Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 235, a resolution that would require candidates for driver's licenses to demonstrate an ability to exercise heightened caution when driving in the proximity of a potentially visually impaired person. It would also require these candidates to be able to relate the use of the white cane and guide dog with visually impaired individuals. Each year, dozens of visually impaired persons are involved in car collisions. For example, a blind person may be crossing a street intersection and be hit by a reckless driver. There is simply no reason for a driver to strike a visually impaired pedestrian. H. Con. Res 235 will help to reduce the likelihood of this happening in the future by educating drivers about visually impaired persons. This resolution will therefore help to safeguard visually impaired individuals and make our streets safer. I strongly support H. Con. Res 235, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from New York for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the leadership of the Small Business Committee and your leadership, the leadership of the Financial Services Committee. I would like to say that this bill spells relief, r-e-l-i-e- f, I believe. The reason is because we have heard over and over again that Export-Import Bank gives gifts to large corporations, tax giveaways, if you will, using the American people's money simply to provide to those who already have. I have repeatedly said that the backbone of America are small and medium-sized businesses. These are the businesses that are in our neighborhoods, in our cities, large and small, our counties, our rural hamlets. The opportunity for small business to engage in Export-Import with the financial assistance and the collaboration with the Small Business Administration is long in coming. And this fix is long in coming. I would argue that many of the regions that we are attempting to engage and break the barriers or break the concrete wall of a trade deficit has to do with small and medium-sized businesses, because the continent of Africa is filled with small and medium-sized businesses. Their cultural traditions, their tribal traditions focus on the tribal hierarchy of women entrepreneurs in the marketplace. We find in south Asia, in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh there are opportunities for small and medium-size businesses to work with our small and medium- sized businesses, or for our small and medium-sized businesses to be able to engage internationally, if you will. China, to break that very huge trade deficit, this now gives the financial anchor for small and medium-sized businesses to get the job done. I have always supported the Ex-Im Bank. I do think that any leg up or leverage that we can get, as we are on the international trade arena or development, is an important one; but now we have an opportunity to build on small and medium-sized businesses, and I hope as this legislation is passed, the word will go quickly out and that the lines will form to the left and the right for small businesses to become engaged. With that, again, let me thank the proponents of the legislation. I ask my colleagues to support it.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the chairman, Mr. Ney, and his ranking member, Ms. Waters, for their constant enhancement of opportunities for homeowners, and allow me to congratulate the Congress who I hope will vote to add to the American Dream. I come from a community where under 50 percent own homes. So we are still striving in Houston, Texas, to provide those opportunities. There are three elements that I think are very crucial in this legislation that would help expand that opportunity. One, the risk-based pricing is a great step up. I have always argued that there needs to be some flexibility. Credit scoring has denied many of our hardworking taxpayers getting homes. This at least allows a risk assessment to be made on the homeowner's credit standing, and then if they emerge and do better, they can get out from under this assessment, and the ability for downpayment can range from high risk to low risk. That is good. In addition, including the 100 percent financing for FHA is outstanding because in all of our jurisdictions, the costs of housing is going up. One hundred percent is far better than 87 percent. Even Houston is a high-dollar market as more competition comes in for housing. I would also say that reverse mortgages is something that is an innovative tool. However, I hope in the legislation there is information to seniors so that they understand, and others who would partake of a reverse mortgage, what the pros and cons are so that, in essence, it is a positive and not a negative. You keep your house; you do not lose it. You are, in fact, given expanding opportunities. So I congratulate my colleagues for answering the question, Is the American Dream of homeownership for everyone? Yes, it is. It is for Houstonians who have less of a 50 percent ownership. Yes, it is, and the Expanding American Homeownership Act of the Financial Services Committee is a good start. I congratulate and ask my colleagues to support this particular legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5852, the ``21st Century Emergency Communications Act of 2006.'' I support H.R. 5852 because it will improve the capability of first responders to communicate during times of emergency by improving the coordination of among Federal, State, territorial, local and tribal governments as it relates to voice, data, and other emerging technologies. I support H.R. 5852 for several reasons: 1. Elevates the importance of improved emergency communications by creating, for the first time, a central office within the Department for the administration and policy consideration for emergency communications. H.R. 5852 creates an Office of Emergency Communications within the Department of Homeland Security headed by an Assistant Secretary for Emergency Communications responsible for developing interoperable emergency communications capabilities by State, territorial, local, tribal, and public safety agencies. Among other things, the Office of Emergency Communications will: Prepare a baseline report that provides a ``snap shot'' of the current state of emergency communications capabilities; Follow-up with periodic assessment reports regarding Federal efforts to address existing gaps and identify best-practices models; Coordinate the capability to deploy backup communications services in the event of system failures during an emergency; Create regional working groups made up of public and private sector emergency communication experts that would asses and report on the state of emergency communication networks nationwide; Provide technical assistance to State and local governments; and, Develop a plan to ensure the operability of the Federal Government's communications systems 2. Ensures appropriate staffing and resources commitment to improve emergency communication capabilities. H.R. 5852 requires the Secretary to report to Congress on the resources and staff necessary to carry out the responsibilities of the Office of Emergency Communications not later than 60 days after the enactment of the bill. Within 30 days of the Secretary's report to Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is to review, assess, and report on the findings submitted by the Secretary of Homeland Security. 3. Compels DHS to create a national emergency communications plan and inventory of the Nation's emergency communications system and capabilities. H.R. 5852 adopts a ``bottoms-up'' approach by directing the Assistant Secretary for Emergency Communications to develop a national strategy to expedite an effective nationwide emergency communications system. The strategy will be developed with the cooperation of State, local and tribal governments, Federal departments and agencies, emergency response providers, emergency support providers, and the private sector. The plan will be developed within one year of the completion of the baseline study. H.R. 5852 mandates a national inventory of the channels, frequencies, and the types of communication systems and equipment. The plan must: Identify and make recommendations regarding short-term and long-term obstacles and solutions to achieving emergency communication capabilities at all levels of government; Set goals and timeframes for achieving nationwide emergency communication capabilities; and Accelerate the development of national standards for emergency communications equipment. 4. Seeks accountability regarding the use of DHS funds and governance. H.R. 5852 requires State and local governments to establish effective statewide interoperable communications plans before being able to use DHS grant funds for emergency communications. In addition, H.R. 5852 requires that the Department's grant guidelines are coordinated and consistent with the goals of the national plan for emergency communications. H.R. 5852 establishes an Emergency Communications Preparedness Center to act as a clearinghouse for the Federal Government's efforts to achieve nationwide interoperability; ensure cooperation among the relevant departments and agencies to implement the goals of the emergency communications strategy, and prepare and submit to Congress, on an annual basis, a strategic assessment regading efforts of Federal departments and agencies to implement the emergency communications strategy. For these reasons, I support H.R. 5852 and urge my colleagues to support it also.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to honor Mr. Tim Friedman on the occasion of his retirement. Mr. Friedman, I wish many congratulations to you, and please accept my heartfelt thank you for your 30 years of service to the United States Congress. Over the years, you have been a close witness to some of the greatest reforms, oratories, and achievements in legislative history. We have looked to you for your advice and trusted you completely and unhesitatingly. You have been a confident of legislators, and your sagacity has no match. I have enjoyed and appreciated your good humor, good judgment, and your leadership in the Democratic Cloakroom. Throughout the early mornings and late nights, your very presence contributed solidity and strength to the proceedings of the day. Your service to your country will long be remembered by Members such as myself, and we will miss your compassion and your enthusiasm. Your hard work, dedication, and commitment are cherished. You have earned the respect, the admiration, and the affection of all of us who have worked with you. As you move forward to your next success, I have no doubt that you will make your compatriots proud and continue to fulfill your commitment to public service. All of my best wishes and blessings to you in your future endeavors.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Con. Res. 448--Commending the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on the completion of the Space Shuttle's second Return- to-Flight mission. I can think of no better way to celebrate this great Nation's Independence Day than to witness the triumph of science and innovation. As a Member of the House Science Committee and the Senior Member of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, it was a thrill and a joy to see Space Shuttle Discovery launch on July 4. The Discovery crew finished their 13-day mission, which included a docking with the International Space Station, two space walks, but most importantly, a keen review of all safety issues. We began to focus on the issue of safety when the issues were raised by NASA safety engineers just before the launch of Discovery the first week of July. I met with NASA Administrator Michael Griffin just before the launch, and I am pleased that emphasis and priority has been placed on the safety of the astronauts and the space shuttle. This was an exciting and positive mission. Over the course of the 5.8 million mile journey, the STS-121 Mission Crew succeeded in testing shuttle safety improvements, repairing a rail car on the International Space Station and producing unprecedented images of the shuttle during and after its July 4 launch. In addition, the entire mission exhibited a new concern with safety to coincide with NASA's exemplary reputation for accuracy, precision, and innovation. Americans love their space program and it is the first priority of NASA and Members of Congress to ensure that it is a viable, continuing, and safe program. The survival of the space program has to be premised with an understanding of the risk, yet at the same time must embrace this new important culture of safety. I would like to extend my thanks to STS-121, Commander Steve Lindsey, Pilot Mark Kelly, and Mission Specialists Piers Sellers, Stephanie Wilson, Lisa Nowak, and Michael Fossum. Your courage and resolve will continue to be an inspiration for generations to come. Welcome home Discovery.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Oman FTA, though not without reservation. Increased economic, social, and political ties with Oman are noble goals and ones for which we should strive. However, the facts behind the crafting of the Oman FTA suggest that this is a hurried trade agreement. I can support an agreement that serves to support the interests of all parties at stake. I have based my previous votes on free trade agreements by this standard, and by this standard, I have decided to vote against the Oman FTA. While I do not doubt that some sectors of the U.S. economy will benefit from passage of this bill, I am fearful of the repercussions that will face many of our manufacturing industries. I recognize that Oman is a key alley in the War on Terrorism and a leader in improving the relationship between the Arab world and Israel, but trade agreements should not be judged by beneficial strategic alliances alone. The United States has other allies in the Middle East on the War on Terrorism and should make agreements with those allies in which jobs held by the American people are not sacrificed. In addition, the Oman FTA may include a dangerous loophole that jeopardizes our Nation's port security. In its present form, this agreement allows a foreign company with operations in Oman to operate U.S. port facilities. The Cardin amendment would provide that the U.S.- Oman Free Trade Agreement cannot take effect until the U.S. withdraws its commitment to allow companies with operations in Oman to operate ``landside aspects of U.S. port activities.'' Furthermore, the OFTA would expand the failed model of the Central American Free Trade Agreement. This model has been devastating to the U.S. industrial base, accelerating job loss and lowering living standards in the United States while exacerbating poverty and social disparities in the developing nations with which we trade. Current Omani law does not come close to meeting core International Labor Organization standards. Despite some improvements made to Oman's legal framework, Oman's labor laws today do not provide for the exercise of the most important and fundamental workers' rights: freedom of association and the right to organize and bargain collectively. In order to ensure progress, we must establish a system of improved standards in education, labor, and environment, among others. In this regard, the OFTA falls short of established standards. The OFTA has neither sufficient nor enforceable labor provisions. This omission of labor standards will result in the continuation of severe labor conditions for both adults and children. This agreement could permit businesses to profit by exploiting the impoverished. I cannot accept an agreement that allows businesses to increase their profit margins at the expense of the underprivileged. It seems clear to me that under the current refrain of ``free trade to fight poverty,'' sufficient resources are not being used to help the poor. Businesses are often more interested in the bottom line than the bottom of society. Foreign governments are often far too eager to invite these companies into their nations. This is not the best manner to help fight poverty in the Third World. In order to fight poverty, we must insist on the utilization of resources to protect the poor, not to exploit them. We must insist on better labor and environmental standards in order to ensure that the poor also benefit from free trade agreements. Over 400 American organizations have announced strong opposition to the Oman FTA. These organizations represent a large number of Americans who oppose the OFTA. Of the 400 groups that oppose the OFTA, there are at least six prominent organizations from the city that I have the privilege of representing, Houston. These organizations include the: Harris County Central Labor Council; Houston Globalization Forum; Houston Globalization Working Group; Houston Peace and Justice Center; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 716; and The Sheet Metal Workers Local 54. More than three million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the US since 1998. Increasingly, offshore outsourcing is impacting even highly educated and highly skilled workers. Protecting American jobs generally and especially those jobs belonging to my constituents in the 18th district of Texas is of the utmost priority to me. Thus, I can not stand by and let Americans continue to lose their jobs. Therefore, we must insist that our trade agreements contain more than an expansion of business interests; they must also contain provisions that expand social and political interests. We must ensure that trade agreements benefit the wealthy and the poor, men and women, young and old. This agreement fails to meet these standards, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, today I introduced the Energy Industry Occupancy Protection Act of 2006. Tomorrow in the House Judiciary Committee we will hold a hearing. We will have the opportunity to listen to a victim, victims who have been forgotten, victims who were engaged in America's warfare protecting America in the 1940s and 1950s, when they worked around nuclear radioactive material, and were not told by the contractors that they, in fact, were subjecting themselves to radioactive impact. These families, these individuals, some of whom lost their lives, were never compensated. I know America can do better. Tomorrow in front of our committee, the Judiciary Committee, Immigration Claims Committee, we will have an opportunity to lay the record to establish that this government must respond to those brave Americans who stood on the front lines, providing the resources for our warriors in World War II and the Korean War, and yet were never compensated for their illness. I do hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation, pushing it quickly through the committee, through the committee, and ensuring that Americans are protected against this devastating impact of working on behalf of Americans and fighting on the front lines by engaging and providing nuclear materials for the wars that we were engaged in.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I spoke of this earlier in the discussion of the resolution regarding the statement on Israel, but I think as a member of the Homeland Security Committee and having experienced just almost a year ago the watching of Americans in the gulf region, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi remain stranded for days upon days, as confusion continued in how to evacuate Americans who looked to the Federal Government as their umbrella on a rainy day, the images of Americans sitting on rooftops, floating in water, and the terrible stories that were told as many of them were evacuated to Houston is still very, very strong and very, very potent in our minds. It bothers me that we stand here again watching the newsreels report over and over again of the 25,000 stranded Americans in Lebanon. The seemingly slow process of reaching those particular citizens, families, children, who are looking for relief from the Federal Government. I think it is imperative that there be some briefing of the United States Congress immediately to detail how we can swiftly move up the throngs of Americans who are begging to be able to come home. It simply seems untenable that we do not have the resources necessary to evacuate our citizens more quickly than it has been done. Many of them are in need of medical care, many of them with young families, and the stories are just heart-breaking. Children who are left on the pier. The 11-year-old girl who watched a ship go off and ultimately had to be redirected to a ship in the morning. There is a conflict, there is a violent conflict going on. American lives are in jeopardy, and this administration needs to provide to the United States Congress their detailed plan of how they will evacuate Americans. We have their loved ones in our districts. They are pained to understand why the most powerful Nation in the world cannot even get its citizens out of Lebanon. There is no excuse. We know the military, although it is stretched in Iraq and elsewhere, is well able to take orders and to move quickly, and if it is not the military, then we know that you can capture civilian commercial aircrafts and direct them to be able to secure those who need to get out because of medical emergencies and other needs that would warrant them getting out more swiftly than others. Mr. President, the United States Senate and this Congress, this House, can do a far better job responding to this crisis while protecting the American people. It is a shame, simple shame that loved ones here in the United States are still facing this crisis without knowing whether their loved ones can be returned home safely and secure. Hurricane Katrina was a dastardly, devastating experience for this country. In fact, there is no excuse. We cannot defend the incompetence of the departments that were responsible for evacuating those citizens from the gulf coast, a natural disaster. Now we have been at war in conflict and crisis for six, seven, eight days, and there are Americans still stranded in Lebanon. I hope that will be a wake-up call and that we will get a response immediately. My door is open. My number is available, (202) 225-3816. We want to be of help to those families who are stranded, and we also want to be of help for a resolution of the conflict, of which all of us are looking for an immediate engagement and the opportunity for the U.N. and other bodies to be able to bring a solution to this terrible tragedy.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I do thank Mr. Lantos and his good leadership and his history. It is reflected in what I think is both a potent, important and very directed resolution. It draws upon all of the voices that we have heard this evening. Might I acknowledge Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for her patience and leadership, along with Chairman Hyde as well as and the leadership of this House. This weekend I will go home and meet with members of the Jewish community, and as well meet with members of the Muslim and Arab community. I believe it is important for Members to be forthright, and in doing so, it is to understand that we stand here promoting peace, and to say to the Palestinians, those of good faith, and President Abbas, we will stand with you to rid yourself of those who believe that their basic existence is for the nonexistence of Israel. And to Lebanon, we will stand with you, so that you will have the courage, the fortitude and the leadership to free your nation, for it to be the shining pearl, the financial site of the Middle East of which it has the potential to be. I want to offer to those who have lost their lives, their families, my deepest sympathy. To the innocent civilians in the Gaza strip, in Palestinian, in Lebanon, in Israel, all who have lost their lives, we offer the deepest sympathy. But, Madam Speaker, let me simply say, Israel fully complied with Resolution 425 in 1978, and wants us to know that they have removed themselves from Lebanon, and Secretary Kofi Annan said Israel has withdrawn, in full compliance with the Security Council resolution, as well it has withdrawn from the Gaza Strip. And so today I am interested in a cease-fire. I am interested in engagement. But I am also interested in making sure that we have permanent peace in the region, that we do not allow those who would perpetrate terror against innocent individuals to be able to survive and to continue their violence. I would ask Syria and Iran to be forthright with the world and to give away their continued intrusion into Lebanon and fueling the fires of those that would perpetrate terror in the region. I also ask that our refugees, if you will, Americans who are stuck in Lebanon, be fully brought home safely and quickly. So as I close, Madam Speaker, might I just say this evening that I will be voting for this resolution, but I will be continuing to press for engagement. I will continue to press for resolution. And I will continue to ask that the Arab States become engaged, and that Syria and Iran stand down, and that there is peace, and that the existence of Israel is reaffirmed, and our Arab neighbors live freely and peacefully for all the world to see. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support H. Res. 921, condemning the recent violence in the Middle East. I remain dismayed at the fact that, once again, violence is poisoning and engulfing the Middle East. This resolution condemns the recent attacks against Israel, holds terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, and supports Israel's right to defend itself. This resolution is a very strong statement. While we must acknowledge the culpability of the perpetrators of violence, we must always stand for a solution that engages all parties. The conflict is between those who wish to end the violence and those who do not. All involved have created a sense of victimization, and turned away from the most important goal: protecting their people, abating violence, and stabilizing the region. With this bill, we denounce terrorist acts, and we recognize the right of all sovereign nations--including Israel--to exist, and to defend itself. In addition, if Hamas is going to lead the Palestinian Authority to participate in the international community, it must accept Israel's right to exist and eliminate its violence against Israel. This past January, I visited Israel prior to the Palestinian elections, and visited with the emerging leadership of Kadima on the eve of a new era of Israeli diplomacy and security policy. I have traveled extensively in the region, and I have witnessed first-hand the promise of the Holy Land, as well as the devastation of long-term strife. Although Prime Minister Olmert has only held this position of leadership for a few short months, he has led his nation with strength and clarity. We acknowledge Israel as a democratic and strategic ally, and we look to Israel for regional leadership. No cause should ever warrant aggressive terrorist acts against others who have not sought to initiate any acts against the offending party. It is an absolute necessity that kidnapped soldiers be returned, that soldiers stolen from their own country, from their own land, must be returned to their homeland. Israel was not the aggressor. Hezbollah has committed acts of war, and Israel responded in kind. Hezbollah has yet again demonstrated its easy familiarity with terrorist tactics, and tensions continue to rise. Over the last several weeks, we have seen the situation crumble. Accusations of blame and responsibility fly like shrapnel. Last week, the Lebanese government briefly called for a ceasefire after Israel blockaded the country by air and sea in an effort to distance itself from the Hezbollah faction. In a statement, the Lebanese government said that all means must be used to end this ``open aggression.'' When both aggressors are acting in defense, the only result is destruction. We must immediately engage Israel, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and any other stakeholder willing to take action to protect the people and cease this swift escalation. We must engage them in multi-party negotiations, and the United States must send a high-level delegation to meet with the leaders in the region. The desecration of life and the disrespect of boundaries in the last few weeks are offensive, yet must be surmounted, and the violence must end. The U.N. Resolution 1559 must be complied with by Lebanon--to fully disband and disarm Hezbollah. I commend Israel for its willingness to unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza. I remain hopeful that the Palestinian Authority will soon be able to assert itself and secure the Gaza Strip for its citizens, and stop the invasion into Israeli territory. I wish to relay to the Lebanon Government that America is their friend, we support their independence, and we need them to assert their independence and sovereign authority. Because of their independence, Lebanon is well positioned to be an integral part of long term negotiations and an eventual settlement to this terrible crises. I urge decision-makers in Israel, Lebanon, and the PLO to observe a ceasefire, and that the terrorist be brought to justice. I also urge neighboring nations, such as Syria, to stop harboring terrorists and to participate honestly in negotiations, to pursue a mutually beneficial resolution without violence, and to respect the sovereign Lebanon. Violence is not the only thing to fear. We must do everything within our power to prevent further escalation. We must silence the rumbling of bombs and the screaming of missiles and restore at least the semblance of peace. We must condemn the poor response that the Administration has exhibited in rescuing Americans. It is not befitting of the most powerful nation, and we must expedite the rescuing of American citizens. The President must also take to the airwaves to speak to Muslims and Arabs to assure them that America remains their friend, and the friend of all freedom-loving peaceful citizens of those nations. We do not condemn all because of the missteps of some individuals or governments in the region. It is increasingly important that we immediately begin negotiations to resolve this aggression on the northern and southern border, observe ceasefire, and the United States must act urgently yet fairly, and remain steadfast to bringing peace to the region. We must do everything we can to assuage the fear and devastation of the last two generations, and take decisive action to ensure that today's children, and their children's children, can live in peace and safety at last. This past Saturday, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and several Persian Gulf states, chastised Hezbollah for ``unexpected, inappropriate, and irresponsible acts'' at an emergency Arab League summit meeting in Cairo. At last, perhaps we will see the larger international community--including the Arab League--denounce terrorism and terrorist tactics and commit to securing first calm, then peace, for the region and for the rest of the world. The Middle East is at a crossroads, and Israel needs a partner for peace. The new governments of Israel and the Palestinian Authority must overcome the burden of history and begin writing the textbooks anew. Palestinian and Israeli children should begin to learn that their neighbors are good, peace-loving people, and that the region is capable of coexistence and friendship. I hope that soon all people in the Middle East, Jewish or Muslim, Israeli or Arab, can look to God with thankful, not pleading eyes. May the words of our tradition inspire our decisions, as it says in Proverbs 34:14: ``Seek peace, and pursue it.'' Before we can have peace, let us pray for calm.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman. I rise strongly to support stem cell research and ask this House to vote ``yes'' to override the President's veto. I intend to vote ``yes'' to override the veto. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 810, the ``Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005.'' We have an opportunity, and a responsibility, to save lives by supporting this bill, and to help Americans who are suffering. In order to accelerate scientific progress toward the cures and treatments for a wide variety of diseases and debilitating health conditions, such as Parkinson's Disease, Diabetes, Alzheimer's Disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), cancer, and spinal cord injuries, it is necessary to expand the number of stem cell lines that can be used in federally funded research. Our debate today is a historical achievement for two reasons. First, President Bush vetoed this bill, after it passed in both the House of Representatives (238-194) and the Senate (63-37). This was the first time in five and one-half years in office that President Bush has vetoed a bill. This speaks volumes about the failure of our system of checks and balances, the short-sightedness of our executive branch, and the lack of Congressional leadership. Second, we must reassess and reaffirm the need and commitment of this nation to pursue medical research leadership and scientific innovation. We must do everything in our power to reduce human suffering and better understand human physiology. Today, we must make history. We must override this veto and pass H.R. 810 in order to preserve the ability of our scientists to pursue innovative research with stem cell lines and find effective treatments and cures for the diseases and conditions that plague humankind. The miracles capable with stem cell research are mind boggling. It may be possible for neurons developed from embryonic stem cells to restore function to paralyzed individuals; breast cancer may be mitigated by embryonic stem cells that mimic and then slow the growth of cancer cells; an embryonic stem cell-aided kidney transplant can help a patient accept a donor organ with minimal dose of drugs; embryonic stem cells can transform and regenerate damaged liver tissue, offering renewed hope to the 1 out of 5 patients who die before they receive a liver transplant. As a Member of the Science committee, I am dedicated to the advancement of science, to the exploration of creative initiatives, and the pursuit of sound research. When we demonize science, we only hurt ourselves, making it more likely that other countries will stand at the forefront of science and innovation. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), of more than 60 stem cell lines that were declared eligible for federal funding in 2001, only about 22 lines are actually available for study by and distribution to researchers. These NIH-approved lines lack the genetic diversity that researchers need in order to develop effective treatments for millions of Americans. The policy debate that we have engaged in over the last year has focused on both scientific and moral arguments. This bill is precisely the measured, balanced, rational, and progressive law that we need to further the scope of medicine, while simultaneously defining precise moral guidelines. At issue in particular is the use of embryonic stem cells, or pluripotent stem cells, versus adult stem cells. The difference is crucial in understanding the immense potential benefit. Pluripotent stem cells are the most adaptable and unique of all of the stem cell varieties. As opposed to adult stem cells, which are limited to a genre, such as blood cells or bone cells, pluripotent stem cells can eventually specialize in any bodily tissue. Embryonic stem cells are clusters of cells, and cannot develop into a fetus or a human being. The possibilities are literally limitless, and only restricted by time and by funding. The pluripotent stem cells were derived using non-Federal funds from early-stage embryos donated voluntarily by couples undergoing fertility treatment in an in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic or from non-living fetuses obtained from terminated first trimester pregnancies. Informed consent was obtained from the donors in both cases. Women voluntarily donating fetal tissue for research did so only after making the decision to terminate the pregnancy. It is estimated that more than 400,000 excess frozen embryos exist in the United States today and that tens of thousands, and perhaps as many as 100,000, are discarded every year. When President Bush declared in 2001 that federal funding to stem cell research would be limited, an unprecedented 80 Nobel laureates opposed with this action. They included such notables as James Watson, who co-discovered the DNA double helix, and renowned economist Milton Friedman. In their letter to Mr. Bush, the laureates noted that the embryos to be used in the research were destined for destruction anyway. They wrote, ``Under these circumstances, it would be tragic to waste this opportunity to pursue the work that could potentially alleviate human suffering.'' I ask unanimous consent to submit a copy of this letter to the Record. This bill provides a limited--yet significant--change in current policy that would result in making many more lines of stem cells available for research. If we limit the opportunities and resources our researchers have today, we only postpone the inevitable breakthrough. Our vote today may determine whether that breakthrough is made by Americans, or not. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, to vote in favor of scientific innovation, and to vote in favor of a perfect compromise between the needs of science and the boundary of our principles.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the full committee and to the chairman of the full committee Mr. Leach; sponsors of this legislation, two strong advocates, former cochairs of the India Caucus, Mr. Crowley and Mr. Wilson, whom I have had the opportunity to work with. I remember, and all of us have recalled many times on this floor, the unspeakable experience of 9/11, as we are in betwixt two movies that are now coming out to recount again that tragic day. We also recall how the world stood alongside of America in her time of mourning and her time of sheer desperation and despair, for she had lost 3,000-plus of her citizens. The same time we now come to stand alongside of India for that day of July 11, when not only was there an attack in Kashmir that saw eight people lose their lives, but we know the triggering of the terror act in Mumbai that generated 200 dead and probably many more injured and how many more to die because of their injuries. So it is important to stand and to acknowledge our sympathy and as well our compassion. But at the same time I want to emphasize that good people everywhere abhor terror, and I hope that the region of South Asia will embrace those in India and offer their greatest sympathy and, of course, their support against the war on terror and those despots, desperate persons, those horrific individuals who would take their own causes and turn them into terror against others so that others' lives might be lost. We fight on the battlefields of war. We debate in places like the United Nations, and we have heads of state that engage or disagree. But when we lift up against another human being, another nation, in reckless, random terror, there can be no solace. There can be no comfort. There can be no excuse. There can be no acceptance. So we join with the people of India in acknowledging that, as the largest democracy and the oldest democracy, you have a friend in the United States. You have a democratic ally in the United States. And you have a family of human beings, ourselves, experiencing terror either in terms of ongoing threats or by watching our friends suffer the consequences. So it is important, if you will, that today this resolution is more than our affirmation of our friendship and sympathy, but also our brotherhood and sisterhood in the war on terror. I look forward to a day when these resolutions will not be the call of the day, but simply that we will extinguish those who think that they can expand their causes by using terror against innocent, democratic, free-loving people around the world, wherever they might be. And, again, my deepest sympathy to the people of India. And, again, we stand with you at this time against acts of terror around the world.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the full committee and the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Paul of Texas, Mr. Boehlert and Mr. Calvert, and those of us enthusiastically in support of this very, very important resolution. I would like to first of all acknowledge the human factor, and that is to call out the names of COL Steve Lindsey, CDR Mark Kelly, Piers Sellers, Ph.D., LTC Mike Fossum, CDR Lisa Nowak, Stephanie Wilson and Thomas Reiter, congratulations to these very expert, profound and committed Americans, brave Americans, and to really congratulate their efforts and the STS-121; to commend, as I said, my colleague from Texas, for allowing us today to acknowledge how important this launch is. It was launched safely and it reentered safely. In addition, STS-121 was the 115th shuttle station, and the 18th to visit the space station, on which we left a very new member of the able space station family. This particular launch had a special emphasis because it was launched on July 4th, the Nation's birthday. What a spectacular event. I would simply say in addition to its launch, the important work that was done, the important space exploration that was done by two of the members of the team, two crew members, Piers Sellers and Mike Fossum, ventured outside the Space Shuttle three times on space walks. I remember as a child the amazing experience that one would see and envision as the initial space launches began, and then subsequently as we saw the space walks that began, but then to be able to acknowledge when one astronaut stepped first on the Moon. During the first space walk, they prepared the international space station's railcar for restoration and successfully tested whether the combination of the space shuttle's robotic arm and orbital boom sensor system could be a platform to make repairs. During the second space walk, they restored the station's mobile transport. On the third space walk, Sellers and Fossum tested methods of repairing a damaged orbiter. Let me just simply say as we look at all of the work, Mission Specialist Thomas Reiter remained in the international space station and he was the backup. Stephanie Wilson from my community, as many of you know, the astronauts live in Houston, let me also pay special tribute to Stephanie Wilson, the second African American woman to go into space. Lisa Nowak added to this pool of outstanding women. So allow me to close by simply saying that this was unique not only because of its launch on July 4th, but because of the new culture of safety; because I questioned whether this launch should go forward in light of the safety engineer's comments and the controversy before the launch. But now, in the new culture of safety, NASA vetted those concerns and NASA continued to vet them throughout the launch. They did an extensive review of the space shuttle before reentry. This pronounces that we are ready, we are ready to take on the responsibility, and we are ready to accept risk but not without every attention to safety. So I would simply say to my colleagues, I ask enthusiastically that we support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller) be able to manage the rest of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of reflection of this disastrous bill, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my rollcall vote only because I believe that we would denigrate the protection of religion even further by subjecting my very good amendment to a rollcall vote. It should be already included in this.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would imagine that Members across the campus in their offices and maybe even committee rooms are moved by the impassioned pleas by my friends on the other side of the aisle, so I want to make a pledge, and that is that I have stood on the floor of the House and acknowledged the importance of having our schoolchildren and others of America acknowledge and say the Pledge of Allegiance every single day. I stand by that statement. What bothers me is when Members come to the floor and vote, they will look to the name of the proponent and they will simply vote ``no.'' They will not understand the crux of the debate. They will not understand the sheer quarrel or the sheer amazement that we have with this particular legislation in the first place. This legislation deals with the idea of protecting the Pledge of Allegiance by denying access to the courthouse. My amendment is simple. It gives real meaning to the Pledge of Allegiance and the patriotism that is felt when it is recited by making it clear that no one can be forced or coerced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or retaliated against for not reciting it in those cases where doing so violates one's religious beliefs. What is the hindrance of Members agreeing to allow one to be able to access the courts on the simple ground that it violates one's religious beliefs? In this way, my amendment ensures that the Pledge of Allegiance is being recited freely, voluntarily and without coercion or fear of retaliation. In this way, a recited Pledge of Allegiance remains sacrosanct, and our national commitment to religious freedom is preserved. Might I cite for my friends a quote from President Reagan, the great communicator himself, who said in 1983, ``The first amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values, it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny.'' What I would suggest is to close the courthouse door is an example of government tyranny. It means that if my 6-year-old friend by the name of Hazel, who had a religious belief, whose family had a religious belief, who was allowed to sit silently in her seat when all of us stood to say I pledge allegiance, that little girl, if forced by any school system to do so, now has the courthouse door closed to her. It means that we are ignoring the West Virginia State Board of Education versus Barnett case that mandated that school children recite the Pledge of Allegiance. This was done in West Virginia. Under West Virginia law, persons who on religious grounds refused to recite the Pledge faced expulsion from school. But Justice Jackson wrote, ``To believe patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institution to free minds.'' Mr. Chairman, I have said it is good and good news to say the Pledge and to have our school children say the Pledge. This amendment is very clear. It does nothing to this particular legislation, other than to say that if your grounds are religious based, based on religion, based on your defined religious beliefs, why are you denying them the right to go into the courthouse on religious beliefs only? That is the question that clergy are asking across America. That is the question that the American Bar Association, representing lawyers of all political persuasions, are asking at this time. And I beg of my colleagues to understand that we are protectors of liberty. We are protectors of the first amendment. We are not to denounce the first amendment. We are not to ignoring the first amendment. We are not to stomp on the first amendment. And I would beg to say that if we call ourselves protecting the flag, the very flag that soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are now on the battlefield shedding their blood, veterans, and we would deny Americans the right to utilize the constitutional branch of government created by the Constitution and created by this body. Shame on us if we cannot accept the entreaty of a little girl named Hazel, who sat next to me in a school a few short years ago, I might add, lonely, unprotected, fearful, sitting isolated while we stood to say the Pledge. I am grateful that I had a teacher that understood that we would not stigmatize her, discriminate against her, and she had her freedom. This is an important amendment to ensure that all of our freedom is protected. I ask my colleagues for a vote for religious freedom and liberty and to allow the Jackson-Lee amendment to go forward. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. I thank the members of the Rules Committee for allowing this amendment to go forward. Mr. Chairman, my amendment gives real meaning to the Pledge of Allegiance and the patriotism that is felt when it is recited by making it clear that no one can be coerced or forced to recite the Pledge, or retaliated against for not reciting it in those cases where doing so violates one's religious beliefs. In this way, my amendment ensures that the Pledge of Allegiance is being recited freely, voluntarily, and without coercion or fear of retaliation. In this way, a recited Pledge of Allegiance remains sacrosanct and our national commitment to religious freedom is preserved. Mr. Chairman, my amendment draws inspiration from President Reagan, the Great Communicator himself, who said in 1983: The First Amendment of the Constitution was not written to protect the people of this country from religious values; it was written to protect religious values from government tyranny. H.R. 2389 precludes Federal judicial review of any constitutional challenge to recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance--whether it be in the lower Federal courts or the U.S. Supreme Court. My amendment does not disturb this legislative judgment except in the limited instance of cases involving claims of coercion and mandatory recitation. In other words, my amendment is intended to protect religious values from government tyranny. Nothing less, nothing more. Mr. Chairman, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett, the Supreme Court struck down a West Virginia law that mandated schoolchildren recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Under West Virginia law, persons who, on religious grounds, refused to recite the Pledge faced expulsion from school and could be prosecuted and fined for violating the statute. In striking down that statute, the great Justice Robert Jackson wrote for the Court: To believe patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds . . . If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high, or petty can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is important for another reason. H.R. 2389, as drafted, insulates the Pledge of Allegiance from constitutional challenge in Federal court. However, the pledge itself is subject to change by future legislative bodies. This means that if some future Congress decides to revise the Pledge to include religiously offensive or discriminatory language in the Pledge, the authority of the government to compel a person to recite that Pledge could not be challenged in Federal court. None of us would want that to happen. My amendment ensures that it won't. Mr. Chairman, my amendment protects religious minorities. My amendment protects judicial review. My amendment protects the separation of powers. My amendment strengthens the Pledge by ensuring that it recited voluntarily. My amendment ensures that the Pledge, like the oath all Members of Congress take, is ``given freely, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.'' I urge all Members to support the Jackson-Lee amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection Act of 2005. This bill precludes any Federal judicial review of any constitutional challenge to recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance--whether it be in the lower Federal courts or in the highest court in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court. Effectively, if passed, this extremely vague legislation will relegate all claimants to State courts to review any challenges to the pledge. This possibility will lead to different constitutional constructions in each of the 50 States. The only way to make this bill palatable is to adopt the Jackson-Lee amendment, which provides for an exception to the bill's preclusion for cases that involve allegations of coerced or mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, including coercion in violation of the First Amendment or the Equal Protection clauses. Opposing the Jackson-Lee amendment is tantamount to endorsing the coercion of children to mandatory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Closing the doors of the Federal courthouse doors to claimants will actually amount to a coercion of individuals to recite the pledge and its ``under God'' reference in violation of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. In Barnette, the Supreme Court struck down a West Virginia law that mandated school children recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Under the West Virginia law, religious minorities faced expulsion from school and could be subject to prosecution and fines, if convicted of violating the statute's provisions. In striking down that statute, Justice Jackson wrote for the Court: ``To believe in patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds . . . If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high, or petty can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.'' H.R. 2389 would strip parents of their right to go to court and defend their children's religious liberty. If this legislation is passed, schools could expel children for acting according to the dictates of their faith and Congress will have slammed the courthouse door shut in their faces. When I was a child, I always wondered why, when the rest of the class recited the Pledge of Allegiance, one little girl always sat quietly. Today, I understand that it was because she was of the 7th Day Adventist faith and therefore reciting the ``under God'' provision would force her to undermine her religious faith. If H.R. 2389 were law back then, the school administrators could have forced her to say the pledge and she would have no recourse in the Federal courts. The problem with this bill is that it does not protect religious minorities, Mr. Chairman. Article III, Section I of the U.S. Constitution vests ``the Judicial Power of the United States . . . in one supreme court.'' The list of subject matter areas which the Federal courts have the power to hear and decide under section 2 of Article III establishes that, ``The Judicial power shall extend to all cases . . . arising under this Constitution.'' For over 50 years, the Federal courts have played a central role in the interpretation and enforcement of civil rights laws. Bills such as H.R. 2389 and the Federal Marriage Amendment we debated yesterday are bills to prevent the courts from exercising their article III functions and prohibiting discrimination. We cannot allow bad legislation such as this to pass in the House, and thereby eviscerate the Constitution and the values upon which this nation was originally founded. In the 1970s, some Members of Congress unsuccessfully sought to strip the courts of jurisdiction to hear desegregation efforts such as busing, which would have perpetuated racial inequality. We did not allow it then, and we should not allow it now. H.R. 2389, as drafted, insulates the Pledge of Allegiance as set forth in section 4 of title 4 of the United States Code from constitutional challenge in the Federal court. The Jackson-Lee amendment protects children from being coerced or forced into reciting the Pledge of Allegiance against their will. However, the statute and the pledge are subject to change by future legislation bodies. This means that if some future Congress decides to insert some religiously offensive or discriminatory language in the Pledge, the matter would be immune to constitutional challenge in the Federal courts. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record a copy of a letter dated July 18, 2006 from the American Bar Association which supports my claims. Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues vote to protect religious minorities, vote to protect judicial review, vote to protect separation of powers, and vote to protect access to the Federal courts. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2389.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 784, a resolution that would celebrate Radio Al Mahaba, the first and only radio station for women in Iraq. Located in a country that only just recently employed a democratic system, Radio Al Mahaba is a true symbol of the rights associated with that system. In Iraq's history, women were typically denied their basic rights. Radio Al Mahaba, which means ``Voice of Women,'' first went on the air on April 1, 2005 and represents just the opposite of this norm. It has become a forum where women can voice and discuss opinions and practice their freedoms of speech and the press. The station offers speaking opportunities for local volunteers and female journalists. It has been an effective tool not only to reach out to women throughout Iraq, but also to encourage greater female participation in the electoral process. Thus, the establishment of Radio Al Mahaba was truly a step in the right direction towards establishing autonomy and liberties for women in Iraq. Moreover, Radio Al Mahaba can be a key source for open communication among the people of Iraq, delivering information, such as news alerts, when necessary. It also represents a positive result of the U.S. presence in Iraq. Today, it is critical that we commend Radio Al Mahaba for its inspiring work and encourage it to stay on the air for years to come. I commend Congresswoman McCarthy for proposing H. Res. 784, and I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentlewoman from Colorado and the distinguished gentleman from Delaware, and a number of others, along with the cosponsors, of which I am very proud to have been a cosponsor. And I thank the Energy and Commerce Committee. I rise to acknowledge and support S. 3504. This bill prohibits the harvesting of human fetal tissue or embryos for scientific research, which is consistent with current science research practices anyway. I am delighted to join in and support this moral boundary to prohibit heinous practices that are already law. At the same time, I would ask that we move quickly to pass H.R. 810, the Castle-DeGette Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act which would expand Federal funding for enormously promising embryonic stem cell research; but more importantly, as those who are languishing in our districts, some who have lost their life, others who are seeking some relief with spinal injuries, if you will, spinal cord injuries, with Parkinson's disease, begging that we move forward on H.R. 810, embryonic stem cell research has the potential to unlock the doors to treatments, diseases, and cures for numerous illnesses, including diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's Disease, multiple sclerosis, cancer and spinal cord injuries. The very same voice that Nancy Reagan raised, we are raising on this floor. Embryonic stem cell research could benefit an estimated 100 million Americans, those with these diseases and those having family members with these diseases. More importantly, children who have not seen the future before them could now have an open opportunity. Senator Bill Frist said it right: Embryonic stem cells uniquely hold specific promise that adult stem cells cannot provide. Our country's leading scientists and biomedical researchers support H.R. 810. The Santorum-Specter alternative stem cell research bill is no replacement for that bill. Yes, we can support the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006. We can support it, but I hope we will rush to the floor and support H.R. 810 so Americans might still live. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support S. 3504, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act. I am under no illusion that this bill will contribute significantly to the advancement of stem cell research. This bill prohibits the harvesting of human fetal tissue or embryos for scientific research, which is consistent with current scientific research practices anyway. There is no argument that the provisions in this bill would prevent repulsive practices from occurring, but there is also no evidence that these practices would ever occur. By designating this moral boundary, this bill requires researchers to find a way to make stem cells reap the potential benefits while skirting a politically divisive issue. As a Member of the Science Committee, I am committed to the advancement of science. I believe we should explore creative initiatives and pursue sound research. By demonizing science, we only hurt ourselves and make it more likely that our country will fall behind other countries in the critically important fields of science, technology, and innovation. For many of us, our driver's license exhibits a tiny red heart, which indicates to any emergency personnel that, God forbid, in a fatal accident, I have voluntarily chosen to be an organ donor. A similar option exists for those who prefer to dedicate themselves to scientific research postmortem. For those who may not know, the first scientists to successfully separate and grow cultures of stem cells in 1998 utilized discarded tissue. In all cases, it was from an unrelated yet previous decision, such as non-living fetuses obtained from terminated first trimester pregnancies. The distinction is important--this is not sacrificing one life for another, it is the possibility of bringing more life out of a death. What the authors of this bill call fetal farming, the scientific community calls ``therapeutic cloning.'' Therapeutic cloning involves removing the DNA from an unfertilized human egg and replacing it with DNA from a patient. The egg then divides through mitosis to become a blastocyst. A blastocyst is a clump of several dozen cells that then produces stem cells with DNA identical to the patient. Though a fetus could not develop in these conditions, many contend that the resulting blastocyst is still a human embryo. It is important to note that the process does not involve a human pregnancy. Ethical boundaries are crucial to the integrity of science. Naming a bill creatively, on the other hand, and making a big issue out of a non-contentious point does not improve the law. Unfortunately, however, this simple little bill and its companion, which we are also discussing today, do not weigh the consequences of any of these valid policy discussions. Instead, it does little to advance the very serious and promising area of scientific research that is reflected in H.R. 810; this research is supported by a majority of this House, and hopefully will be reaffirmed by this House later this week. This bill prohibits the ``harvesting'' of human fetal tissue or embryos for scientific research, which is consistent with current scientific research practices anyway. There is no argument that the provisions in this bill would prevent repulsive practices from occurring, but there is also no evidence that these practices would ever occur. By designating this moral boundary, this bill requires researchers to find a way to make stem cells reap the potential benefits while skirting a politically divisive issue. I am not opposed to this Jill, although it does not further scientific research. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of science, scientific research, and the promise of scientific advancement later this week.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it spells relief that the 10 students from the Mickey Leland Kibbutz program have now begun to leave Israel and to come home. They had a wonderful experience, but they were in the midst of one the rising conflicts in a region that needs the full attention of this administration. My first request is for Americans to have the confidence in America, and for America to extend itself on behalf of those who need to be rescued from Lebanon. How can we watch European countries send ship after ship, and we are begging at the shores to be allowed to leave Lebanon? What more pain can Americans experience? And who can expect an American to have confidence in their government when you are asking them to sign a piece of paper to pay to save their lives? Did they do that when they were fleeing from Vietnam when North Vietnam was taking over South Vietnam? It is time to bring resolution. And the President was right: let's talk to Syria. Let's have Hezbollah stand down. Let's have a cease- fire. Let's have the soldiers of Israel return. And, yes, they have a right to defend. But we, as a world power, have a right and responsibility to engage and bring about a resolution in the conflict in the Mid East.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I do believe in the separation of church and State, as one asked the question that we should be talking about what we believe in. I believe in the 10th amendment and its constitutional premise: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' My good friend who just spoke from South Carolina made a very valid point, that we are now tampering with constitutional privileges that we have yielded to the States, and more importantly, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution have made it very clear that it is a document of enhancement, of affirmation of rights. My concern is that we are now standing on the floor of this sacred body denying rights to human beings and Americans. We are denying the rights, the privacy rights, civil liberties rights. We are even going so far as to deny visitation rights at hospitals and the ability to mourn your loved one. Might I say that this past week a dear, beloved friend of mine mourned his partner, mourned his partner, and all of the community came to acknowledge the leadership of his partner. Is his grief or his loss to be degraded on this floor, to be denied, to ask the question whether it was not a special and sacred relationship? So I ask my colleagues, as we corrected the enslavement of those of us who came here first in the bottom of the belly of a slave boat with the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment, affirmation of rights, creating rights, not denying rights, I will not stand here on the floor today and accept the responsibility of denying rights. Might I say, the Senate, the other body, has already spoken. They could not get a simple majority. Why? It is wrong to deny rights to Americans. I will not allow the flag to be desecrated by this amendment. Defeat this constitutional offering and bring back freedom to America. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is the symbol of the misplaced priorities of the Republican leadership in the House. It is clear that this amendment is being addressed not for the policy involved but simply for floor debate. We have considered this issue in Congress before, and doing so again is simply a waste of taxpayers' money. This debate is ill-advised and will not help the American people. Issues we could be addressing here today are: the global war on terrorism we are fighting, from which we have been distracted by the war in Iraq, and a war that has resulted in a devastating toll on American lives and our budget; the crisis in the Middle East; increasing gas prices; a ballooning budget deficit of over $5 trillion that is choking our economy and crucial social service programs; and a health care system that is failing the millions of Americans that remain uninsured. Why are we wasting time on the House floor, in our legislative offices and with our valuable staff to handle this imprudent amendment? I oppose this bill because, for the first time in America's rich and long democratic history, the Constitution will be used not as a beacon of liberation but an instrument of deprivation. On the 230-year anniversary of our Constitution, let us not desecrate it by enacting this act. H.J. Res. 88, the ``Marriage Protection Amendment,'' proposes to impose the opinion of a minority of the members of this Congress on the lives of all Americans on matters that concern their personal lives, their family relations, and their very identity. tenth amendment The 10th Amendment states: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'' The individual states need to have the ability to differ with the Federal Government in an area that relates to what goes on in the homes of individuals. equal protection of the law Gay and lesbian Americans are American citizens who pay taxes and protect our communities as fire fighters, police officers, and by serving in the military, and therefore desire the same rights and protections as other Americans. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry amounts to a federal taking--legal rights in pensions, health insurance, hospital visitations, and inheritance that other long-term committed couples enjoy. It should never be our job to restrict the rights of the American people--only to extend them. This amendment would write discrimination into our Constitution. As Members of Congress with the authorities vested in us as a body, we have a responsibility to deal with issues that need attention. There is no emergent need relating to individual well-being, national security, or any other government interest that warrants a constitutional amendment for this purpose. This is a waste of the taxpayers' dollars. This Amendment takes away existing legal protections, under state and local laws, for committed, long-term couples, such as hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, pension benefits, and health insurance coverage among others. Under current law, marriage is a decision of the state. As marriage was initially tied to property rights, this has historically always been a local issue. The state gives us a marriage license, determines a couples' tax bracket and authorizes its divorce. It does not need additional control over the situation. Religious conceptions of marriage are sacrosanct and should remain so, but how a state decides to dole out hospital visitation rights or insurance benefits should be a matter of state law. As legal relationships change, laws adapt accordingly. Matters of great importance, such as marriage, need to reflect the will of the people and be resolved within the democratic process. By having Congress give the states restrictions initially, we are denying them the chance to let their constituents decide what is best for them. We cannot use the Constitution as a bullhorn to dictate social policy from Washington. Furthermore, any law determining who may or may not marry denies religious institutions the right to decide this amongst themselves and is therefore a denial of the religious freedoms that we treasure so dearly. Leading civil rights and religious organizations across the Nation have expressed their opposition to this amendment. Among them are: the Anti-Defamation League; the Alliance of Baptists; the American Civil Liberties Union; the League of Women Voters of the United States; the American Jewish Committee; the NAACP; and many more. I have here in my hand a letter to Representatives Hastert and Pelosi, signed by over 2,500 members of the clergy in our Nation. They come from different faiths and backgrounds, and may disagree on many things, but they all oppose this amendment. This proposed amendment will forever write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution rather than focusing on the crucial problems and challenges that affect the lives of all of us. It is nothing more than a political distraction for the country to divert attention from the overabundance of real problems and our tremendous lack of effective solutions. violation of privacy Our civil liberties are based upon the fundamental premise that each individual has a right to privacy, to be free from governmental interference in the most personal, private areas of one's life. Deciding when and whether to have children is one of those areas. Marriage is another. In 1965 the Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut that a married couple had the right to use birth control. In doing so, the Court recognized a ``zone of privacy'' implicit in various provisions of the Constitution. Most recently, the Supreme Court struck down a law criminalizing sex between same-sex couples in Lawrence v. Texas based upon these same principles. Indeed, Lawrence relied principally on Griswold, Eisenstadt and Roe v. Wade. Collectively, these decisions recognize the fundamental principle that the Constitution protects individuals' decisions about marriage, procreation, contraception and family relationships. The issues are inextricably linked--in law as well as policy. there is no valid need to amend the constitution Amending the Constitution is a radical act that should only be undertaken to address great public-policy needs. Since the adoption of the Bill of Rights, in 1791, the Constitution has been amended only 17 times. Moreover, the Constitution should be amended only to protect and expand, not limit, individual freedoms. By contrast, the Marriage Protection Amendment is an attempt to restrict liberties, and on a discriminatory basis. defense of marriage act already exists The Defense of Marriage Act, which President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996, already exists and recognizes marriage as a heterosexual union for purposes of federal law only. DOMA was designed to provide individual states individual autonomy in deciding how to recognize marriage and other unions within their borders. This allowed legislators the latitude to decide how to deal with marriage rights themselves, while simultaneously stating that no state could force another to recognize marriage of same sex couples. For those who want to take a stance on marriage alone, DOMA should quell their fears. We do not need additional, far reaching legislation. mpa will not change views on same sex marriage The Federal government cannot use its influence to change people's minds about a social issue. It did not work in the 1920s when the 18th amendment declared alcohol to be illegal and it did not work in the 1960s when interracial marriage was still considered a crime. This amendment will not change the lives of those who want to live as a married couple; all it will do is take away their license to do so. this will clog the judicial system The MPA is a lawyer's dream and a judge's nightmare. The number of cases that will flood the system will be outlandish. Does the MPA retroactively invalidate all marriages that have occurred in the interim? If a spouse has died, how does the retroactive annulment effect custody of the children, or property rights? There will be a litany of case law brought out to deal with these questions, and our judicial system will be filled with cases trying to sort out the lasting effects of the MPA. this is likely to fail Amending the constitution is not a simple thing, and should be done with care and caution over a longer period of time. Our haste in this matter will be the tragic flaw of the MPA's journey. Recent polls show that a majority of people who oppose gay marriage also oppose amending the constitution to ban them. In addition, this amendment has already been considered in the Senate and was rejected. MPA does not help families Many of my colleagues are arguing that the MPA is here to protect the family. Spending time and resources to amend the constitution to prevent gay marriages is not helping a single family. Divorce, abuse, unwed motherhood, and unemployment are doing far more harm to millions of families everywhere. To those who are taking up the cause to protect American families, perhaps your attention could be focused elsewhere on the problems which are truly plaguing them. The vocal proponents of the MPA show their strong and willful hatred of the gay and lesbian community. This egregious amendment would enshrine discrimination against a specific group of citizens and intolerance of specific religious beliefs into our Nation's most sacred document. The fight for equality is uniquely woven into our Nation's history. From the suffrage movement, to the civil rights movement, to the gay rights movement, minorities in this country have worked tirelessly to achieve the equal rights guaranteed to all. the legal incident of marriage warrants a license Marriage provides a multitude of critical protections to same sex couples and their children. These legal incidents include rights related to: group insurance; victim's compensation; worker's compensation; durable powers of attorney; family leave benefits; and a joint tax return. These benefits are necessary for families to function. If ``marriage'' is truly a license that extends rights, it should not be denied to one group of people--otherwise, this body will be guilty of legislating in violation of the Equal Protections Clause of the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record at this point the Clergy for Fairness, Religious Leaders Opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment, that shows the standing of the religious community of America. It is entitled: ``We, the People.'' Clergy for Fairness, Washington, DC, July 7, 2006. Rep. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, Washington, DC. Rep Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, Washington, DC. Dear Rep. Hastert and Rep. Pelosi: As clergy from a broad spectrum of religious traditions we hold diverse views regarding marriage. However, we are united in our opposition to amending the U.S. Constitution to define marriage. The Marriage Protection Amendment raises alarming constitutional concerns. We do not favor using the constitutional amendment process to resolve the divisive issues of the moment. Loading down the Constitution with such amendments weakens the enormous influence it holds as the key document that binds our nation together. We are concerned that the Marriage Protection Amendment would mark the first time in history that an amendment to the Constitution would restrict the civil rights of an entire group of Americans. Misusing our nation's most cherished document for this purpose would tarnish our proud tradition of expanding citizens' rights by Constitutional amendment, a tradition long supported by America's faith communities. These concerns alone merit rejection of the Marriage Protection Amendment. We also share a serious concern that the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment would infringe on religious liberty. Thoughtful people of faith can and do disagree on the issue of marriage. America's many religious traditions reflect this diversity of opinion, as do we who sign this letter. But we respect the right of each religious group to decide, based on its own religious teachings, whether or not to sanction marriage of same-sex couples. It is surely not the federal government's role to prefer one religious definition of marriage over another, much less to codify such a preference in the Constitution. To the contrary: the great contribution of our Constitution is to ensure religious liberty for all. Some argue that a constitutional amendment is necessary to ensure that clergy and faith groups will never be forced to recognize marriages of same-sex couples against their will. This argument is unfounded. Such coercion is already expressly forbidden by the First Amendment's ``establishment'' clause, its guarantee of the right to ``free exercise'' of religion, and the Supreme Court's doctrine of religious autonomy that is rooted in both religion clauses. These, and only these, are all the protection of religious autonomy--and of religious marriage--our nation needs. Our nation's founders adopted the First Amendment precisely because they understood the dangers of allowing government to have control over religious doctrine and decisions. It is this commitment to religious freedom that has allowed religious practice and pluralism to flourish in America as nowhere else. If this freedom is to be maintained, we must respect the rights of faith communities to apply their own religious teachings and values to the issue of same-sex relationships. It is surely not the business of politicians to assert control over the doctrine and practice of our faith communities. The Marriage Protection Amendment would dignify discrimination and undermine religious liberty. America's religious communities do not support this amendment. As leaders of these communities, we urge you to vote against any attempt to pass this Amendment. Respectfully, Rev. Richard K. Heacock, Jr., United Methodist, Fairbanks,

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support S. 2754, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act. I am under no illusion that this bill will contribute significantly to the advancement of stem cell research. As a Member of the Science committee, I am committed to the advancement of science. I believe we should explore creative initiatives and pursue sound research. By demonizing science, we only hurt ourselves and make it more likely that our country will fall behind other countries in the critically important fields of science, technology, and innovation. The type of stem cells that this bill refers to are the most adaptable and unique of all of the stem cell varieties. As opposed to adult stem cells, which are limited to a genre, such as blood cells or bone cells, pluripotent stem cells can be eventually developed into any bodily tissue. But they cannot themselves develop into a human being. The possibilities, and medical miracles, are literally limitless, and only restricted by time and by funding. The pluripotent stem cells were derived using non-Federal funds from early-stage embryos donated voluntarily by couples undergoing fertility treatment in an in vitro fertilization (IVF) clinic or from non-living fetuses obtained from terminated first trimester pregnancies. Informed consent was obtained from the donors in both cases. Women voluntarily donating fetal tissue for research did so only after making the decision to terminate the pregnancy. Those who would argue against pluripotent stem cells usually approach the topic through one of the following three questions: 1. Do the pluripotent cells have a moral status on their own? In other words, are they considered entities that must be protected? 2. Is it unethical to derive pluripotent cells from fetal tissue? 3. Is it unethical to create human embryonic blastocysts in order to create these pluripotent cells? Unfortunately, however, this simple little bill and its companion, which we are also discussing today, do not weigh the consequences of any of these valid policy discussions. Instead, it does little to advance the very serious and promising area of scientific research that is reflected in H.R. 810; this research is supported by a majority of this House, and hopefully will be reaffirmed by this House later this week. This bill only encourages research that does not discard, destroy, or knowingly harm a human fetus, which is consistent with current scientific research practices anyway. By designating this moral boundary, this bill requires researchers to find a way to make stem cells reap the potential benefits while skirting a politically divisive issue. I am not opposed to this bill, although it does not further scientific research. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of science, scientific research, and the promise of scientific advancement later this week.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, when you are home in your district, there are those who are looking at the crisis in the Middle East and asking what is the response of the United States. And, yes, of course Israel has the right to defend. But the President of the United States, the Executive, has the right as well to stand and call boldly for a cease fire. We are the superpower of the world. We do have Americans in harm's way. I myself have students in the Mickey Leland internship program who are making their way back home from Israel. What I would say is that this is a time for engagement. This is a time for drawing parties from the Arab states as well as Israel and others who would go into the Mideast, sit down in Jordan or other states that are surrounding the area, and actually have a confrontation, a meeting, an understanding, if you will, to bring some solution. It is important for us to be in the way of saving lives. It is important for us to acknowledge the necessity of finding balance so that we can save lives. Soldiers should be returned, but we should not ignore the opportunity for engagement. We must be in the Mideast. We must draw the parties together. We must find a solution. We must save lives.