller, John Mitchell, Ron Moore, David R. Oakes, Kevin A. Oliver, Alan Phillips, John Nick Pitalo, Allen Price, Porter Pryor, Margaret Roberts, Miguel Rodriguez, Jason Saucier, Dale Sewell, Donald Seymore, Kathy Slade, Sue Smith, David Throckmorton, Karen Vander, John Waquespack, Rodney Wilkinson, Robert Williams, and Michael J. Witt. Thank you, to all of these employees, for their selfless and honorable actions. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 4275, to amend Public Law 106-348 to extend the authorization for establishing a memorial in the District of Columbia or its environs to honor veterans who became disabled while serving in the Armed Forces of the United States. The passage of H.R. 4275 would authorize an additional 8 years for the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation, Foundation to establish the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial in the District of Columbia. The original authorization date to establish the memorial was October 24, 2000 and is set to expire on October 24, 2007 if the Foundation has not secured a permit to begin construction from the National Park Service, NPS, before that date. Mr. Speaker, we must pass H.R. 4275 to ensure that the well-deserved memorial to honor disabled veterans can come to its fruition. I am virtually certain that we all value the time and service of all of our veterans, who have faithfully served to protect the interests of this great Nation and its citizens. We certainly would like to express that sentiment here today by passage of H.R. 4275 to honor permanently disabled veterans. A mere technical permit incompletion cannot be allowed to erase our wholehearted intent and desire to support the establishment of an appropriate memorial to honor our disabled veterans--those men and women who have unselfishly sacrificed dreams for duty, and limbs and lives for liberty. The extension request is certainly a reasonable one. Given the unique aspects of the site and the need to secure adequate traffic patterns in order to achieve both a site worthy of this memorial and the appropriate urban design in relation to the U.S. Capitol and the U.S. Botanic Gardens, the Foundation should be given additional time for the continued fundraising, design and development that is necessary. If giving extra time is crucial to the successful completion of this memorial, it is only fair to give it. For these honorable veterans have already given us their time. Indeed, allowing an extension for this memorial project is not new. We have granted other similar extensions for the completion of memorials. These extensions include the memorials to Women in Military Service for America, George Mason, World War II, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Victims of Communism. There are over 3 million living disabled veterans in this country, a number which unfortunately continues to rise as we remain engaged in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Let us respect and honor the invaluable service of all past and future disabled veterans by ensuring that the Foundation is granted an extension necessary to complete the Americans Disabled Veterans For Life Memorial. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1017, affirming the sovereignty and security of Lebanon and urging the government of Lebanon to request a robust international force deployment on its border with Syria to prevent the re-supply of weapons to Hezbollah. I have long been an advocate for a secure and sovereign Lebanon. I believe that the democratic government of Lebanon is one of the most important democracies in the region, which warrants our recognition and protection. The remarkable Cedar Revolution led to the withdrawal and end of the Syrian military's occupation of Lebanon, which had lasted three decades. This was a significant step toward Lebanese independence and sovereignty since the outbreak of civil war in 1975. However, the presence of Syrian security personnel in Lebanon continues as does Syrian economic and military support to Hezbollah. During the conflict between Israel and Lebanon, the government of Lebanon called for the deployment of Lebanese armed forces throughout Lebanese territory. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended this conflict, authorized an enhanced U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) to accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout the south of Lebanon. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 also calls for the enhanced UNIFIL force to, at the request of the Lebanese government, assist Lebanon in securing its borders and other entry points to prevent the entry of arms or related materials without Lebanon's consent. I agree with this Resolution's urging the Lebanese government to request from UNIFIL a robust international force deployment on Lebanon's border with Syria so as to prevent the re-supply of weapons to Hezbollah and to ensure the full implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Lebanese armed forces need the assistance of an international force in order to adequately interdict arms-smuggling along the Syrian border. Although the government of Lebanon has not yet requested this assistance on the Syrian border from UNIFIL, they may have been discouraged by statements from Syria's President claim that he would consider the deployment of international force deployment on the Lebanese-Syrian border a ``hostile'' act. I believe that such a UNIFIL force on the Lebanese-Syrian border is manifestly in the interests of Lebanon and the international community, which seek the full sovereignty and security of Lebanon, and peace and stability in the Middle East. This is a defining moment in Lebanon's history. We must have and exercise the moral courage necessary to bring peace, stability, and justice to this troubled region of the world. The best way to honor the innocent victims of past conflicts in the Middle East is to ensure similar conflicts do not occur in the future. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution, and I encourage continued humanitarian aid for the people still suffering in the region.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 989, commending the United Kingdom for its efforts in the War on Terror, and for other purposes. United Kingdom and the United States have been close allies in not only two World Wars and Operation Desert Storm, but also the Global War on Terror. We are cousins and we are friends, with a common history and common cause. On September 11, 2001, the United Kingdom reached out to us in sympathy and friendship, and joined us in facing the emerging threat of religious fundamental extremism. Sadly, on July 7, 2005, we reached out in turn as Britain suffered a terrorist attack on its London Underground and a bus, killing 56 people including four suicide bombers. As they suffered, so did we suffer, remembering the pain and confusion, the shock and the remorse. We have struggled to find sound policy to protect our homelands, and have stood shoulder to shoulder to develop effective strategies. Though we earn the criticism of many nations, including that of the United Kingdom, the conversation remains honest and open. The averted threat this past summer in fact illustrates the necessity of a global strategy, as well as the partnership of the United States and the United Kingdom. On August 10, 2006, British police arrested 24 people for plotting to commit acts of terror on trans-Atlantic flights with the help of the Pakistan Government. As of August 31, 2006, 12 citizens have been charged for their roles in the terror plot, including eight citizens charged with conspiracy to murder. This is only the latest demonstration that terrorism is not restrained by borders. Our gratitude for this heroic and brave effort can only be expressed in our ongoing perseverance and commitment to eradicating threats such as these. We are brothers in arms, united by history and by creed. I wish the same blessings for the United Kingdom as I do for our own nation-- safety, security, prosperity, and wisdom to make decisions that are forward thinking, democratic, and just. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and honor the accomplishments of the United Kingdom in the War on Terror.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, in the early evening hours of last Thursday, Officer Rodney Johnson lost his life in the line of duty. And out of that most horrific tragedy came an outpouring of love, affection, and admiration for one of Houston's finest. Officer Johnson's story, although he lived it every day, began to unfold. Alongside of this valiant officer was his valiant wife, a Houston Police Department officer by the name of Jocelyn Johnson. Both were the parents of five wonderful children. Included in the extended family were sisters and mothers and his very special sister, Susan Johnson. They were a family that were well known. Many of them or some of them were members or participants at the Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church in my congressional district, where at the time Reverend William Lawson was the pastor. As we begin to learn, know, and understand Officer Johnson, as I indicated, the hearts of Houstonians poured out to him and his family. I think what was most telling about how this family loved each other were the kind words or the words of nonhatred of his wife, when asked if she hated the perpetrator, who now has confessed and is in police custody, and she said no. What a statement of valor. What a statement of courage. What a statement of leadership. So this evening I pay tribute to Officer Rodney Johnson for his life and his legacy. As the story unfolds, he was a wonderful husband, a loving father, and an outstanding police officer. As I traveled around my district offering condolences to the number of men and women in blue that I saw, each one of them would say, we have lost a friend. You really needed to know Officer Rodney Johnson. He did so much. He cared so much. In fact, there was a story that indicated that he might have overslept on that day, but his wife woke him up and so he went on to work. When told the story, there was some reminiscing as to maybe that should not have happened, but then there was a thought that if he had woken up and found that he had overslept that he would, in fact, have gone to work because that is the kind of police officer Officer Rodney Johnson was and his legacy will continue to attest to. He was a police officer's police officer, and he was a community servant. He worked with those who were in trouble. He worked with those who were at risk. He worked with community programs. He was a community Santa Claus because he was a big man, big with love, with earnestness, sincerity, and hard work. And, yes, he cared about his performance. He cared about his fellow brothers and sisters. And, of course, he loved his family. So as Houston mourns, it shows what a city Houston is with a big heart. This evening there is a prayer vigil where a large gigantic card will be signed by all Houstonians. Yesterday, Quanell X organized in front of the Denny's in Third Ward, Texas, a fundraising effort that generated some $7,600 just in the afternoon, Sunday afternoon. People drove up and came from all over to provide resources for the family. We are now planning a community-wide memorial that will take place this week after the funeralizing of this valiant and brilliant officer. Most of all, we want to say to the family, his children, his wife, his sister, and many other relatives that we love Rodney for who he was. We love him for his legacy. We love his story and his commitment to our safety. And we will continue to work to provide more resources so our police officers can be more secure. Traveling not with one officer but two officers. A bullet-proof separation between the driver and the perpetrator or the arrested person. And, yes, we will not scapegoat a whole class of individuals because the individual involved in this may have been without status. The community is rallying together. The community is now honoring and mourning Officer Rodney Johnson. That is what we want this week to be, a tribute to his life and his legacy; and we want to move forward in tribute to him as we go into the weeks to come to provide more finances for our local police authorities, more cops on the beat, and, yes, to look into the request that his wife made that we find an opportunity or the resources to secure the driver and the perpetrator, to provide a bullet-proof separation from our police officers and the arrested person. May Rodney Johnson rest in peace. May God bless his family and his children. May God continue to give them peace and comfort in His grace and mercy. My friend, our friend, Officer Rodney Johnson, well done, our good and faithful servant.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am here because I indicated that I believe that this debate or these debates that we have had over these last couple of hours may be some of the most important lifesaving efforts that this Congress can spend its time on this week. We have heard our colleagues over and over again talk about the devastation and the outrage of what is going on in Sudan. Let me thank Mr. Lantos and Mr. Hyde and Mr. Payne because I am reminded that, as my good friend and colleague who just recently debated this question on the floor reminded us, we have been here before. And when we came here before, we should have moved this legislation, not contending to give deference to the leader of Sudan anymore because he has obviously shown us that it is not his intention to do what is right for the suffering people. I have mentioned the fact that there are so many who have fled and who have been devastated out of the camps. So many women, so many poor conditions, so many harsh conditions, lack of water, lack of clothing, lack of housing and shelter, if you will, and certainly the inability to protect oneself. This legislation provides the sanctions against those who will perpetrate this horrible violence, but it also is the kind of strong legislation that is needed. And as my good friend from California, Ranking Member Mr. Lantos, has said, it could do more. We could support divestiture. And, frankly, that is why I am supporting the legislation of Congresswoman Barbara Lee to call for the divestiture all over the Nation of any investment in Sudan. But allow me to share with you why this is such an important initiative. We have just heard from the President of Sudan, who has now begun new military offenses in Darfur and who has gone from country to country, Morocco, Egypt, and argued his case that he does not want U.N. peacekeepers in Sudan. Who is he to reject U.N. peacekeepers when he is perpetrating violence on his own constituents, his own people? Now, we have stood on this floor and we have affirmed some of the positive steps that our good friends in the Arab world are making, and I do not step away from that. But this is a time, with the passage of this legislation, for Algeria and Morocco and Egypt to reject the pleas of the Khartoum government and allow U.N. peacekeepers into the Sudan. This is a time for this legislation, which was passed some months back, to be able to immediately go to the President's desk so that sanctions can go against the individuals that are perpetrating this violence. And if we could, we need to move forward on legislation that causes the divestiture, and the reason is it seems impossible for the President of Sudan, for the Khartoum government to understand the urgency and the necessity of coming to grips with an existing peace agreement that has not been implemented or enforced. People are dying. Surrounding countries are bending under the pressure, and I would simply argue vigorously that this legislation needs to be passed and moved on to the President's desk. I ask my colleagues to support it. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3127, which imposes sanctions against individuals responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, supports measures for the protection of civilians and humanitarian operations, and supports peace efforts in the Darfur region of Sudan. The Darfur Peace and Accountability Act of 2005, H.R. 3127, is a bipartisan effort to impose sanctions on the Government of Sudan, its officials, and the Janjaweed militia who have engaged in genocidal acts in the Darfur region of Sudan over the past 2 years. The genocidal regime in Sudan has left 2.5 million people displaced and at least 400,000 people dead in Darfur. Due to increasing violence, 15,000 innocent civilians continue to die each month. Genocide cannot continue on our watch; the United States must move towards effective action against this most terrible crime. The United Nations Secretary General has described the situation in Darfur as ``little short of hell on earth.'' Expert John Prendergast calls it ``Rwanda in slow motion.'' The United States Congress and administration are on record as declaring that the atrocities being committed in Darfur, Sudan are genocide. Until the security situation vastly improves, the people of Sudan will experience increasingly long-term adversity. Civilians can't plan on stability in the future. They can't grow crops, or raise livestock, if there is a likelihood-not a chance, a likelihood--that roving government-sponsored militias will beat, rape, or kill them if they wander outside the protection of makeshift camps. And these government- sponsored criminals burn fields the people have managed to grow, and steal or slaughter the livestock the people have managed to keep. Over 400,000 people have died in the Darfur conflict since 2003, with 3.5 million people driven into hunger, and another 2.5 million displaced due to violence. Imagine if the entire city of Las Vegas had perished at the hands of government-sponsored bandits, the population of Los Angeles was starving, and both the cities of Houston and Atlanta had all relocated due to conflict. The upheaval of the South after Hurricane Katrina is our closest reference to understanding the devastation Sudan is experiencing, and yet the scale in Sudan is overwhelming. We should all be quaking with anger. Human rights are not for any government to give and take--they are inherent, self-evident, and vital, as our founding fathers understood so well. We should not be complacent when such rights are violated or refused--we must use what power we have to ensure that people are free to live and thrive safely. We must work to deter any escalation of violence, and provide unwavering assistance to diffuse the current strife. I commend the tireless efforts of United States officials who have helped secure the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Darfur Peace Agreement. And yet there is much to be done, the welfare of a nation lies within our hands. Our role is clear, and we must do what we can to alleviate the desperation of the civilians caught in the mayhem in Sudan. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Despite the hour, Mr. Speaker, I believe that these initiatives offered by Mr. Lantos, Mr. Payne, and others are probably the most important work that we will do this week. It is that way because we are talking about absolute slaughter. And I thank the gentleman for his leadership in recognizing the horror of the Khartoum government. And let me just recite for my colleagues the sheer arrogance of the leadership in Khartoum that after the comprehensive peace agreement between the Government of Sudan and others, the Government of Sudan refused a proposal from the Sudanese Peoples Liberation movement to send joint troops to protect civilians and disarm the government- supported militia. Now, who can understand that? You have a peace agreement, and you only ask the government to adhere to the peace agreement and they refuse to adhere to the peace agreement by providing protection to the civilians. And so this particular legislation is crucial because it provides for NATO support and it provides for the African Union troops to be able to provide security for the area. It is unbelievable that the President of Sudan would reject U.N. peacekeepers. U.N. peacekeepers come to keep the peace; they do not provoke the government. And I simply want to share with you the sheer crime of what is going on. Take, for example, the Hashaba camp near the small village of Mersheng in southern Darfur. Each shelter contains a family that has fled the home after terrifying attacks by militia groups. An estimated 1.2 million people in Darfur have been forced from their homes by the fighting and attacks. They are urgently in need of outside help. Their housing is made of sticks and rags. These are shelters in name only. Against the rains that are beginning to sweep Darfur, they offer no protection. Until recently, no help was available in the camps. The conflict made the region too dangerous for aid agencies to access it. And we know that we have lost humanitarian aid workers in the last couple of weeks. This is what we are facing in Sudan. Now aid is obviously beginning to trickle in, but Mr. Lantos is right, until we secure the region, no amount of agreements and treaties are going to work. The slaughter will continue. And so I want to support H. Res. 723 that calls on the African Union to work closely with the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to strengthen its capacity to deter violence and instability until the United Nations peacekeeping force is fully deployed in Darfur. Minimally, minimally the government of Khartoum has to have a sense of mercy for people who are living in the devastating conditions and violence that these refugees are now living in. I ask my colleagues to view this legislation as crucial not in passage but also in its implementation. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 723, which calls on the President to take immediate steps to help improve the security situation in Darfur, Sudan, with a specific emphasis on civilian protection. The genocidal regime in Sudan has left 2.5 million people displaced and at least 400,000 people dead in Darfur. Due to increasing violence, 15,000 innocent civilians continue to die each month. Genocide cannot continue on our watch; the United States must move towards effective action against this most terrible crime. The United Nations Secretary General has described the situation in Darfur as ``little short of hell on earth.'' Expert John Prendergast calls it ``Rwanda in slow motion.'' The United States Congress and Administration are on record as declaring that the atrocities being committed in Darfur, Sudan are genocide. Until the security situation vastly improves, the people of Sudan will experience increasingly long-term adversity. Civilians can't plan on stability in the future. They can't grow crops, or raise livestock, if there is a likelihood--not a chance, a likelihood--that roving government-sponsored militias will beat, rape, or kill them if they wander outside the protection of makeshift camps. And these government- sponsored criminals burn fields the people have managed to grow, and steal or slaughter the livestock the people have managed to keep. Over 400,000 people have died in the Darfur conflict since 2003, with 3.5 million people driven into hunger, and another 2.5 million displaced due to violence. Imagine if the entire city of Las Vegas had perished at the hands of government-sponsored bandits, the population of Los Angeles was starving, and both the cities of Houston and Atlanta had all relocated due to conflict. The upheaval of the South after Hurricane Katrina is our closest reference to understanding the devastation Sudan is experiencing, and yet the scale in Sudan is overwhelming. We should all be quaking with anger. Human rights are not for any government to give and take--they are inherent, self-evident, and vital, as our founding fathers understood so well. We should not be complacent when such rights are violated or refused--we must use what power we have to ensure that people are free to live and thrive safely. The United States has demonstrated leadership on the Sudan issue for years by: mediating Sudan's North-South Peace Agreement, declaring genocide in Darfur, providing nearly $1 billion in humanitarian assistance over time, and having United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations John Bolton, in his first action as President of the United Nations Security Council, request in February 2006 that Secretary-General Annan initiate contingency planning for a transition from AMIS to a United Nations peacekeeping operation. Our role is clear, and we must do what we can to alleviate the desperation of the civilians caught in the mayhem in Sudan. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California. There is certainly no doubt in your leadership on these issues. The chairman, Chairman Smith, and the members of the International Relations Committee, Members of this Congress, this is time for robust action. Frankly, it is time for rolling up the sleeves and the heavy lifting. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey for his persistence on passing the accountability bill and the declaration of genocide. It has been a long journey. We passed it. We are back again. But the people of Darfur cannot take any more bumps in the road, the constant pain of the violence and abuse against women and children and men, the constant moving, the increasing number of refugees, the violence against refugees, the Janjaweed and others. The government is continuing to play the blame game. It is vital that the envoy have a robust mandate and be able to energize the negotiations that are going on or that are not going on. The President of Sudan has to be addressed and has to be admonished, and then we need NATO to be able to ensure that there is security and that they are much involved in pushing the Sudan. We need Egypt, we need Jordan, we need Algeria, we need Libya to encourage the president of Sudan to stand down. It is extremely important that we are reminded of the necessary humanitarian aid that is vital in the cause of saving lives. We need to save lives. Chad cannot take any more of a burden than what it already has. And having been to the camps in Chad, spoken to women who would not look you in the face because they had been raped over and over again, Mr. Speaker, this is a monumental crisis. We must not leave this place, the Senate must not leave the place, the President must not let this Congress go out without signing legislation so that the protection of those who are now under attack can be ensured. I hope that the presidential envoy will have the robust mandate to push the United Nations and the African Union and the United Nations peacekeepers to ensure peace in the region. I ask for support of these initiatives. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 992, which urges the President to appoint a Presidential Special Envoy for Sudan. The appointment of a Presidential Special Envoy for Sudan with a robust mandate and access to, and support of, senior administration officials, including the President, is crucial. Just a few months ago, we passed the Emergency Supplemental Act, which included $250,000 to appoint this special envoy. It is imperative that the President move rapidly to appoint this envoy, that envoy has now been appointed and his mandate must be vigorous and unyielding for peace and security in Darfur. The genocidal regime in Sudan has left 2.5 million people displaced and at least 400,000 people dead in Darfur. Due to increasing violence, 15,000 innocent civilians continue to die each month. Genocide cannot continue on our watch; the United States must move towards effective action against this most terrible crime. The United Nations Secretary General has described the situation in Darfur as ``little short of hell on earth.'' Expert John Prendergast calls it ``Rwanda in slow motion.'' The United States Congress and administration are on record as declaring that the atrocities being committed in Darfur, Sudan are genocide. Until the security situation vastly improves, the people of Sudan will experience increasingly long-term adversity. Civilians can't plan on stability in the future. They can't grow crops, or raise livestock, if there is a likelihood--not a chance, a likelihood--that roving government-sponsored militias will beat, rape, or kill them if they wander outside the protection of makeshift camps. And these government- sponsored criminals burn fields the people have managed to grow, and steal or slaughter the livestock the people have managed to keep. Over 400,000 people have died in the Darfur conflict since 2003, with 3.5 million people driven into hunger, and another 2.5 million displaced due to violence. Imagine if the entire city of Las Vegas had perished at the hands of government-sponsored bandits, the population of Los Angeles was starving, and both the cities of Houston and Atlanta had all relocated due to conflict. The upheaval of the South after Hurricane Katrina is our closest reference to understanding the devastation Sudan is experiencing, and yet the scale in Sudan is overwhelming. We should all be quaking with anger. Human rights are not for any government to give and take--they are inherent, self-evident, and vital, as our founding fathers understood so well. We should not be complacent when such rights are violated or refused--we must use what power we have to ensure that people are free to live and thrive safely. We must work to deter any escalation of violence, and provide unwavering assistance to diffuse the current strife. I commend the tireless efforts of United States officials who have helped secure the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Darfur Peace Agreement. And yet there is much to be done, the welfare of a nation lies within our hands. Our role is clear, and we must do what we can to alleviate the desperation of the civilians caught in the mayhem in Sudan. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5323, the ``Proud to be an American Citizen Act,'' which requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to make funds available to support public naturalization ceremonies that are held on a date that is on or near Independence Day. These funds would be given to the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) or to public or private nonprofit entities. The Secretary would select the sites for the ceremonies, approve the entities receiving the funds, and dispense up to, but no more than, $5,000 for each ceremony. The use of the funds would be limited to the costs of personnel from USCIS and the Federal judiciary, including travel and overtime expenses; site and audio equipment rentals; logistical requirements; and costs for printing brochures about the naturalization participants and the naturalization process. Naturalization rewards legal immigrants who have played by the rules and abided by all United States laws and USCIS regulations. The naturalization ceremony is not just a formality. Taking the Oath of Allegiance is a critical legal step in becoming a naturalized citizen. The words of the Oath of Allegiance convey the core meaning of becoming an American citizen. These words reflect the shared American values of liberty, democracy, and equal opportunity; and the obligation to abide by the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. The Oath of Allegiance should not be taken in an empty room without fanfare, particularly on Independence Day. I urge all members to show their support for those who are proud to become American citizens by voting for H.R. 5323.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, 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, I appreciate this opportunity to explain my concerns with the bill, H.R. 5092. My primary concern with the bill is that it hampers the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF) to put corrupt gun dealers out of business, and thus help reduce the carnage taking place in many of the Nation's major urban centers. H.R. 5092 was introduced by Mr. Coble and Mr. Scott as a bipartisan attempt to address enforcement issues raised during ATF oversight hearings conducted by the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Specifically, those hearings focused on ATF's Richmond gun show enforcement program and generally on ATF's licensing and revocation authority over Federal Firearms Licensees. The bill addresses a number of issues relating to ATF's enforcement authority, including authorization of civil penalties (e.g., fines and suspensions); creation of independent Administrative law Judges to hear enforcement cases; definition of serious and non-serious violations; DOJ Inspector General investigation of ATF gun show enforcement program; limitation on ATF authorities; clarification of several enforcement regulations; and, most significantly, modification of the requisite intent for violations. The bill provides in Sec. 4, entitled ``Definition of Willfully,'' that ``willfully'' is defined as: ``intentionally, purposely, and with the intent to act in violation of a known legal duty. `` My concern with this provision of the bill is that it defines ``willfully'' to impose a much higher standard of proof upon law enforcement officials than currently. There does not appear to be any compelling reason for increasing the government's evidentiary burden at this time. The definition of willfullness is well-settled in the law and means that defendant knew his conduct was unlawful; not that he knew of the specific statute he is accused of violating or had the specific intent to violate that precise provision. Mr. Speaker, changing the evidentiary standards governing elements of penal offenses should be done sparingly and with the utmost care. This is particularly true where, as here, we do not have the benefit of the considered views of thoughtful criminal law scholars, experienced prosecutors and police officers with front-line experience, or the Department of Justice. The redefinition of ``willfully'' contained in the bill illustrates my concern. As I noted, the bill defines willfully as ``intentionally, purposely, and with the intent to act in violation of a known legal duty.'' This definition, however, has been repeatedly rejected by the Federal courts. Bryan v. U.S., 524 U.S. 184 (1998); U.S. v. Andrade, 135 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Allah, 130 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Collins, 957 F.2d 72 (2d. 1992) In the Bryan case, the defendant was convicted of willfully dealing in firearms without a Federal license. Specifically, the defendant did not have a Federal firearms license; he used ``so-called ``straw purchasers'' in Ohio to acquired pistols he could not have bought himself; that he knew the straw purchasers made false statements when purchasing the guns; that defendant assured the straw purchasers that he would file off the serial numbers; and that defendant resold the guns on Brooklyn street corners known for drug dealing. Despite this conduct, defendant claimed that he could not be convicted under the Federal firearms laws unless the government proved he knew of the Federal licensing requirement. The Supreme Court rejected this claim, stating: ``the willfulness requirement . . . does not carve out an exception to the traditional rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse; knowledge that the conduct is unlawful is all that is required.'' 524 U.S. at 193. Similarly, in another case, U.S. v. Collins, the Second Circuit rejected the argument that willfully requires proof that defendant had specific knowledge of the Federal firearms license requirements, stating: ``[T]he element of willfulness not contained in Sec. 922(a)(l) was meant to be read broadly to require only that the government prove that defendant's conduct was knowing and purposeful and that the defendant intended to commit an act which the law forbids.'' 957 F.2d at 76. According to the court, the government was not required to prove more than just the defendant's general knowledge that he or she is violating the law.'' Id. at 75. Other courts have reached similar conclusions and I list them in my statement. The point, Mr. Speaker, is that the Federal firearms license statute is and has been an important tool for law enforcement to crack down on the illegal trafficking in firearms and the wanton violence this conduct exacerbates. I do not believe that a compelling case has been made on this record to take this tool away from law enforcement. Neither does the American Bar Association nor several former directors of the ATF. Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to vote against the bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished member of the Rules Committee, and I thank him for highlighting some of the failures in our Achilles heel in this process. Certainly as a member of the House Judiciary Committee and the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee on Immigration, none of these bills have come through the committee. There have been no hearings, no fact finding. Certainly the reason might be given by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle is because we have already passed this bill. This bill is a clone of the Sensenbrenner bill passed through the House and ready for conference. I think it is important to note that even though my friends in the other body have come to cloture on the tunnel provision or the fence provision, let me make it very clear that Senator Frist, the majority leader, has indicated that there is a heavy, heavy agenda for next week. When the Senate goes out at the end of the week, the question is whether or not this will be an item that will be addressed. What really should have happened 2 months ago, 3 months ago when both bills had been passed, the Senate passed a bill, the House passed a bill, we could have gone to conference. Maybe my colleagues don't realize that there was fencing language in the Senate bill. That means when you go to conference, you can expand that language if that was the desire. Now, I know many of my friends on the other side of the aisle will talk about the immigration hearings that they attended, and I would venture to say that at many of them I met them because I had the responsibility and privilege of attending at least one-third to one- half of them. And those hearings were redundant testimonies by people that had already been to Washington. They drove a wedge in whatever community we went to with protesters on both sides. There was a lot of maligning of innocent individuals who happened to be of Hispanic surname, suggesting in one hearing in California that all of the jailhouses were filled up with individuals from Mexico and other places, the mental facilities were filled up, the hospitals were filled up. It was an imbalance. So we are simply asking that there be a comprehensive approach. And Democrats are not taking a back seat to border security, and that is why I am offering the previous question that indicates the hard work of Democrats, particularly as it relates to the idea of alien smuggling, and that we have offered amendments to enhance immigration enforcement resources. And as my good friend from Massachusetts has said, if our amendments had passed, we would have 14,000 more detention beds today, 2,700 more immigration agents along the borders. I went to the borders. I saw our Customs and Border Protection agents working 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. And when they have to have what we call a secondary inspection, when you stop a car and then you say it doesn't look right, you must send them to the other building for a secondary inspection. Do you know that there is nobody there because we don't have enough staff. So it befuddles me when my Republican colleagues come forward with these three separate bills that are already in the bills we passed and we can just go to conference right now. And that is why we are offering this previous question so that we can ensure that you know on the record that out of this we will get 250 more immigration agents; detention officers by 250; U.S. marshal officers by 250; 25,000 more detention beds; and by 1,000 the number of investigators of fraudulent schemes and documents would increase. None of this has happened. But on the other hand, we have three border bills that my friends on the other side of the aisle know for sure have poison pills. We are okay with the tunnel. Who wants to have our Nation exposed? But we want real border security, not forcing local jurisdictions to engage in civil enforcement. Let me remind you of the Canadian citizen who was mislabeled as a terrorist and sent wrongly to Syria. This bill has provisions to detain people indefinitely who may be just children, mothers, fathers who have come across the border for economic reasons. Of course we want to regulate this process and make sure that we address comprehensively the immigration concern. We want to ask and answer the questions of Americans. But Democrats have gone on the record year after year, these bills represent a series of poison pills that, if you read them, embedded in them is violations of the rule of law. The alien gang removal possibly will remove people who live in a house where a gang member is. So we believe that you vet a bill so that the American people can have confidence in this process. And we have these bills already passed. My friend is going to get up and show horrific pictures. I come from Texas. There is a drug war at the border, but I go down to the border. I have friends at the border. I interact with the sheriffs and the mayors. There is also trade and jobs at the border. So they want a comprehensive approach. They want the bad guys arrested, drug dealers and smugglers, which we can do. Nobody here is talking about the Drug Enforcement Agency. Nobody is telling you that the Colombia cartels that were raging in the 1990s have been somewhat stomped out, and they moved to Mexico. Mexicans don't want the drug violence going on. Texans don't want the drug violence going on. But it is not an immigration issue. We need to secure the borders, but we don't want to mix apples and oranges. We want to get rid of the alien smugglers and the drug smugglers, but these poison pills, and these bills are not the way to comprehensive immigration reform. I ask my colleagues to defeat the rule so the previous question can go forward. I rise in opposition to House Rule H. Res. 1018, which provides for a closed rule on the Border Tunnel Prevention Act, H.R. 4830; the Community Protection Act, H.R. 6094; and the Immigration Law Enforcement Act, H.R. 6095. We need an Open Rule for these immigration bills so that they may properly be considered debated. The Bush Administration has been in office for 6 years, and the majority has controlled Congress for more than 10 years, but only now, in an election year, have we begun to examine how to address the critical need to fix our broken immigration security systems. The House and Senate passed their bills on immigration reform and border security months ago. Under regular order, we should be appointing conferees and engaging the process of reconciling the two bills. However, in a substantial deviation from normal practice, the House Majority Leadership decided to launch a traveling road-show of committee hearings in States across the country. The American people saw through this charade and condemned the hearings as a waste of time and taxpayer money, when Congress should have been focused on resolving the immigration problem in conference. Now that it is September, and the nationwide hearings are over, the House Leadership continues to skirt its duty to conference with the Senate, hiding behind procedural hold-ups and creating busy-work by bringing these same provisions that were passed in H.R. 4437 last December to the floor again, just before the election. Consistently, the majority has sought great fanfare land publicity for their supposed border security initiatives. But consistently, they have refused to fund these promises and have failed to carry out the security measures for which they seek public acclaim. The problem is that immigration has become about talk and show, and winning elections. The majority has done nothing to pass real, meaningful immigration reform that addresses all needs--including the 12 million undocumented already in our Nation, the needs for improved family reunification policies, and reforms to the non-functional workplace enforcement, in addition to the critically needed border security and enforcement enhancements. We know that 5 years after 9-11, the Bush Administration still does not have any control over the borders. If the Bush Administration had properly secured the border, we would not be facing the security issue of millions of unknown people in our country. If the Bush Administration had enforced the workplace laws, we wouldn't have more than 7 million undocumented aliens working in the United States. If Congress had funded the 9-11 Commission's recommendations or conducted proper oversight, we would not be voting on these same enforcement provisions for the second or third time. We would be in conference, hammering out a compromise with the Senate as we were elected to do. When we bring these bills to the floor, bills which we held no hearings on, which did not go through committee, we owe the American people a meaningful debate. We must have an Open Rule and an opportunity to debate our Amendments in the Nature of a Substitute to address the real needs of immigration and border security reform. I urge you to vote against House Rule H. Res. 1018.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan has been waging a valiant defense, if you will, of the ongoing efforts that we have made to confront this issue. Might I take some of my time to correct the record. A good friend of mine who was just here on the floor did not want to answer some very simple questions. And you need not be the custodian of any records to know whether there have been specific hearings in the Homeland Security Committee on these bills. I am a member of that committee, and the answer is absolutely not. That is regular order. We do that not to hear ourselves talk; we do that so the American people can have a truly vetted bill that really addresses the question that you are concerned about. Then, if we want to know whether they have been in front of the Judiciary Committee, they have not. So we have not had an opportunity to determine the concreteness, if you will, of these bills and whether or not they will work. The other aspect of it, let me let you attend to this factor, these are authorizing bills. None of these will go anywhere if they are not appropriated, if there are funds that are not appropriated. And that has been the general issue. I listened to the eloquence of my friend from Indiana, and I agree with him. There is no debate here on the floor regarding the criminalizing of those who build a tunnel. That is a commonsense, no-debate question. If you have a tunnel, and those who build it, many of the individuals who do it are coming across for criminal reasons, drug smugglers and others, then we should have some response. But what we do today is only isolated today. There is no question that we have delayed and delayed and delayed and delayed the work of this House and this Senate and this body. We have delayed it because we passed 2, 3, 4 months ago comprehensive immigration reform. You may not have liked the bill out of the House, you may have voted for it or voted against it, but it did pass. You may not have liked the Senate bill. You may have voted ``yes'' or ``no,'' but it passed. Regular order. And I want to correct the record. Over and over again we hear: we can't do our job because they haven't sent papers. Well, my question is, did they not send papers on the Iraq resolution and we didn't resolve it? Did they not send papers on the Medicare bill? This is a paper response. This is a straw man's response. Let me tell you what is being discussed. In the Senate bill there are what we call fee enhancers or tax provisions. The only authorizing entity that can increase taxes is the United States House of Representatives. Now, isn't it interesting that the House is controlled by Republicans, the Senate is controlled by Republicans. So, in essence, the Republicans can get together and work it out. They want to have this conflict because, in fact, one of the Members here, it is alleged, in the House side would blue slip the Senate bill, this is all complicated, and that means they would stop it from going to conference. All of that can be worked out, my friends. That is like a playground squabble between siblings. And we know that it can be worked out. Mother can come to the playground, teacher can stop the siblings. But they want to use that as an excuse so they can frustrate the process and make the American people think we are doing our job. Even if we pass this bill, which I think it is almost going to be quite a big vote because we are arguing against nothing and we are arguing against something that could have been handled in, if you will, in conference, there is no money. There is no money to do some of the things that many of these bills will be engaged in. And, frankly, that is why we come to the floor with these complaints. Why not do comprehensive immigration reform, get ourselves in a posture to be able to appropriate immediately even in this session the dollars that we will need to fund comprehensive reform? The Border Tunnel Prevention Act will facilitate the prosecution of people who build or use tunnels across the border illegally. It will not secure our borders. It is not the only thing. I have seen tunnels, I want them to be thwarted, and I want to make sure we have a system of protection of our borders. And, frankly, we have failed. We have failed that we don't have enough Customs and Border Protection agents so that when you come through the northern border and we note something suspicious and we are at the port of entry and we are in the outside area, there is not enough Custom and Border Protection agents that are there for what we call secondary inspection. That is shame on us. This Congress, this Republican Congress, has refuted time and time again Democratic amendments that would have generated 14,000 detention beds, increased U.S. marshals, increased Border Patrol agents. It is all falling at the feet of this majority. Now they want to rush to the floor bills that have already been passed, but yet we haven't had any hearings to suggest that there might be some additions we might add. The rule is closed so we couldn't give you any enhanced, maybe we want to have immediate 100,000 detention beds. We couldn't even offer an amendment. So, my friends, I simply want to suggest as the distinguished ranking member, and I want to thank him for his leadership, he has attended and been eloquent at the field hearings. And I think he would agree with me, in the ones that both of us have attended we were looking for the Americans, if you will. When I say that, we were looking for the people in Detroit, we were looking for the people in Iowa, we are looking for the people in New York; and all we had were witnesses. We appreciate those witnesses, who had been here over and over again in testimony in Washington. So when my good friend the chairman speaks about, and others about, these hearings, let me make it very clear. Whether you were against or for immigration, you are outside the room or you were in the audience. You were not witnesses. I mean, I went to many and there were protesters for and against. We didn't let them speak. And so it is disingenuous to suggest that these hearings heard anything from America. When I went to Iowa, every single religious leader, bishops of the Lutheran Church, of the Methodist Church, and many others stood against the House bill. They were not allowed to testify. And in Houston, the chairman there played a 1992 tape about violence at the border. Couldn't even have current information. Lastly, as I close, I have been working on this drug issue and drug violence for a number of years. I sit on the Subcommittee on Crime. I have toured the Caribbean and seen some of the work of our DEA agents. It is unfortunate that we mix drug violence at the border, which does occur, and we need funding of drug enforcement agents with this issue of immigration. Drug dealers use any mode so they may be engaged in smuggling, but that issue needs its own hard crush of the law, it needs its own separate funding, it needs its own enhancement of drug enforcement agents who are out there working every day and we are underfunding them. So when we talk about immigration, I go to my seat by simply saying, bring the tunnel prosecution on. This bill was offered by Senator Feinstein on the Senate side. But the method and the methodology is failed. We need comprehensive immigration reform, we need a pathway to citizenship, we need to stop the farce, and we certainly need to stop telling the American people by passing these bills without funding that they are going to be any more secure than they were yesterday. Democrats put their money where their mouth was and offered any number of amendments since 2004, all to be defeated by this Republican majority. I would think the question needs to be asked, are you serious, or you playing with the minds and hearts of the American people? My belief is that the American people deserve better, and comprehensive immigration reform is the call of the day. I rise in opposition to the Border Tunnel Prevention Act of 2006, H.R. 4830. The Border Tunnel Prevention Act would make the construction and financing of tunnels crossing the U.S. international border a crime subject to a fine and up to 20 years of imprisonment. Also, landowners who know about or recklessly disregard the construction or use of a border tunnel would be subject to a fine and up to 10 years of imprisonment. Border tunnels are a problem. A significant number of tunnels have been detected in recent years, and the fences that will be erected pursuant to a recently passed fence bill will result in even more tunnels. I agree that we need to prosecute people involved in building or using them. The question, however, is not whether we should facilitate such prosecutions but whether we should pass such narrowly focussed legislation before we have addressed the larger immigration problems. The Border Tunnel Prevention Act will facilitate the prosecution of people who build or use tunnels to cross the border illegally. It will not secure our borders. If tunnels cannot be built to cross under a fence, the immigrants simply will go around the fence. Instead of voting on H.R. 4830 and other bills that raise a few issues on a piecemeal basis, we should be going to conference to resolve the differences between the House and Senate immigration reform bills that have already passed. If we fix our broken immigration system and provide a sufficient number of visas for lawful entries, we will not need to worry about tunnels that take people across the border.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Community Protection Act of 2006, H.R. 6094. H.R. 6094 will not protect United States borders, strengthen our national security, or address the Nation's immigration problems comprehensively. Instead of voting on H.R. 6094 and other bills that raise a few issues on a piecemeal basis, we should be going to conference to resolve the differences between the House and Senate immigration reform bills that have already passed. The Community Protection Act would permit indefinite detention of aliens who are considered dangerous and are waiting for the execution of a final order of deportation. The most common reason for a delay in executing the order is difficult in obtaining travel documents that authorize the alien's admission to another country. I object to the practice of indefinite detention for a number of reasons, but the one that concerns me most is the possibility that people will spend the rest of their lives in detention simply because they are viewed as being dangerous. In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a statute permitting indefinite detention would raise serious constitutional problems because the due process clause of the fifth amendment prohibits depriving any person, including aliens, of liberty without due process of law. The Community Protection Act would allow expedited removal of aliens who have not been inspected or paroled into the United States, are inadmissible on the basis of a criminal ground, a conviction would not be required, do not have a credible fear of persecution, and are not eligible for a waiver or relief from removal. The Immigration and Nationality Act, INA, already has provisions for the expedited removal of criminal aliens, but it applies to aliens who have been convicted of an aggravated felony. As a practical matter, relief from deportation is not available to an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony. Only two issues are involved in these cases, is the person an alien and has he been convicted of an aggravated felony. In contrast, H.R. 6089 would establish expedited removal proceedings for aliens who do not have a credible fear of persecution and are inadmissible under section 212(a)(2) of the INA on the basis of a crime involving moral turpitude, a controlled substance violation, two or more offenses for which the aggregate sentence was 5 years or more, prostitution or commercialized vice, trafficking in persons, money laundering, and other criminal offenses. These cases would raise complicated legal issues and difficult questions of fact, such as whether the alien is removable under any of the numerous grounds of inadmissibility in section 212(a)(2) of the INA, and, if so, whether he eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility. These issues cannot properly be adjudicated in expedited removal proceedings. H.R. 6094 addresses the problem of gang violence in the United States. This is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed, but H.R. 6094 does not take the right approach. It would cast a broad net that would ensnare innocent children along with the dangerous criminals. H.R. 6094 would establish new grounds of inadmissibility, which would include the belief of an immigration inspector that the alien is a gang member entering to engage in unlawful activity. It also would make someone removable solely on the basis of membership in a group that has been designated by the Attorney General as ``a criminal street gang.'' In addition, members of designated criminal street gangs would be ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and Temporary Protected Status; and they would be subject to the criminal alien detention provisions. This approach might be less objectionable if every youth in a gang was a violent criminal, but that is not the case. I urge you to vote against the Effective Immigration Enforcement and Community Protection Act.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me offer my great appreciation to Juanita Millender-McDonald. I cannot think of a Member of this House who has been so persistent on these issues. But I do want to say to the American people that we understand that we want to secure the vote, but you might note and might want to understand that out of 197 million people that have voted since 2002, there have only been 52 voter fraud cases. I want to join you in stamping out voter fraud. I want to make sure that we have one vote/one person. But I do not want to step on the Constitution. This legislation steps on your rights, one vote/one person. And for every 1 percent of the electorate who does not have the necessary documentation, where you were born with a midwife, you have lost your documents, you were in Hurricane Katrina or a volcano or an earthquake or a mudslide, 2 million voters will be disenfranchised. And, my good friends, this is a 21st century poll tax. I will include in the Record ``The Long Shadows of Jim Crow'' because this is voter intimidation. The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Intimidation and Suppression in America Today Overview In a nation where children are taught in grade school that every citizen has the right to vote, it would be comforting to think that the last vestiges of voter intimidation, oppression and suppression were swept away by the passage and subsequent enforcement of the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965. It would be good to know that voters are no longer turned away from the polls based on their race, never knowingly misdirected, misinformed, deceived or threatened. Unfortunately, it would be a grave mistake to believe it. In every national American election since Reconstruction, every election since the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965, voters--particularly African American voters and other minorities--have faced calculated and determined efforts at intimidation and suppression. The bloody days of violence and retribution following the Civil War and Reconstruction are gone. The poll taxes, literacy tests and physical violence of the Jim Crow era have disappeared. Today, more subtle, cynical and creative tactics have taken their place. Race-Based Targeting Here are a few examples of recent incidents in which groups of voters have been singled out on the basis of race: Most recently, controversy has erupted over the use in the Orlando area of armed, plainclothes officers from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to question elderly black voters in their homes. The incidents were part of a state investigation of voting irregularities in the city's March 2003 mayoral election. Critics have charged that the tactics used by the FDLE have intimidated black voters, which could suppress their turnout in this year's elections. Six members of Congress recently called on Attorney General John Ashcroft to investigate potential civil rights violations in the matter. This year in Florida, the state ordered the implementation of a ``potential felon'' purge list to remove voters from the rolls, in a disturbing echo of the infamous 2000 purge, which removed thousands of eligible voters, primarily African- Americans, from the rolls. The state abandoned the plan after news media investigations revealed that the 2004 list also included thousands of people who were eligible to vote, and heavily targeted African-Americans while virtually ignoring Hispanic voters. This summer, Michigan State Representative John Pappageorge (R-Troy) was quoted in the Detroit Free Press as saying, ``If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election.'' African Americans comprise 83 percent of Detroit's population. In South Dakota's June 2004 primary, Native American voters were prevented from voting after they were challenged to provide photo IDs, which they were not required to present under State or Federal law. In Kentucky in July 2004, Black Republican officials joined to ask their State GOP party chairman to renounce plans to place ``vote challengers'' in African-American precincts during the coming elections. Earlier this year in Texas, a local district attorney claimed that students at a majority Black college were not eligible to vote in the county where the school is located. It happened in Waller County--the same county where 26 years earlier, a Federal court order was required to prevent discrimination against the students. In 2003 in Philadelphia, voters in African-American areas were systematically challenged by men carrying clipboards, driving a fleet of some 300 sedans with magnetic signs designed to look like law enforcement insignia. In 2002 in Louisiana, flyers were distributed in African- American communities telling voters they could go to the polls on Tuesday, December 10--three days after a Senate runoff election was actually held. In 1998 in South Carolina, a State representative mailed 3,000 brochures to African-American neighborhoods, claiming that law enforcement agents would be ``working'' the election, and warning voters that ``this election is not worth going to jail.'' Recent Strategies As this report details, voter intimidation and suppression is not a problem limited to the southern United States. It takes place from California to New York, Texas to Illinois. It is not the province of a single political party, although patterns of intimidation have changed as the party allegiances of minority communities have changed over the years. In recent years, many minority communities have tended to align with the Democratic Party. Over the past two decades, the Republican Party has launched a series of ``ballot security'' and ``voter integrity'' initiatives which have targeted minority communities. At least three times, these initiatives were successfully challenged in Federal courts as illegal attempts to suppress voter participation based on race. The first was a 1981 case in New Jersey which protested the use of armed guards to challenge Hispanic and African-American voters, and exposed a scheme to disqualify voters using mass mailings of outdated voter lists. The case resulted in a consent decree prohibiting efforts to target voters by race. Six years later, similar ``ballot security'' efforts were launched against minority voters in Louisiana, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Indiana. Republican National Committee documents said the Louisiana program alone would ``eliminate at least 60-80,000 folks from the rolls,'' again drawing a court settlement. And just three years later in North Carolina, the State Republican Party, the Helms for Senate Committee and others sent postcards to 125,000 voters, 97 percent of whom were African-American, giving them false information about voter eligibility and warning of criminal penalties for voter fraud--again resulting in a decree against the use of race to target voters. Historical Perspective This report includes detailed accounts of the recent incidents listed above, and additional incidents from the past few decades. The report also lays out a historical review of more than 100 years of efforts to suppress and intimidate minority voters following emancipation, through Reconstruction and the ``Second Reconstruction,'' the years immediately following the passage of the Voting Rights Act. The 1965 Voting Rights Act was among the crowning achievements of the civil rights era, and a defining moment for social justice and equality. The stories of the men and women who were willing to lay down their lives for the full rights of citizenship, including first and foremost the right to vote, are the stuff of history. Their accomplishments can never be erased. Yet as this report details, attempts to erode and undermine those victories have never ceased. Voter intimidation is not a relic of the past, but a pervasive strategy used with disturbing frequency in recent years. Sustaining the bright promise of the civil rights era, and maintaining the dream of equal voting rights for every citizen requires constant vigilance, courageous leadership, and an active, committed and well-informed citizenry. The Challenges of the 2004 Election and Beyond The election problems in Florida and elsewhere that led to the disenfranchisement of some four million American voters in the 2000 elections cast a harsh spotlight on flaws in our voting system, problems that involved both illegal actions and incompetence by public officials, as well as outdated machines and inadequate voter education. As election officials nationwide struggle to put new voting technology into place, redesign confusing ballots and educate voters, the opportunities for voter intimidation and suppression have proliferated along with opportunities for disenfranchisement caused by voter confusion and technical problems. With widespread predictions of a close national election, and an unprecedented wave of new voter registration, unscrupulous political operatives will look for any advantage, including suppression and intimidation efforts. As in the past, minority voters and low-income populations will be the most likely targets of dirty tricks at the polls. Voter Intimidation in Recent Years Voter intimidation and suppression efforts have not been limited to a single party, but have in fact shifted over time as voting allegiances have shifted. In recent decades, African American voters have largely been loyal to the Democratic Party, resulting in the prevalence of Republican efforts to suppress minority turnout. Those efforts have also been extended in recent years to Latino communities. During the 2003 mayoral election in Philadelphia, fully seven percent of a poll of 1000 African American voters described troubling experiences at the polls. Men with clipboards bearing official-looking insignia were reported at many precincts in African American neighborhoods. Tom Lindenfeld, who ran the counter-intimidation campaign for Democratic candidate John Street, said this deployment included a fleet of 300 cars that featured decals closely resembling those of federal law enforcement agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Many prospective voters reported being challenged for identification by such workers. Lindenfeld told reporters from the American Prospect that ``What occurred in Philadelphia was much more expansive and expensive than anything I'd seen before, and I'd seen a lot.'' In fact, the scope of such efforts during the past two decades is startling. Based primarily on reports gleaned from newspapers across the nation, there have been documented instances of the following: Challenges and threats against individual voters at the polls by armed private guards, off-duty law enforcement officers, local creditors, fake poll monitors, and poll workers and managers. Signs posted at the polling place warning of penalties for ``voter fraud'' or ``noncitizen'' voting, or illegally urging support for a candidate. Poll workers ``helping'' voters fill out their ballots, and instructing them on how to vote. Criminal tampering with voter registration rolls and records. Flyers and radio ads containing false information about where, when and how to vote, voter eligibility, and the false threat of penalties. Internal memos from party officials in which the explicit goal of suppressing black voter turnout is outlined. A Republican effort in New Jersey in 1981 provided a model that was repeated across the country in the last two decades. The Republican National Committee and the New Jersey Republican State Committee engaged in a ``concerted effort to threaten and harass black and Hispanic voters'' via a ``ballot security'' effort. It involved widespread challenging of individual voters and an Election Day presence at African American and Latino precincts featuring armed guards and dire warnings of criminal penalties for voting offenses. A legal challenge eventually led to a court order and an agreement by the GOP groups not to employ such intimidation tactics. But such tactics persist. This is voter intimidation. And this intimidation cannot stand. This is a bad bill. It is not about those who are not documented, it is about you, America. You will be prevented from the right to vote with this bill. We should defeat it.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 4844, and express my dismay with this distraction. I fear that actions taken today will sear doubt and weakness into one of our treasured and fundamental rights as a democratic Nation. Not 3 months ago, we dedicated significant amounts of time land resources to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. We celebrated the fact that these rights will be secure for another generation. And yet, with this bit!, we are reminded that these rights are fleeting, and must continually be protected. This bill undermines the very provisions we have been fighting for-- and clearly have not yet won--for over 40 years. This bill compounds the disproportionate discrimination that persists across this Nation. This bill attempts to address a problem that does not exist, and this is crucial to understand. There is no voter fraud problem. It is simply not a documented issue. Suggesting that it may be plays into bigotry and xenophobia. Data from the U.S. Department of Justice shows that while 196,139,871 votes have been cast in Federal elections since October 2002, only 52 individuals have been convicted of Federal voter fraud. Most of these convictions were for vote buying or for voter registration fraud, neither of which would be prevented by restrictive ill requirements at the polls. If convicted of voter fraud, an individual can be given up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine: The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation has an active--and fully funded--prosecution team to enforce Federal and State election laws. In reality, the bill is a 21st century poll tax. Instead of money collected at the poll door, however, the tax will now be collected at the Department of Motor Vehicles. Congress cannot place itself on the wrong side of this debate--history will see this clearly. The crux of discriminatory measures in this bill rests with the fact that the right to vote is tied to documents that are not readily available. The burden of obtaining these documents--whether the cost of obtaining supporting documentation, investing the time to navigate bureaucracy or the waiting period to receive the documents in the mail--is prohibitive, and yet familiar. Anyone who has waited in line at the DMV must understand what a mistake this is. I do not argue with the notion that we must prevent individuals from voting who are not allowed to vote. Yet a hidden argument in this bill is that immigrants may ``infiltrate'' our voting system. Legal immigrants who have successfully navigated the citizenship maze are unlikely to draw the attention of the authorities by attempting to register incorrectly. Similarly, undocumented immigrants are even less likely to risk deportation just to influence an election. If for no other reason than Hurricane Katrina, we must all understand how vulnerable our system is. Families fleeing the hurricanes last summer suffered loss of property that included lost documents. Compounding this was the devastation of the region, which virtually shut down civil services in the area. New Orleans residents were scattered across 44 States. And had difficulty registering and voting both with absentee ballots and at satellite voting stations for the April 22 city elections this year. Those elections took place fully 8 months after the disaster, and it required the efforts of non-profits, such as the NAACP, to ensure that voters had the access they are constitutionally guaranteed. In addition, this bill hands State governments yet another unfunded mandate. By 2010, we must all submit photo IDs with proof of citizenship in order to vote. Currently, no more than 4 States have driver's licenses or IDs that match these requirements. The only other document that does satisfy this requirement is a passport. Therefore, every State that does not have this kind of photo ID must restructure and create the ID system to provide adequate voting permits for everyone who does not have an updated passport with a current address. This would involve reissuing driver's licenses or identification cards in almost every State. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing H.R. 4844 would cost about $1 million in 2007 and $77 million over the 2007-2011 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. This exceeds the allowed amounts in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In addition, CBO estimates that the cost of providing photo identification for voters who cannot afford them would be about $45 million in 2008. This is simply ludicrous. We need to address the election fraud that we know is occurring, such as voting machine integrity and poll volunteer training and competence. After every election that occurs in this country, we have documented evidence of voting inconsistencies and errors. In 2004, in New Mexico, malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots. One million ballots nationwide were spoiled by faulty voting equipment--roughly one for every 100 cast. Those who face the most significant barriers are not only the poor, minorities, and rural populations. 1.5 million college students, whose addresses change often, and the elderly, will also have difficulty providing documentation. In fact, newly married individuals face significant barriers to completing a change in surname. For instance, it can take 6-8 weeks to receive the marriage certificate in the mail, another 2 weeks (and a full day waiting in line) to get the new Social Security card, and finally, 3-4 weeks to get the new driver's license. There is a significant possibility that this bill will also prohibit newlyweds from voting if they are married within 3 months of election day. An election with integrity is one that is open to every eligible voter. Restrictive voter ID requirements degrade the integrity of our elections by systematically excluding large numbers of eligible Americans. The right to vote is a critical and sacred constitutionally protected civil right. To challenge this is to erode our democracy, challenge justice, and mock our moral standing. I urge my colleagues to join me in dismissing this crippling legislation, and pursue effective solutions to the real problems of election fraud and error. We cannot let the rhetoric of an election year destroy a fundamental right upon which we have established liberty and freedom.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Res. 526 supporting the goals and ideals of observing the Year of Polio Awareness. During the 1940's and 1950's, between 30,000 and 50,000 cases of polio were recorded annually in the United States. This epidemic caused widespread fear and panic because of its devastating effects. Such effects include muscle and nerve damage, as well as the inability to move one's limbs or to breathe without assistance. The polio virus can also lead to a number of severe illnesses. Fortunately, the injectable polio vaccine eliminated naturally- occurring polio cases in the United States, but unfortunately has not yet eliminated polio in other parts of the world. The Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention recommends that every child in the United States receive all doses of the inactivated polio vaccine; yet as few as 57 percent of American children receive all doses of necessary vaccines during childhood, including the polio vaccine. At least 70 percent of paralytic polio survivors, and 40 percent of nonparalytic polio survivors, are developing post-polio sequelae. Post Polio Sequelae are late effects of the disease that can occur 35 years after the poliovirus attack in 75 percent of paralytic and 40 percent of ``non-paralytic'' polio survivors. Because they present so long after an individual is ill, these effects are unexpected and are often unrecognized: fatigue, muscle weakness, muscle and joint pain, sleep disorders, heightened sensitivity to anesthesia, cold pain, and difficulty swallowing and breathing. This year marks the 132nd anniversary of the diagnosis of the first case of post-polio sequelae and the 20th anniversary of the creation of the International Post-Polio Task Force. The mission of the International Post-Polio Task Force includes educating medical professionals and the 20,000,000 polio survivors in the world about post-polio sequelae through letter campaigns, public service announcements, and other forms of media. I cannot understate the importance of the work of the International Post-Polio Task Force. Because many medical professionals and polio survivors do not generally know of the existence of post-polio sequelae or of the available treatments, it is vital that we continue to support efforts by organizations such as the International Polio Task Force to increase the awareness of the debilitating effects of polio. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. As the end of the session begins to revolve and move toward an end, you begin to hear a lot of discussions about the end of the session business or unfinished business. And I hope as we proceed toward the first conclusion of the 109th Congress, we will view the concept of unfinished business as not only domestic but international. I ask that this body and the administration, this Nation, not have on our clock another Rwanda. I don't think our former President would mind when I make the remarks that one of the most difficult days and difficult times of that past administration was the failure to act expeditiously on Rwanda. And today we ask that Sudan not be another Rwanda, Sudan that is now teetering on the edge of disaster, human disaster, and the devastation of thousands upon hundreds of thousands of human beings. And what is the reason? The reason simply is one person, one man, one human being, one head of state, one president. The President of Sudan indicates that if the African Union peacekeepers were to set foot on the soil of Sudan, he would consider it an attack and therefore attack individuals dispatched by the world community. Now, the question becomes, what is the response of this world community? Is it intimidation, to be intimidated? Is it false diplomacy, to sit back and allow this person to brutalize and to, if you will, reject the hand of friendship offered by the collective world community? I ask that we not be intimidated and oppressed by the President of Sudan and that we demand that African Union peacekeepers who have been dispatched by the United Nations, the very body that has been sent to bring the world nations together to solve problems, do their job. And that requires sometimes enhanced diplomacy, not accepting diplomacy, and certainly a firm hand and firm attitude and firm action. None of us are asking to provoke violence, but violence already exists in the Sudan. For those of us who have gone, some of us who went through Chad because the Sudanese Government refused to give a number of Members of Congress the diplomatic papers necessary, many just simply went. When I went to Chad and visited with the refugees there in the camps, Chad already as a neighboring country is overwhelmed and being, if you will, undermined by the hundreds of thousands of refugees and the lack of support and resources. I was glad to support an amendment to the foreign operations appropriations to ensure that some of those heavy burdens of Chad would be provided for. But you have not and cannot understand the devastation of violence in Sudan if you have not sat down on the ground with the women in a circle as I have in those refugee camps listening to women who would not look at me face to face, who hid their eyes and their faces, who didn't want to talk about the massive rapes over and over again by those who would intimidate, rape, murder their men and them and their children. Women who had to go out to get the firewood because the man could not. The men obviously were not raped, they were brutalized and murdered, and so the women sacrificed their bodies by going out to be raped, because if the men went out they would be murdered. Is this not a call to action? Is this not a reason to tell the President of Sudan to stand down and step aside? We have gone into conflict and we have had rousing and vigorous debates on lesser items than this. And so to the President who is now at the United Nations, it is time to turn these three days of the general assembly around issues of severity. There is life or death matters going on in Sudan. And might I just say this: just a few weeks ago, there was some sort of survey that categorized the Members of Congress and their response to these issues. Unfortunately, it was a skewed survey, because one of the amendments that it scored was an amendment that this Congress utilize to make a point by taking money away from Egypt. Obviously, that is not the right way to go when you talk about solving the problem of Sudan. The way to solve the problem for Sudan is to put an allotment of dollars that doesn't take away from anyone and enhances both the resources necessary for bringing those violent perpetrators out of there and away from those refugees, and as well supporting the African Union peacekeepers.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Res. 959 recognizing and supporting the success of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 in increasing adoption and the efforts the Act has spurred including National Adoption Day, National Adoption Month, and encouraging adoption throughout the year. As the Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I especially understand the importance of providing a stable, safe, loving home for all of our children. Under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, the number of children adopted from foster care has increased significantly, with approximately 51,000 children from foster care in fiscal year 2004 alone. This progress must be recognized, yet we know that there is much more work to be done to ensure that every child has a safe, permanent and loving home. On a daily basis, in America, children enter the foster care system as victims of abuse, neglect or abandonment. Most of them will wait at least five years before being adopted. Siblings will be separated from each other and most will have moved at least three times before being adopted. It is currently an unfortunate fact that one in five children will never be adopted, and will be forced out of the foster care system at the age of 18 with little or no family support. Modeling the successes of the Adoption and Safe Families Act and National Adoption Day, states have significantly increased adoptions from foster care. National Adoption Day inspires a collective national effort to raise awareness to the 119,000 children in foster care awaiting permanent, loving families. For the last six years, National Adoption Day has seen the dreams of thousands of children come true by working with courts, judges, and attorneys to finalize adoptions and find permanent, loving homes for foster care children. Let me add that I hope that before we recess, we may have the opportunity to make a further statement with H.R. 1704, Second Chance Act. This important legislation reauthorizes, rewrites, and expands crucial provisions regarding adult and juvenile offender reentry demonstration projects, in order to address issues of recidivism and the effects of the criminal justice system and child welfare services on families. The welfare of children must continue to be a priority for all Americans. Every child deserves a warm, safe, stable home environment. It is imperative that we support and recognize the success of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 of increasing adoption of foster care children. Because children are the future, we must support them in the present. I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Res. 976, condemning human rights abuses by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and expressing solidarity with the Iranian people. It is astonishing that the Iranian government denies that there is a human rights issue in the country. The Iranian government suppresses expression and opinion, and persecutes individual for peaceful expression of their political views. Iran is constantly cited and criticized by our Department of State, Amnesty International, and many other human rights watch groups for its human rights record. I have long been an advocate of a free, independent, and democratic Iran; an Iran that is non-threatening to its neighbors and that honors its commitments in the world community. There is no dissent in the world community about the inherent dangers of nuclear proliferation in the region. For years, I have been a supporter of the democratic movement in Iran, and today more than ever, the people of Iran need to be supported, empowered, and given the confidence to create for themselves a new nation. Wars and appeasements are temporary actions, and not even close to a solution. The only effective way to achieve a lasting peace and prosperity in the region is to support the Iranian people, men, women and children, in their endeavors to make Iran a democratic state. Democracy is a struggle, but democracy is just. No one should experience the terror of a government that would torture or kill its own. We cannot ignore a country that gleefully thwarts international peace treaties and human rights conventions. This bipartisan bill sends a very clear message that any government that oppresses its people will not be tolerated, and a smug tyranny is not acceptable. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. May we all soon see peace and stability return to all of the Middle East.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support this resolution, which recognizes the goal of eliminating suffering and death due to cancer by the year 2015. Investments in cancer research and programs continue to be a crucial part of tackling and eliminating this devastating disease. Thanks to prior investments in cancer research and programs, we are making remarkable progress in the fight against cancer. When Congress and President Nixon joined forces to fight the battle against cancer in 1971, cancer was largely a death sentence. Thirty five years later, our national research investment has yielded substantial gains. Today, early detection can defeat some of the more common cancers, such as cancer of the cervix, breast, colon and prostate. These represent more than half of all cancers. In addition, childhood cancer is curable in 3 out of 4 patients. The development of colon cancer screening tests and treatments has led to a 90 percent 5-year survival rate for colon cancers caught in the earliest stages and 64 percent when the cancer has spread only to adjacent organs or lymph nodes. Though such progress is encouraging, we still have much work to do. Cancer has now surpassed heart disease as the number one killer of Americans under age 85. Cancer strikes 1 out of every 2 men and 1 out of every 3 women. This year alone, cancer will claim the lives of more than 570,000 Americans--1500 lives per day--and is the cause of 1 out of every 4 deaths in the United States. It is imperative that we continue to fund and expand medical research to forge the battle against this deadly enemy. As Americans, we have a strong history, through science and innovation, of detecting, conquering and defeating many illnesses. We must and we will continue to fight cancer until the battle is won. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the effort, the legislation and the work of Congresswoman Sanchez, who has worked on these issues for a very long time. I also thank the ranking member Mr. Lantos and the manager Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for their leadership on these issues. It is interesting that now, with most of the world's leaders at the United Nations, you would almost hope that they would accomplish something. Certainly that would mean to many of the nations that would be appearing there that they would address some of the questions that have oppressed their citizens for years. After the Vietnam War, we remain with a divided Vietnam, the North and South Vietnam; but over the years, this Congress and these administrations have moved more closely to try to develop alliances with the United States and North and South Vietnam, under the argument that engagement is responsible and it helps to promote democracy. I would say that many of the Vietnamese in the Vietnamese community of the United States know that that is still a difficult road. Many are still fighting for family reunification, for the right to visit their families, or the right for their families to be reunited with them. Even though we move closer and closer to trade relationships, we still have harsh conditions in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, and that has to do with the ongoing fight for confiscated and personal property that has not been returned. Unfortunately, as the one-party system was established under the Vietnamese Communist Party, uncompensated confiscation of real and personal property from Vietnamese citizens was widespread and there was no solution. Unfortunately, under this government the confiscation of land as a tool of repression against certain ethnic minorities continued, and it continues even today. Article 23 of the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam provides that the lawful property of individuals and organizations shall not be nationalized. So I rise today to ask that more attention be given to the providing of this property back to the rightful owners and that the government is asked by the world community to establish a private land use right for some of its citizens and also to establish a way to return this property. We, likewise, believe that this government should remove itself from engaging in repressive procedures that do not allow the right of private property ownership to exist in North Vietnam. We believe it is very important for tools to be put in place so that the rights of the people can be restored. I hope in this time that the United Nations is gathered that issues dealing with individual rights of citizens and countries that are still repressive become high on their agenda. We need to discuss Sudan. We need to discuss the rights of the people in Iran, and, certainly, Vietnam is one in particular. So I join in support of H. Res. 415 and ask this Congress to support a strong statement being made to North Vietnam about the rights of its people and the right for the return of private and personal property. This is a time that the statement should be made, but more importantly, this is a time for action.