Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Norwood Amendment to H.R. 9, the ``Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.'' The Norwood Amendment replaces the existing Section 5 coverage formula with one keyed to whether a jurisdiction has a test or device or voter turnout of less than 50 percent in any of the three most recent presidential elections. The proponents of the amendment claim it is needed to prevent the Supreme Court from striking down the Voting Rights Act. Mr. Chairman, there are several compelling reasons for rejecting this amendment, which I will discuss. But let me respond, Mr. Chairman, to the claim that Georgia has suffered enough and should be let out of the ``penalty box.'' I response is simple: the record amply demonstrates that Georgia earned its way into whatever ``penalty box'' it is in and it must earn its way out, as eleven local jurisdictions in Virginia already have. Reasons for Rejecting the Norwood Amendment: Mr. Chairman, the claim that the Voting Rights Act faces constitutional jeopardy from the Supreme Court if section 5 is not gutted is a red herring and is not to be taken seriously. First, the Supreme Court has never ruled the Voting Rights Acts or any of its provisions unconstitutional and there is no reason to suspect it will do so now. The claim that the intent of the Norwood Amendment is to save and protect the Voting Rights Act is disingenuous. It is akin to destroying the village in order to save it! Second, the Norwood Amendment would eviscerate the effectiveness of Section 5 by extending its reach nationwide. It accomplishes this by basing the pre-clearance ``trigger'' on election turnout in the three most recent presidential elections. Extending the reach of Section 5 nationwide will weaken it, not strengthen it in at least three ways. A ``nationwide'' Section 5 would also be vulnerable to constitutional attack as not ``narrowly tailored'' or ``congruent and proportional'' to address the harms it is designed to cure, as required by the Supreme Court's recent precedents. Section 5 is directed at jurisdictions with a history of discriminating against minority voters. Nationwide application of Section 5 would be extremely difficult to administer, given the volume of voting changes that would have to be reviewed. This expansion of coverage would dilute the Department of Justice's ability to appropriately focus their work on those jurisdictions where there is a history of voting discrimination. The lack of understanding of the true purpose and significance of the Voting Rights Act on the part of the supporters of the Norwood Amendment is most revealed by the desire to extend the reach of Section 5 nationwide. The proponents of the Norwood Amendment characterize the pre-clearance provisions of Section 5 as the ``penalty box,'' reserved for those jurisdictions that have ``broken the rules.'' The right to vote is not a game; it is serious business, and for those who led the fight to secure that right for African-Americans, it was deadly serious. Section 5 is not punitive; it prohibits discriminatory changes affecting the right to vote. The Voting Rights Act has no provisions that name particular states or areas. Section 5 is aimed at a type of problem, not a state or region. It is designed to prevent backsliding by states whose discriminatory literacy tests were outlawed by the original act in 1965. Section 4 banned literacy tests in states where they were used to discriminate, but experience showed that when one method of voting discrimination was blocked--either through court action or a new law--another method would suddenly appear as a replacement. Congress therefore included the Section 5 preclearance provision to prevent the implementation of new discriminatory laws. The objections made since 1965 showed the covered jurisdictions have attempted to use gerrymandering and other forms of discrimination to abridge the right to vote. Section 5 has focused on these efforts. Mr. Chairman, utilizing recent presidential election turnout data to determine who should be covered by Section 5 preclearance confuses the symptom with the disease. In 1965, Congress used registration and turnout data to select which states should be subject to federal pre- approval of voting changes because that was the most efficient way to identify those places with the longest and worst history of voter disfranchisement and entrenched discrimination and blatant racism by recalcitrant jurisdictions. Congress understood that while a multitude of formulas could be conjured to identify which governmental units would be subject to preclearance, there was and could be only one way for a covered jurisdiction to overcome the need to preclear its election laws, and that is by satisfying an independent federal judiciary that it had renounced its discriminatory past and could be trusted not to employ any artifice that would result in a return to those days of shame. Mr. Chairman, the coverage formula does not need to be changed to bring it to up to date. The current formula correctly identifies jurisdictions that have the longest and worst history of voter disenfranchisement and entrenched discrimination. Jurisdictions free of discrimination for ten years can come out from under coverage. Those with continuing problems remain covered. And those where a court finds new constitutional violations can become covered. If the existing coverage formula were to be replaced with a formula that relies on 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential election data, it would amount to a repeal of Section 5, even though we know that voting discrimination continues in the currently covered jurisdictions. Last, the Norwood Amendment undermines the constitutionality of a renewed Section 5. The current coverage formula targets jurisdictions where Congress found a record of pervasive discrimination in voting on the basis of race. There is no evidence that the new triggers relied upon in the Norwood Amendment will target such jurisdictions, and only those jurisdictions, with a history of racial discrimination when its comes to its citizens' exercise of the franchise: The Norwood Amendment is not likely to pass constitutional muster because it is not narrowly tailored to achieve the Congressional objective of subjecting only those jurisdictions with a history of voter discrimination and electoral racism to the pre-clearance provisions of Section 5. Conclusion The jurisdictions covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act earned their way in; they can earn their way out through the bailout provisions of the Act. What they have not earned is for this Congress to end preclearance requirements for where there is a continuing need for such oversight, as the Texas mid-decade redistricting case and the Georgia voter identification case make clear. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished vice chairman for his leadership, his consistent leadership, along with my colleagues. And I particularly thank Congresswoman Waters for the vision of the Out of Iraq Caucus. As I listened to many of you isolate or emphasize intelligence failures, leadership failures, generals who had the expertise of war, I wanted to bring as we talk this evening, to the forefront the whole concern, the human toll. As I know that we are speaking tonight, there are thousands of military families who are about the American fabric across the land. We already know that some of them are barely making ends meet. Some of them are on food stamps. But just this past weekend we sent 140 more of those from my congressional district out of Ellington Field. Some have been redeployed before. Some are on their first, second, third redeployment. If you speak to our Armed Services Committee, they will tell you that we have depleted most of the back-up of our military prowess. The battalions that were in Kuwait are not one, two, three and four. They are down to maybe one battalion, if you will, that is in reserve. And so we have a crisis not only that is impacting the direction of the Iraq war, but the overextending of our military. The 20,000, 15- to 20,000 injured, who are physically maimed and mentally maimed; resources in the Department of Defense appropriations, not enough to cover the mental health needs of these individuals, and as well, the silence of their injury, not being seen by the American people, and the cost that will be put upon society without, I believe, any direction in any harvesting of dollars that will help these military personnel. The very crux of where we are today in Iraq has a lot to do with some of the misdirection, the political misdirection of our soldiers. They won the war, but yet they were expected to be policemen. They are expected to be political officers, if you will; they are expected to build infrastructure with no guidance. And so out of that frustration comes Haditha. Out of that frustration comes the brutal murder of a young woman and her family, because you are talking about redeploying soldiers once, but then two, three, four, times. I met a soldier in the airport, and they said, four times I have been redeployed. So as I look at the crisis in Israel and Lebanon and now to the other side of us, North Korea, frankly, any talk about attacking Iran begs the question of whether or not we have the kind of military resources to even engage in that kind of conversation. I think we failed in Iraq because we did not engage. We did not first develop a political and foreign policy that could engage the region. Not Saddam Hussein. We know he was a despot. But the region, to ask for our allies' support, to ensure that the inspections had gone forward. And now with Israel our hands are tied. We know that we want to ensure that soldiers are sent back to their sovereign country. Israel has a right to defend herself. But we also realize that the United States has to show a balanced perspective, calling for a cease-fire, sending an envoy team of high-level reporting directly to the President, and engaging in foreign policy that says we realize that the region is important. A secure and safe Israel, a two-state response to the Palestinian issue, but the region is important. And when we went into Iraq, we said to the region you are not important. We can be an aggressor. We can go in and attack. We thought we could go in without any fallback, with impunity. And now we see that our generals are now disagreeing with us, that our allies in the Arab states are now falling away from us, that the crisis is at such a level that our credibility is so shattered that when the region needs us most, which is now, there is a question of whether or not we have the kind of leadership and credibility going in. This is what Iraq has brought to us and the American people. I commend my colleagues for organizing this special order to discuss the conduct and costs of the war in Iraq. I look forward to engaging in dialogue with my colleagues about the most important issue facing the country today and the most fateful and ill-considered decision of this Administration. I. The Bush Iraq Policy Has Harmed The U.S. Military A few weeks ago we learned the sad news that the 2,500th soldier has been killed in Iraq. More than 19,000 others have been wounded. The Bush administration's open-ended commitment of U.S. troops to Iraq has weakened the U.S. Army, the National Guard, and the Army Reserves. The extended deployments in Iraq have eroded U.S. ground forces and overall military strength. A Pentagon-commissioned study concluded that the Army cannot maintain its current pace of operations in Iraq without doing permanent damage to the quality of the force. So more than three years of a continuous deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq has: Contributed to serious problems with recruitment, with the U.S. Army missing its recruitment targets last year; Forced the Army to lower its standards for military recruits; and Led to military equipment shortages that hamper the ability of U.S. ground forces to do their job in Iraq and around the world.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to the King Amendment to H.R. 9, the ``Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.'' The King Amendment strikes, inter alia, section 203 of the bill. Section 203 is the part of the Voting Rights Act that provides language assistance to American citizen voters for whom English is not their first language. Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be soundly defeated. I agree with the Mr. Sensenbrenner that of all the weakening amendments offered, this is one of the worst and ugliest. Mr. Chairman, one of the most important things proponents of the King Amendment fail to understand is that Section 203 removes barriers to voting faced by TAX PAYING AMERICAN CITIZENS, citizens who do not speak English well enough to participate in the election process. Tax-paying citizens should not be penalized for needing assistance to exercise their fundamental right to vote. Language minority citizens are required to pay taxes and serve in the military without regard to their level of English proficiency. If they can shoulder those burdens of citizenship, they should be able to share in the benefits of voting with appropriate assistance to exercise the vote. Section 203 mandates language assistance based on a trigger formula for language minorities from four language groups: Native Americans, Native Alaskans, Asian Americans, and persons of Spanish heritage. Section 203 protects citizens, not illegal immigrants. Regardless of one's position on the ongoing debate over immigration reform, the debate over immigration policy is simply irrelevant to the debate on ensuring that the fundamental right to vote is exercised equally by English and non-English proficient citizens. According to the 2000 census, more than three-quarters (77 percent) of those protected by Section 203 are native-born citizens. For example, 100 percent of Native Americans and Native Alaskans were born in the United States; 98.6 percent of Puerto Ricans protected by Section 4(e) were born in the United States; and 84.2 percent of Latinos were born in the United States. Mr. Chairman, section 203 was enacted to remedy the history of educational disparities, which have led to high illiteracy rates and low voter turnout. These disparities continue to exist. As of 2000, three fourths of the 3 to 3.5 million students who are native-born were considered to be English Language Learners (ELLs), meaning the students don't speak English well enough to understand the basic English curriculum. ELL students lag significantly behind native-English speakers and are twice as likely to fail graduation tests. California has over 1,500,000 ELLs; Texas has 570,000 ELLs; Florida has 25,000 ELLs; and New York has over 230,000. Since 1975, there have been more than 24 education discrimination cases filed on behalf of ELLs in 15 States. Fourteen of the States in which education discrimination lawsuits have been brought are covered by language assistance provisions. Since 1992, 10 cases have been filed. Litigation and consent decrees are currently pending in Texas, Alaska, Arizona, and Florida. Discrimination cases that have been brought address issues such as inadequate funding for ELLs, inadequate curriculum to assist ELLs become proficient in English, and lack of teachers and classrooms. These disparities increase the likelihood that ELLs will achieve lower test scores and drop out of school, ultimately, leading to lower voter registration and turnout. Also, adults who want to learn English must endure long waiting periods to enroll in English Second Language (ESL) literacy centers. The lack of funding to expand the number of ESL centers around the country leaves minority citizens unable to enroll in classes for several years. For example, in large cities such as Boston, citizens must wait for several years to enroll. In New Mexico, citizens must wait up to a year. In the State of New York, the waiting lists were so long, the State eliminated them and instituted a lottery system. Once enrolled, learning English takes citizens several years to even obtain a fundamental understanding of the English language--not enough to understand complex ballots. Citizens should not be barred from exercising their right to vote while trying to become English proficient. Most jurisdictions covered by Section 203 support its continued existence. According to a 2005 survey, an overwhelming majority of jurisdictions covered by Section 203 think that federal language assistance provisions should remain in effect for public elections. In fact, in a poll of registered voters, 57 percent believe it is difficult to navigate ballots and instructions and that assistance should be provided. Mr. Chairman, it is instructive to review just a few contemporary examples which demonstrate the continuing need for the language assistance provisions of Section 203: In 2003 in Harris County, Texas, officials did not provide language assistance for Vietnamese citizens. This prompted the Department of Justice to intervene and, as a result, voter turnout doubled and a local Vietnamese citizen was elected to a local legislative position. The implementation of language assistance in New York City had enabled more than 100,000 Asian-Americans not fluent in English to vote. In 2001, John Liu was elected to the New York City Council, becoming the first Asian-American elected to a major legislative position in the city with the nation's largest Asian-American population. In July 2005, the U.S. Dept. of Justice field a lawsuit against the City of Boston for violations of the federal Voting Rights Act, specifically the language assistance provisions (Section 203) for Spanish language assistance and racial discrimination (Section 2) against Asian American voters. The complaint alleges that Boston abridged the rights of language minority groups by: Treating limited English proficient Hispanic and Asian American voters disrespectfully; Refusing to permit limited English proficient Hispanic and Asian American voters to be assisted by an assistor of their choice; Improperly influencing, coercing, or ignoring the ballot choices of limited English proficient Hispanic and Asian American voters; Failing to make available bilingual personnel to provide effectively assistance and information needed by minority language voters; and Refusing or failing to provide provisional ballots to limited English proficient Hispanic and Asian American voters. In San Diego County, California, voter registration among Hispanics and Filipinos rose by over 20 percent after the Department of Justice brought suit against the county to enforce the language minority provisions of Section 203. During that same period, Vietnamese registrations increased by 40 percent. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, represents our country and this Congress at its best because it matches our words to deeds, our actions to our values. And, as is usually the case, when America acts consistent with its highest values, success follows. By eliminating language assistance to American voters, the King Amendment will make it more difficult for American citizens to participate in the political process simply because English is not their primary language. The King Amendment is thus inconsistent with American values and the spirit of the Voting Rights Act. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Norwood Amendment to H.R. 9, the ``Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.'' The Westmoreland Amendment requires the Attorney General to annually determine whether each State and political subdivision subject to the preclearance requirements of section 5 meets the requirements for bailout. The amendment further requires the Attorney General to then inform the public and each state and political subdivision that they are eligible to bail out. Last, the amendment would direct the Attorney General to consent to the bailout in federal court. Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be soundly defeated. I agree with Mr. Sensenbrenner that of all the weakening amendments offered, this one is the worst by far. The Westmoreland Amendment turns Section 5 on its head because instead of enforcing the Voting Rights Act and stopping voting discrimination, the Department of Justice will be forced to spend nearly all of its time conducting investigations to determine where discrimination no longer exists. In the meantime, voting discrimination and constitutional violations will not be addressed. Further, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cripple the Voting Section of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, making enforcement of the Act nearly impossible. There are nearly 900 jurisdictions covered nationwide by Section 5. Under the proposed amendment, determinations of whether a jurisdiction has a clean bill of health will require the Attorney General to dedicate considerable resources to making these determinations, and little else. This amendment has the effect of requiring coverage determinations be made by the Attorney General each year. The Westmoreland Amendment removes the longstanding requirement that covered jurisdictions bear the burden of establishing that they are free from discrimination and places that burden on the Attorney General. Jurisdictions are uniquely positioned with the evidence showing whether or not voting discrimination is still present. Finally, Mr. Chairman, the current bailout provision in Section 4(a) of the Act provides a reasonable and cost-effective opportunity for qualifying jurisdictions to bailout any time after they meet the criteria, as eleven local jurisdictions in Virginia have already done successfully. The cost for bailout actions has averaged only $5,000. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in proud support of H.R. 9, the ```Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.'' Had I and several of my colleagues not heeded the requests of the bipartisan leadership of the Committee and the House, there might be an amendment to the bill adding the name of our colleague, John Lewis of Georgia, to the pantheon of civil rights giants listed in the short title. Mr. Chairman, with our vote today on H.R. 9, each of us will earn a place in history. Therefore, the question before the House is whether our vote on the Voting Rights Act will mark this moment in history as a ``day of infamy,'' in FDR's immortal words, or will commend us to and through future generations as the great defenders of the right to vote, the most precious of rights because it is preservative of all other rights. For my part, I stand Fannie Lou Hamer and Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King, great Americans who gave all and risked all to help America live up to the promise of its creed. I will vote to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act for the next 25 years. I will oppose all of the poison pill amendments offered by offered by the gentlemen from Iowa, Georgia, and, sadly, my home state of Texas. Collectively, these amendments eviscerate the preclearance provisions of Section 5, end assistance to language minorities, and shorten the period of renewal by 15 years. Mr. Chairman, the proponents of these amendments claim their amendments are intended to ``save'' or ``preserve'' or ``strengthen'' the Voting Rights Acts. To claim that you are strengthening the Voting Rights Act by offering amendments that weaken it is like saying you must destroy a village in order to save it. There will be time enough to discuss in detail each of the weakening amendments when they are offered later today. But at this time I think it very important to discuss the provisions of the Voting Rights Act which I believe an overwhelming majority of the members of this House will vote to adopt today. I also want to spend some time reminding my colleagues, and the American people, why this nation needed a Voting Rights Act in 1965 and still needs it today. The American people are entitled to know why the Voting Rights Act is widely regarded as the most successful civil rights legislation in history. For all the progress this nation has made in becoming a more inclusive, equitable, and pluralistic society, it is the Voting Rights Act ``that has brought us thus far along the way.'' I. Before the Voting Rights Act Mr. Chairman, today most Americans take the right to vote for granted, so much so that just over half of eligible Americans vote in a presidential election. Americans generally assume that anyone can register and vote if a person is over 18 and a citizen. Most of us learned in school that discrimination based on race, creed or national origin has been barred by the Constitution since the end of the Civil War. Before the 1965 Voting Rights Act, however, the right to vote did not exist in practice for most black Americans. And, until 1975, most American citizens who were not proficient in English faced significant obstacles to voting, because they could not understand the ballot. Even though the Indian Citizenship Act gave Native Americans the right to vote in 1924, state law determined who could actually vote, which effectively excluded many Native Americans from political participation for decades. Asian Americans and Asian immigrants also have suffered systematic exclusion from the political process and it has taken a series of reforms, including repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1943, and passage of amendments strengthening the Voting Rights Act three decades later, to fully extend the franchise to Asian Americans. It was with this history in mind that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to make the right to vote a reality for all Americans. Through the years leading up to the passage of the Voting Rights Act, courageous men and women braved threats, harassment, intimidation, and violence to gain the right to vote for disenfranchised Americans. When the Civil Rights Movement came to Ruleville, Mississippi in 1962, Fannie Lou Hamer quickly became an active participant. With training and encouragement from the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), Hamer and several other local residents attempted to register to vote, but were unsuccessful because they did not pass the infamous literacy tests. In retaliation for trying to register, Hamer was fired from her job, received phone threats, and was nearly a victim of 16 gunshots fired into a friend's home. But Hamer was not intimidated: by 1963 she was a field secretary for SNCC and had successfully registered to vote. Once, when asked whether she was concerned that agitating for civil rights might stir up a backlash from white Mississippians, Fannie Lou Hamer famously said: I do remember, one time, a man came to me after the students began to work in Mississippi, and he said the white people were getting tired and they were getting tense and anything might happen. Well, I asked him, ``how long he thinks we had been getting tired?'' . . . All my life I've been sick and tired. Now I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired. Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, was enacted to remedy a long and sorry history of discrimination in certain areas of the country. Presented with a record of systematic defiance by certain States and jurisdictions that could not be overcome by litigation, this Congress--led by President Lyndon Johnson, from my own home state of Texas--took the steps necessary to stop it. It is instructive to recall the words of President Johnson when he proposed the Voting Rights Act to the Congress in 1965: ``Rarely are we met with a challenge . . . to the values and the purposes and the meaning of our beloved Nation. The issue of equal rights for American Negroes is such as an issue . . . the command of the Constitution is plain. It is wrong--deadly wrong--to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country.'' It was wrong to deny African-Americans and other citizens their right to vote. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. Nothing has done more to right those wrongs than the Voting Rights. Without exaggeration, it has been one of the most effective civil rights laws passed by Congress. In 1964, there were only approximately 300 African-Americans in public office, including just three in Congress. Few, if any, black elected officials were elected anywhere in the South. Today there are more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 43 members of Congress, the largest number ever. The act has opened the political process for many of the approximately 6,000 Latino public officials that have been elected and appointed nationwide, including 263 at the state or federal level, 27 of whom serve in Congress. Native Americans, Asians and others who have historically encountered harsh barriers to full political participation also have benefited greatly. Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is no ordinary piece of legislation. For millions of Americans, and many of us in Congress, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a sacred treasure, earned by the sweat and toil and tears and blood of ordinary Americans who showed the world it was possible to accomplish extraordinary things. Mr. Chairman, I hail from the great State of Texas, the Lone Star State. A state that, sadly, had one of the most egregious records of voting discrimination against racial and language minorities. Texas is one of the Voting Rights Act's ``covered jurisdictions.'' In all of its history, I am only one of three African-American woman from Texas to serve in the Congress of the United States, and one of only two to sit on this famed Committee. I hold the seat once held by the late Barbara Jordan, who won her seat thanks to the Voting Rights Act. From her perch on this committee, Barbara Jordan once said: I believe hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I stand today an heir of the Civil Rights Movement, a beneficiary of the Voting Rights Act. I would be breaking faith with those who risked all and gave all to secure for my generation the right to vote if I did not do all I can to strengthen the Voting Rights Act so that it will forever keep open doors that shut out so many for so long. And the first and most important thing to do today is to vote in favor of H.R. 9 and against all weakening amendments. II. renewal of section 5 and section 203 Congress needs to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires election law changes proposed by covered jurisdictions to be pre-cleared by the Department of Justice. The reason is simple. Equal opportunity in voting still does not exist in many places. Discrimination on the basis of race still denies many Americans their basic democratic rights. Although such discrimination today is more subtle than it used to be, it must still be remedied to ensure the healthy functioning of our democracy. It is the obligation of the federal government to see that the constitutionally protected right to vote is guaranteed. This is what the Voting Rights Act is designed to do. Section 5: Preclearance Section 5 applies to 16 states in whole or in part, including my home state of Texas. Under section 5, a covered jurisdiction must submit proposed changes to any voting law or procedure to the Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. for pre- approval, hence the term preclearance. The submitting jurisdiction has the burden of proof to show that the proposed change(s) are not retrogressive, i.e. that they do not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color. The formula used to designate these covered jurisdictions was first adopted in 1965 and then subsequently amended in 1970 and 1975. Section 5 applies to any state or county where a discriminatory test or device was used as of November 1, 1964, and where less than 50 percent of the voting age residents of the jurisdiction were registered to vote, or actually voted, in the presidential election of 1964, 1968, or 1972. Although the formula used by Congress focused on registration rates, Congress was principally focused on voter turnout rates. Rather, Congress understood and found that there was an exceptionally strong correlation between low registration rates in the covered jurisdiction and active, purposeful discriminatory conduct intended to keep African- Americans from voting. Mr. Chairman, it is important to emphasize that preclearance does not punish states for the wrongdoings of the past. Nor does it stifle their ability to move forward and progress. That is because covered jurisdictions are able to remove themselves from the restrictions of preclearance through a process known as bailout which sets forth clear and demonstrable standards. Among other things, the jurisdiction must show that: (1) It has not used a test or device with a discriminatory purpose or effect with respect to voting; (2) No state or federal court has issued a final judgment against the state or political subdivision for voting discrimination; (3) The jurisdiction has submitted all voting changes for preclearance in compliance with Section 5; (4) The Attorney General has not objected to a proposed voting change, and no declaratory judgment under section 5 has been denied by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and; (5) The Justice Department has not assigned federal examiners to carry out voter registration or otherwise protect voting rights in the jurisdiction. Currently eleven local jurisdictions in Virginia have taken advantage of the bailout provisions thus far. Mr. Chairman, preclearance acts as an essential deterrent because it puts modest safeguards in place to prevent backsliding. As a bipartisan report by the U.S. Senate in 1982 said, without Section 5, many of the advances of the past decade could be wiped out overnight with new schemes and devices, such as the mid-decade redistricting conducted in Texas, which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in part in LULAC v. Perry, 546 U.S.--No. 05-254 (June 28, 2006) and the Georgia voter identification scheme, which just this week was struck down for a second time. Mr. Chairman, many scholars and voting rights experts agree that without the deterrent effect of Section 5, there will be little to prevent covered jurisdictions from imposing new barriers to minority participation. As much as I and many other may like to see it, Section 5 should not be made permanent. Making it permanent would render it vulnerable to a constitutional challenge. Because Section 5 is race conscious, it must be able to withstand strict scrutiny by the courts. What this means, in part, is that the provision must be narrowly tailored to address the harms it is designed to cure. Many legal experts question whether the Court would find a permanent Section 5 to be narrowly tailored, such as to survive a constitutional attack. Similarly, Section 5 should not be changed to apply nationwide. Although this might sound attractive, a nationwide Section 5 would also be vulnerable to constitutional attack as not narrowly tailored or congruent and proportional to address the harms it is designed to cure, as required by the Supreme Court's recent precedents. Section 5 is directed at jurisdictions with a history of discriminating against minority voters. In addition, nationwide application of Section 5 would be extremely difficult to administer, given the volume of voting changes that would have to be reviewed. This expansion of coverage would dilute the Department of Justice's ability to appropriately focus their work on those jurisdictions where there is a history of voting discrimination. section 203 (language assistance) Mr. Chairman, it is crucial that everyone in our democracy have the right to vote. Yet, having that right legally is meaningless if certain groups of people (such as the disabled or those with limited English proficiency) are unable to accurately cast their ballot at the polls. Voters may be well informed about the issues and candidates, but to make sure their vote is accurately cast, language assistance is necessary in certain jurisdictions with concentrated populations of limited English proficient voters. Section 203 was added to the Voting Rights Act in 1975 and requires certain jurisdictions to make language assistance available at polling locations for citizens with limited English proficiency. These provisions apply to four language groups: Americans Indians, Asian Americans, Alaskan Natives, and those of Spanish heritage. A community with one of these language groups will qualify for language assistance if (1) more than 50 percent of the voting-age citizens in a jurisdiction belong to a single language minority community and have limited English proficiency (LEP); OR (2) more than 10,000 voting-age citizens in a jurisdiction belong to a single language minority. community and are LEP; AND (3) the illiteracy rate of the citizens in the language minority is higher than the national illiteracy rate. Section 203 requires that registration and voting materials for all elections must be provided in the minority language as well as in English. Oral translation during all phases of the voting process, from voter registration clerks to poll workers, also is required. Jurisdictions are permitted to target their language assistance to specific voting precincts or areas. There are currently a total of 466 local jurisdictions across 31 states that are required to provide language assistance nationwide. Of this total: 102 must assist Native Americans or Alaskan Natives across 18 states; 17 local jurisdictions in seven states must assist Asian language speakers and; 382 local jurisdictions in 20 states must assist speakers of Spanish. The total of these figures exceeds 466 because 57 of these Section 203 jurisdictions across 13 states must offer assistance in multiple languages. There is a great misconception that section 203 is not needed because voters must be citizens, who are required to. speak English. While this is true, such citizens still may not be sufficiently fluent to participate fully in the voting process without this much-needed assistance. In addition, there are many other citizens, the majarity of whom are Latinos and Native Americans, who were barn in the United States but have had little or no education and/or are limited English proficient. The failure of certain jurisdictions to provide adequate education to non-English speaking minorities is well documented in legal decisions and in quantitative studies of educational achievement for Latinos and Native Americans. Before the language assistance provisions were added to the Voting Rights Act in 1975, many Spanish- speaking United States citizens did not register to vote because they could not read the election material and could not communicate with poll workers. Language assistance has encouraged these and other citizens of different language minority groups to register and vote and participate mare fully in the political process which is healthy far our democracy. Mr. Chairman, it should be stressed that language assistance is not costly. According to two separate Government Accounting Office studies, as well as independent research conducted by academic scholars, when implemented properly language assistance accounts only for a small fraction of total election costs. The most recent studies show that compliance with Section 203 accounts for approximately 5 percent of total election costs. Finally, Mr. Chairman, language assistance works. To cite one example, in 2003 in Harris County, Texas, officials did not provide language assistance for Vietnamese citizens. This prompted the Department of Justice to intervene and, as a result, voter turnout doubled and a local Vietnamese citizen was elected to a local legislative position. Another example: implementation of language assistance in New York City had enabled more than 100,000 Asian- Americans not fluent in English to vote. In 2001, John Liu was elected to the New York City Council, becoming the first Asian-American elected to a major legislative position in the city with the nation's largest Asian-American population. conclusion The Voting Rights Act of 1965, represents our country and this Congress at its best because it matches our words to deeds, our actions to our values. And, as is usually the case, when America acts consistent with its highest values, success follows. I urge my colleague to vote for the bill and reject all amendments.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, speaking of the Emancipation Proclamation, Martin Luther King declared that: ``This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity.'' I say to you today that the Voting Rights Act, like the Emancipation Proclamation that preceded it a century before, was also a momentous decree which came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Americans who for decades had been subjected to the withering injustice of racial discrimination and electoral disenfranchisement. The Gohmert amendment seeks to diminish the light of continued hope offered by the VRA. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is no ordinary piece of legislation. For millions of Americans and myself, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a sacred treasure, earned by the sweat and toil and tears and blood of ordinary yet heroic Americans who showed the world it was possible to transform their society by having the courage to defy entrenched and systematic racial discrimination and disenfranchisement. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, which we MUST vote to reauthorize today was enacted to remedy a history of systemic and widespread discrimination in certain areas of the country. Presented with a record of systematic defiance by certain States and jurisdictions that could not be overcome by litigation, this Congress-- led by President Lyndon Johnson, from my own home state of Texas--took the steps necessary to stop it. It is instructive to recall the words of President Johnson when he proposed the Voting Rights Act to the Congress in 1965: Rarely are we met with a challenge . . . to the values and the purposes and the meaning of our beloved Nation. The issue of equal rights for American Negroes is such as an issue . . . the command of the Constitution is plain. It is wrong-- deadly wrong--to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 represents our country and this Congress at its best because it matches our words to our deeds, our actions to our values. Martin Luther King said that, ``When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. . . . It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. . . . But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt.'' Fortunately, this country has come a long way in the past four decades since the assassination of Dr. King. However, as the massive voting irregularities that occurred in 2000 and 2004 clearly illustrate, we have not come far enough. That is why we must defeat the Gohmert Amendment which seeks to reduce the reauthorization period for the VRA from 25 years to 10 years. The considerable evidence presented in 10 hearings in the Judiciary Committee demonstrate clearly that the level and patterns of discrimination and electoral disenfranchisement present today are extremely unlikely to be eradicated in 10 years. Moreover, if covered jurisdictions want to bail out of provisions of the VRA, they can. In the past, when Congress reauthorized the VRA for short periods of time, it created an incentive for covered jurisdictions to wait out their obligations rather than comply, thus contributing to the widespread non-compliance with the statute that occurred throughout the 1970s. A 10 year renewal of the VRA would be inadequate. In order for Congress to assess whether a pattern of discriminatory conduct remains, it must be able to review voting changes through multiple redistricting cycles. The three years following the decennial Census are a time of the highest volume of voting changes and the greatest opportunity for discrimination. Accordingly, we must maintain the 25 year renewal period. Furthermore, if we observe Congressional history, our own experience with the renewal of the VRA demonstrates a pattern of lengthening the period of coverage due to the level of entrenchment and intractability of voting discrimination. Given the extensive investment of Congressional resources expended by the Judiciary Committee in compiling and considering the detailed record necessary for reauthorization, reenacting the VRA for only 10 years is inefficient and unacceptable. Without exaggeration, the Voting Rights Act has been one of the most effective civil rights laws passed by Congress. In 1964, there were only approximately 300 African-Americans in public office, including just three in Congress. Few, if any, black elected officials were elected anywhere in the South. Today there are more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 43 members of Congress, the largest number ever. The act has opened the political process for many of the approximately 6,000 Latino public officials that have been elected and appointed nationwide, including 263 at the state or federal level, 27 of whom serve in Congress. Native Americans, Asians and others who have historically encountered harsh barriers to full political participation also have benefited greatly. I hail from the great State of Texas, the Lone Star State. A state that, sadly, had one of the most egregious records of voting discrimination against racial and language minorities. Texas is one of the Voting Rights Act's ``covered jurisdictions.'' In all of its history, I am only one of three African-American woman from Texas to serve in the Congress of the United States, and one of only two to sit on this famed Committee. I hold the seat once held by the late Barbara Jordan, who won her seat thanks to the Voting Rights Act. From her perch on this committee, Barbara Jordan once said: I believe hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I sit here today an heir of the Civil Rights Movement, a beneficiary of the Voting Rights Act. My faith in the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act too is whole, it is complete, it is total. I would be breaking faith with those who risked all and gave all to secure for my generation the right to vote if I did not do all I can to strengthen the Voting Rights Act so that it will forever keep open doors that shut out so many for so long. Consequently, we must honor the legacies of those who sacrificed their lives so that we may be able to exercise our constitutionally protected right to vote by renewing the Voting Rights Act for 25 more years.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman. As much as things change, they remain the same, and I oppose the Westmoreland amendment primarily because it interferes and interjects the Attorney General in a partisan decision on the enhancement of rights. Let me document for you why the Voting Rights Act is still needed today. As Lucy Baines Johnson and Mrs. Robb have indicated, two daughters of Lyndon Baines Johnson, let me suggest to you that this map says and shows all the States that are being covered by this Voting Rights Act. If the Voting Rights Act is hindered by these four amendments, what we have is the inability of these individuals who are now suffering to have redress in the courts. Even today, the Voting Rights Act is applicable to the State of Texas because of poorly drawn districts in 2002. It is applicable to South Dakota because of the violation of the rights of Native Americans. So I suggest to Mr. Westmoreland, though he may be the loyal opposition, we, in fact, do need the Voting Rights Act without the intervention of the Westmoreland amendment which undermines and torpedoes the entire bill. I ask my colleagues to join Senator Dole in her vote for the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Vote against these amendments and vote enthusiastically for the underlying bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, today I hope that I will have an opportunity to stand on the other side of the aisle as we debate this historic initiative of America. It is initiative of America because, as I hold the Constitution in my hand, I want my good friend from Georgia, Dr. Norwood, to understand that, in fact, what we are doing is creating opportunities for all Americans and by oversight we enhance his constituents and all others who have been discriminated against. The preamble to the Constitution includes that we have organized this Nation for a more perfect Union, for the general welfare and the blessings of liberty. As my good friend from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) just said, whom I owe a great debt of gratitude, along with John Conyers, Bobby Scott, Mr. Sensenbrenner, and the whole Judiciary Committee for rendering a bipartisan initiative, in fact, today there are still violations that warrant the oversight of the Voting Rights Act. We understand that without Mr. Norwood's amendment there are 36 States already covered. And why are they covered? They are not covered on our whim, on our political whim, or on whether we are Republican or Democrat. They are covered because of documentation that discrimination exists. That is what the Voting Rights Act is all about. Mr. Norwood and others know these four amendments, which should be opposed and defeated, because of the thousands of pages of evidence, if we pass an amendment like Mr. Norwood's, Mr. Westmoreland's, Mr. King's, and Mr. Gohmert's, that under the Constitution the Supreme Court will render them unconstitutional for many reasons, because there is no evidence, no documentation shown during the thousand of pages of hearings. So it is important to maintain an unrestricted section 5, one that allows oversight of discrimination under an unfettered section 5 that allows oversight to occur if voting changes generate discrimination against anyone in the covered areas. So I would simply ask in the name of Fannie Lou Hamer, in the names of Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King, in the name of John Lewis, and those who lost their lives, like Viola Liuzzo, the three civil rights workers; and in the name of Jualita Jackson and Valrie Bennett, who fled Florida as young teenagers in the 1940's my aunt and mother, in their name we must pass the Voting Rights Act without amendments. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for yielding. I rise in proud support of H.R. 9, the ``Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006.'' Had I and several of my colleagues not heeded the requests of the bipartisan leadership of the Committee and the House, there might be an amendment to the bill adding the name of our colleague, John Lewis of Georgia, to the pantheon of civil rights giants listed in the short title. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is no ordinary piece of legislation. For millions of Americans, and many of us on this Committee, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a sacred treasure, earned by the sweat and toil and tears and blood of ordinary Americans who showed the world it was possible to accomplish extraordinary things. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, which we will vote to reauthorize today was enacted to remedy a history of discrimination in certain areas of the country. Presented with a record of systematic defiance by certain States and jurisdictions that could not be overcome by litigation, this Congress--led by President Lyndon Johnson, from my own home state of Texas--took the steps necessary to stop it. It is instructive to recall the words of President Johnson when he proposed the Voting Rights Act to the Congress in 1965: Rarely are we met with a challenge . . . to the values and the purposes and the meaning of our beloved Nation. The issue of equal rights for American Negroes is such as an issue . . . the command of the Constitution is plain. It is wrong-- deadly wrong--to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, represents our country and this Congress at its best because it matches our words to deeds, our actions to our values. And, as is usually the case, when America acts consistent with its highest values, success follows. Without exaggeration, the Voting Rights Act has been one of the most effective civil rights laws passed by Congress. In 1964, there were only approximately 300 African-Americans in public office, including just three in Congress. Few, if any, black elected officials were elected anywhere in the South. Today there are more than 9,100 black elected officials, including 43 Members of Congress, the largest number ever. The act has opened the political process for many of the approximately 6,000 Latino public officials that have been elected and appointed nationwide, including 263 at the State or Federal level, 27 of whom serve in Congress. Native Americans, Asians and others who have historically encountered harsh barriers to full political participation also have benefited greatly. Mr. Chairman, I hail from the great State of Texas, the Lone Star State. A State that, sadly, had one of the most egregious records of voting discrimination against racial and language minorities. Texas is one of the Voting Rights Act's ``covered jurisdictions.'' In all of its history, I am only one of three African-American women from Texas to serve in the Congress of the United States, and one of only two to sit on this famed committee. I hold the seat once held by the late Barbara Jordan, who won her seat thanks to the Voting Rights Act. From her perch on this committee, Barbara Jordan once said: I believe hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I sit here today an heir of the Civil Rights Movement, a beneficiary of the Voting Rights Act. My faith in the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act too is whole, it is complete, it is total. I would be breaking faith with those who risked all and gave all to secure for my generation the right to vote if I did not do all I can to strengthen the Voting Rights Act so that it will forever keep open doors that shut out so many for so long. August 6, 2006, will mark the 41st anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, and a year from then several of act's most important elements will expire, including: Section 5 preclearance for covered jurisdictions (see tables 2 and 3); Sections 203 and 4(f)4, which require bilingual election materials assistance for limited English proficient language minorities (see table 1); and Sections 6-9; authorizing the U.S. Attorney General to appoint examiners and send federal observers to monitor elections. Congress has extended Section 5 coverage three times: in 1970 (for 5 years), in 1975 (for 7 years) and in 1982 (for 25 years). The language minority protections of Section 203 and Section 4(f)(4) were adopted in 1975 and extended and amended in 1982 and again in 1992. Despite these past extensions, there is no guarantee that the expiring elements of the VRA will be renewed again in 2007. In fact, recent history suggests that it is likely to be a difficult legislative fight. The problem is simple. Equal opportunity in voting still does not exist in many places. Discrimination on the basis of race and language still denies many Americans their basic democratic rights. Although such discrimination today is more subtle than it used to be, it must still be remedied to ensure the healthy functioning of our democracy. Although the principle behind the Voting Rights Act is simple--to eliminate discrimination in voting--the mechanisms by which this goal is achieved are not. Some parts of the law are permanent, while others are set to expire. Some provisions affect every State while others are more geographically targeted. Elements of the law can apply to an entire State or only a handful of counties within a particular State. And some provisions can be enforced in court through private lawsuits while others are administered by the U.S. Department of Justice. But the underlying purpose of the act is clear--to extend the franchise to all citizens regardless of race, color, national origin, or membership in a language minority group. I urge my colleague to vote for the bill and reject all amendments. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, when I was born, my grandparents could not express themselves in the constitutional right to vote. Today we have an opportunity to affirm the very basic values of America, and that is to reaffirm every American's right to vote without barrier or bar. And so I rise to explain the King amendment which has given the wrong impression, and that is the amendment that would eliminate multilingual ballots for citizens. I ask my good friend what he would do for the young soldier who is an immigrant, who is a legal permanent resident and has offered his life in battle in Iraq and Afghanistan and who has managed to make legal permanent residents and then citizens of his own family who have a language barrier because of just recently coming to this country, maybe conversant enough to become citizens, but not enough to read a ballot. This amendment is unconstitutional and un-American, and I hope that we will together, Republicans and Democrats, uphold the values of America.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. John Lewis, you bring tears to my eyes. Fannie Lou Hamer, Coretta Scott King and Rosa Parks, all who have made the ultimate sacrifice and yes, exhibited enormous courage. And today I ask this House to exhibit courage, to vote for a bill that gives credence to America's dream. We all are created equal. The Voting Rights Act is not an act of color. It is an act of reputation and integrity of America to allow all Americans to vote. The honorable Barbara Jordan, whose words were ``we the people,'' would not have been elected to the United States Congress as the first holder of this seat had it not been for the 1965 Voter Rights Act. And Lyndon Baines Johnson, a southern Democrat President, called upon all of his colleagues, all of the Members of Congress, whether they were from the South, from the North, stand up for what is right. And so today, we will be on the steps of the United States Congress, on the East steps, to join us for a vigil of petitioning to say to this Congress, be of good courage. John Lewis, you bring tears to our eyes, for ``Bloody Sunday'' will be always in our minds, the sacrifices that have been made for the Voter Rights Act. Don't give up on us now. Pass the Voter Rights Act. Show us courage. Have a shining moment of history today. Yes, America can do it.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to H.R. 4411. Clearly, gambling on the internet has become an increasingly popular activity and lucrative business. It is estimated that the internet gambling market now exceeds $12 billion, and about $6 billion comes from U.S. bettors. It is estimated that there are now over 2,000 gambling websites. But is internet gambling a net plus or minus for society? That is the question that I hoped the hearings held by the Judiciary Committee on this legislation would answer. Regrettably, my questions have not been answered satisfactorily. Therefore, I cannot support the bill. My concerns are four-fold. First, this legislation attempts to clarify the Wire Act to prohibit not only sports betting, but traditional gambling such as online poker. The bill also attempts to updates the Wire Act to cover more Internet technologies, such as wireless infrastructures that increasingly make up the Internet. My concerns here Mr. Speaker is that factual record regarding the need for amending the Wire Act has not been demonstrated and, more important, we did not have the benefit of the views of senior prosecutors and Justice Department officials on the necessity of amending the Wire Act. I note that the DOJ representative who appeared before the subcommittee, Mr. Bruce Orr, is not a presidential appointee, was not authorized to speak for the Administration, and did not seem deeply immersed in the provisions of the bill. This lack of solid legislative-executive dialectic is sufficient in itself to hold the bill in subcommittee until a more reliable factual record is developed. Second, I am also concerned that the carve-out for internet gambling on horseracing will place the United States at risk of being found in violation of trade laws by the World Trade Organization. The bill, as written, can be arguably characterized as disadvantaging European and Australian based internet gaming companies who would be excluded from the American market, while their American counterparts would not be excluded. Should the United States be found to have committed a trade violation, I am concerned that Europe and Australia will retaliate against American goods and services. Third, Mr. Speaker I was very impressed with the testimony of Mr. Sam Vallandingham, Vice President, First State Bank, who testified on behalf of small independent community banks. Mr. Vallandingham testified before the Judiciary Committee, and I daresay with great knowledge and conviction, that financial institutions, especially relatively small ones like the ones he represents, to identify, monitor, and track internet gambling transactions of its account holders. Mr. Vallandingham informed the subcommittee that financial institutions simply did not possess the sophisticated detection technology that could make it conceivable to identify problematic accounts. Since the risk of violation of this bill is great (violation carries penal sanctions), it does not appear wise or prudent to impose this burden on small financial institutions. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not point an irony. Instead of providing minors with greater protections, this legislation threatens to make it much easier for minors to utilize the services of online gambling companies that operate across State lines. In addition, the legislation has the potential to generate a substantial increase in acts of money laundering and undoubtedly will expose various banks and Internet service providers to excessive liability and burdensome regulations. According to the bill's lead sponsor, the gentleman from Virginia, one of the primary purposes behind the introduction of the bill was to stop online gambling from occurring. However, in its current form, the legislation only prohibits certain forms of online gambling while expressly permitting several other forms to proceed unfettered. Interestingly enough, these ``special interest carve-outs'' were the main focal point of a recent article in The Hill newspaper. In that article, the key provisions in this bill were compared to a similar Internet gambling bill that had been introduced by the gentleman from Virginia and defeated in a previous Congress. The article determined that: . . . The same Internet gambling legislation Abramoff fought so hard to defeat on behalf of a client that helped states conduct lotteries over the Internet now includes an exemption to protect those lotteries. The article went on to point out that in addition to the exemption for lotteries, the bill also included language to protect wagering on interstate pari-mutuel betting on horse races from the scope of the bill's ban. These blanketed exemptions are obviously the byproduct of powerful gambling interests and can be directly traced back to three particular provisions of the bill--sections 3, 5, and 6. Section 3, for example, includes language which expressly exempts gambling on intrastate sanctioned activities, such as lotteries. All in all, Mr. Speaker, we can do better than what is reflected in this legislation. A bad bill is worse than no bill at all. We should retain the bill and continue working to improve it, if we can.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5589. This bill directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to transfer all functions of the Customs Patrol Officers unit operating on the Tohono O'odham Indian reservation to the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Shadow Wolves are a specialized all-Native American unit of the legacy U.S. Customs Service within the Tohono O'odham Indian nation, and they have patrolled 76 miles of the U.S./Mexico land border in southern Arizona for over 30 years. Their methods of capturing narcotics smugglers combine modern technology and ancient tracking techniques, which have proven to be highly successful. However, the Shadow Wolves unit's direction was compromised when it was absorbed into the Customs Border Patrol, and its unique identity was threatened. Not only was this action harmful to the security benefits from the Shadow Wolves' connection with the community and the respect of its cultural makeup, it significantly lowered morale within the unit. This bill would seek to resolve this issue by returning the Shadow Wolves to the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It also includes provisions that would set the Shadow Wolves' pay scale at the same rate as ICE Special Agents and grant the Chief Officer a rank equivalent to a resident agent-in-charge of the ICE Office of Investigations. This would not only significantly improve moral within the unit but increase the efficiency of the border security within that region. Thus I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to help continue to protect the security of our borders.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me ask the American people how much they love America, I know Americans love America giving all that they can give, an America that has opened her heart and mind to immigrants from all over the world and built a great nation, an America where everyone is proud because we have welcomed those from around the world who have fled oppression and persecution. Why, then, do my friends on the other side of the aisle want to have the scapegoat-and-run policy for immigration, and that is refusing to stand and address the question that we all have come from somewhere and contributed to this Nation. And then, of course, we want to secure our homeland because we love America. Why don't we have meetings, or a conference committee meeting in order to address the House and Senate bill so that Americans know that we care about securing their homeland; but yes, we recognize that the Irish and the Polish and those who come from Hispanic origins or Africa or the Caribbean or European heritage have all made this country great. A pathway to citizenship, border security, not scapegoat and run, that is what America is all about. They want leadership and courage; they don't want anyone who stands for doing nothing.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 86, a bill intended to extend the import restrictions imposed by the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. This act was initially passed in response to the failure of Burma's ruling body to take significant actions to establish a democratic government, and for its reluctance to address violations of human rights and the pervasive drug problems within its borders. The governing body of Burma has yet to take effective corrective action. Burma is presently under the rule of a military regime, the State Peace and Development Council. This military junta, or one like it, has been in control of the Burmese government for the greater part of Burma's independence since 1948. Democratic rule in Burma ended in 1962 in a coup d'etat. The National League for Democracy, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, won a free election held in 1990, but the ruling military regime, then the SLORC (State Law and Order Restoration Council), voided the election and impeded the formation of a democratic government. The SLORC has since become the SPDC, and Aung San Suu Kyi has spent the last 17 years in and out of detention and house arrest. She has been offered freedom in exchange for her voluntary exile, but she, with the backing of millions of supporters around the world, continues to stand against an oppressive regime and fight for democracy. She was in detention in 1999 when her husband died from cancer, as authorities would not allow for him to visit or for her to return if she visited him while he was ill. Aung San Suu Kyi has been relentless in her work and advocacy and was the recipient of the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize for her struggle. It will take more men and women of her courage and character to free her country from its oppressors within. Yet the world has yet to respond with the required urgency. In the year 2004, Burma was the world's second largest producer of illicit opium, with an estimated production of 292 metric tons. Though this number was down 40% from 2003 due to eradication efforts and drought, land cultivation in 2004 was still 30,900 hectares. The government has shown little interest in addressing this problem. Human rights violations in Burma have been documented for years, and it is generally agreed to that the military regime currently in power is one of the most repressive, violent, and inhumane in the world. The atrocities include forced labor, conscription of children, repression of free speech and political freedom, and the state-sanctioned use of torture and rape as weapons of war. It is estimated that several hundreds of thousands of men, women, children, and elderly are being forced to work against their will in what the International Labor Organization of the UN calls a ``modern form of slavery.'' Human Rights Watch estimates that some 70,000 of the regime's soldiers are children. A 2004 report by Amnesty International estimates that more than 1,300 people were wrongfully imprisoned between 1989 and 2004; and there were an estimated 1,600 political prisoners in 2005, 38 of which were elected members of Parliament. The U.S. State Department and two NGOs have confirmed that torture and rape are being used as weapons of war. A report issued in 2002 by The Shan Human Rights Foundation and the Shan Women's Action Network documents 173 cases of rape and sexual violence involving 625 girls and women. The study points out that 61 % were gang-rapes and that 25% of these girls and women died, some of whom were detained and repeatedly raped for up to four months. A report released by Refugees International in April of 2003 also documents cases of rape. These crimes are largely targeted at ethnic minorities, including the Shan, Mon, Karenni, and the Karen. Testifying before the House Committee on International Relations earlier this year, Human Rights Watch advocacy director Tom Malinowski stated that, ``Government armed forces continue to engage in summary executions, torture, and the rape of women and girls. This campaign can only be described as ethnic cleaning on a very large scale. Hundreds of thousands of people, most of them from ethnic minority groups, live precariously inside Burma as internally displaced people.'' A CBO report estimates that supporting this legislation could cost the U.S. $500,000 in 2006 and $1 million in 2007. It is likely that there will be economic costs on the other end as well, and not just for those in power. So while it is understandable and even necessary to take action in opposition of the current military regime and to condemn their oppressive rule and blatant abuses of human rights, we should explore other methods to express our disapproval and impose sanctions. We must be careful that our actions do not oppress the innocent who are caught up in this ongoing struggle. So I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 86, but I also ask that we devise additional ways to assist the people of Burma, ways that may not entail economic backlashes. Over the years we have seen situations like this arise and escalate and we have watched with shameful apathy as millions have perished or fallen victims to unspeakable physical, sexual, and emotional violence. And here we are again with another opportunity to act or be apathetic. Let us not squander it under the cover of feigned ignorance. We are all aware now. Let us not get selective amnesia by confining our thoughts to tangential concerns of a lesser gravity, for history will not forget when we stand idly by while these people suffer, scream, and die. Instead, let us free Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi, and free those for which she remains confined.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I wanted to add my appreciation to Mr. Larson and thank him for giving me the opportunity to join the hour and to be able to reinforce your leadership. And I thank you for the good words that you have said about the 30-something, Mr. Delahunt, and a number of others who were on the floor. And, Mr. Meek, I want to thank you for allowing me to have a continuum, if you will, of the discussions that we previously engaged in on Iraq and also to reinforce your comment. I want you to hear this out of an Associated Press article that appeared I imagine in papers around America, but this was in the Houston Chronicle today. And the headline reads: ``No Such Thing As a Sure Thing in Congress.'' It talks about the inability to get any legislation passed. And one example was of course a bill dealing with marriage and the bill dealing with the flag. And all of us are patriotic, and so we understand people have different views, but we really ask the question, Is that really the crucial issue that the American people are thinking of? The Republicans commented on Democrats and why they are not getting, why this Congress is not getting anything done. And I want you to hear this. In fact, I was proud when I read this: Republicans point out that Democrats are not above bringing up proposals just for political gain. They note that Democrats have insisted on bringing up a proposal to raise the minimum wage. I am proud of that. I want you to hear that. It says that Democrats have insisted on bringing up proposals dealing with increasing the minimum wage. But the Republicans say the reason why they are giving us the short end of the stick is they say this is political, because they know that this has failed for 9 years. Well, my friends, Republicans have been in the majority for 9 years. And Democrats are not going to step away from their values and their commitment to the American people that they need an increase in the minimum wage after 50 years just because the Republicans keep defeating it. We are going to win, and we are going to focus on this issue. And let me move very quickly, Mr. Meek, into just a few brief comments about Iraq and to be able to say why we are where we are, and maybe that is a reason why Pell grants are not funded, it is the reason why health care is not funded for the uninsured. It is a reason why the environment and issues dealing with energy and alternative fuel have not been focused on because of the major conflict, if you will, in Iraq and the refusal of this House to really debate what is next, to really debate what is next. Having just come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, let me tell you why we are in such a crisis. One reason we are in such a crisis is, we have spread ourselves too thin. This is how much money we have spent in Iraq. The place where Osama bin Laden is alleged to be hiding, we have given them this much. That means we are fueling the fires of bin Laden and the Taliban because there are not the resources invested in the very site where the horrific tragedy of 9/11 was seeded. Now, of course, we are in a protracted conflict in Iraq, and there is no discussion of a way out of Iraq. This is the report card given by the Center for American Progress. Here is what is going on in Iraq: Security and stability, a D-minus. The overall grade, by the way, is a D. Governance and democracy, a C-plus; economic reconstruction, D- minus; and impact on U.S. national security is an F. Our security has been diminished because of where we are in Iraq. Let me just show you another article that really breaks my heart because what I would say is, our soldiers are following orders, but it is difficult for them to carry forth their job because soldiers engage in war. Soldiers are not civilian police officers, and when you put them in the midst of a civilian population, that ignites controversy and jeopardizes them. Our soldiers are exhausted. Although I don't excuse the violence that has occurred with five soldiers facing military tribunals because they are alleged to have raped and murdered Iraqi citizens and others, but this is out of exhaustion, out of frustration and putting a military population in the midst of civilians. But listen to this: At least 60 die in a single day of sectarian battles; 60 Iraqis are killed between the Shiites' and the Sunnis' bombing of mosques, suicide bombings. This is not a safe place for Americans to be. It is now time to transfer over the sovereign leadership of this country to the Iraqi Government. And it says here, ``Sunnis Blame the Government While the Prime Minister Insists That Baghdad Is Under Control.'' They must get the sectarian violence under control. They must have the Iraqi national army enforce the safety of the Iraqi people. Yes, we can provide, if you will, the background, not the background music, but we can move to the borders, and if there is a crisis, we can be called. We have to be able to encourage Arab states that believe in democracy to support their neighbor. We have to bolster up the Iraqi national army, but this violence is not the kind of solution that the United States military is prepared to handle. These are not insurgents coming from outside, these are Iraqis who are fighting each other. And this was created because we created a nonstable situation, because we had no exit strategy. We did not understand how to transition from Saddam Hussein's despotic government to a democracy. And here we are with our soldiers going two, three, five times into Iraq, exhausted, a military that is exhausted, battalions that have been used up. Let me say these few points about generals who have raised a point about the Iraq war. Retired Army General John Riggs, ``We grow up in a culture where accountability, learning to accept responsibility, admitting mistakes and learning from them was critical to us. When we don't see that happening, it worries us. Poor military judgment has been used throughout this mission.'' Anthony Zinni, former Chief of the U.S. Central Command, ``I really believe we need a new Secretary of Defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with him. I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly; and then, when the time comes, they need to call it like it is,'' and in my words, to bring our troops home as soon as practical. The final words are from Retired Army Major General Charles Swannack, ``He has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important operation in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.'' That is disarray. What we need is an exit strategy to leave Iraq, not the cut-and-run that we are labeled with, but the dignified Murtha resolution that says, as soon as practical. Then, Mr. Meek, we can address the energized agenda that we have as Democrats under Leader Pelosi's leadership to take this country back and give us the alternative fuels and begin to focus on education for our youth, universal access to health care, meaning we will address the question of 44 million uninsured. We will make sure that there is an increase in the minimum wage. We understand, and in fact let me compliment Leader Pelosi who has said we are not leaving, we are not going home until the minimum wage has been passed. I cannot imagine Republicans would want to be quoted in the newspapers as saying Democrats are politicizing the minimum wage. They know that it has been raised nine times, and it has not passed. It has not passed because Republicans have not allowed it to come to the floor. They have eliminated it. They eliminated it the last week we were here. So the only thing I would say is, shame on you, that you would boast in the newspapers that we are bringing it up as a political issue because it has failed nine times. If it fails 100 times, Democrats are going to keep fighting to increase the minimum wage for hardworking Americans, particularly those who have not seen an increase. And this is the lowest minimum wage in 50 years. People can barely make ends meet. I hope as the 30-something Working Group continues to elaborate on its wonderful message, and might I say that you have got the 30- somethings listening, and you have the over-somethings listening. Everyone is listening to the message of new leadership for this Congress and also for America. I cannot imagine what more we can say and what more we can do when we see the collapse of Iraq, no new leadership, when we see Afghanistan and President Karzai calling out for help and assistance so Afghanistan does not become destabilized, and the very place Osama bin Laden comes from and grows more Osama bin Ladens and others who would attack the world with terrorist acts. I don't know how much we can say this over and over again for the administration to be able to listen to the challenges of 60 dying, one soldier a day dying, the violence some of our soldiers have, unfortunately, been engaged in are acts of desperation, acts of exhaustion and exasperation. Until we get an exit strategy, we will be facing this every day. I hope we will be able to do that, and I thank the distinguished gentleman. We need a reasonable debate, and we need to bring our soldiers home. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and for his leadership. And out of it, we will have a new agenda for America.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I am delighted that Mr. Ryan and the two of you, Mr. Meek, have really captured the essence of why you come to the floor every night and why it is so important. Mr. Ryan, I had an article, and I just want to repeat because it really captures the gentleman's comments, the gentleman from Florida. It really captures what he has said and why we are so frustrated. The bottom line of this paragraph was an article that talked about the marriage amendment and the flag amendment as the chief initiatives of this great body. It said that two-thirds of the legislative calendar is finished and this body can only count two major initiatives that they have passed: one, the PATRIOT Act renewal that they engaged in, and many Democrats, of course supported that; and then they had a $70 billion tax cut. This is all that they can put in their belt notch, if you will, to say that they have accomplished. And at the same time, the recounting of the low esteem or low level of the working Americans, where they cannot pass, if you will, a minimum wage. When it really comes to helping Americans, they have done nothing. So gas prices have doubled. Right now this week, oil is at $75 a barrel, and we are now approaching $3 a gallon for gas. The minimum wage has not been increased. Health care is costing more. In 2005 a typical family was paying $1,200 more a year for health insurance, increasing it by 55 percent. So this debate that you are articulating really ties into where we are in Iraq and the frustration, the amount of money, and it really ties into this bottom line, which is we have work for two-thirds of the legislative session and we really cannot show the American people any bread and butter issues that we have been engaged in. No bread and butter issues. Nobody is better off since this Congress has been holding court, if you will, for 2006. And I thank you for allowing me to be here. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues for organizing this special order to discuss the conduct and costs of the war in Iraq. I look forward to engaging in dialogue with my colleagues about the most important issue facing the country today and the most fateful and ill- considered decision of this Administration. i. The Bush Iraq Policy Has Harmed The U.S. Military A few weeks ago we learned the sad news that the 2,500th soldier has been killed in Iraq. More than 19,000 others have been wounded. The Bush administration's open-ended commitment of U.S. troops to Iraq has weakened the U.S. Army, the Army National Guard, and the Army Reserves. The extended deployments in Iraq have eroded U.S. ground forces and overall military strength. A Pentagon-commissioned study concluded that the Army cannot maintain its current pace of operations in Iraq without doing permanent damage to the quality of the force. So more than three years of a continuous deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq has: Contributed to serious problems with recruitment, with the U.S. Army missing its recruitment targets last year; Forced the Army to lower its standards for military recruits; and Led to military equipment shortages that hamper the ability of U.S. ground forces to do their job in Iraq and around the world.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. A real agenda.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Well, if the gentleman from Florida will continue to yield, I just want to take just a moment. I cannot tell you the passion or the core that you have touched. People hear us on the floor of the House, and they probably assume that we are taking up the cause of our Founding Fathers and using the skills of debate. What I hear you saying and what I have seen when I have been home a week ago, we have been in and out of our neighborhoods, and what I have seen is that people are hurting. The minimum wage has not been increased, but the administration had a paltry 122,000 jobs, barely a blip on the radar screen. There is unemployment in all communities. People want to work, but they are frustrated by the pressures or the finances needed to work. So we are touching on people's lives. We are touching on the single mother, we are touching on the family of four that maybe does not have a vacation, even though we have been in the airports and it looks pretty busy. There are people who barely can make it because we have had no action, and the sadness is to go to a public hospital and see people who really need to see a doctor and they are in the emergency room because basically they do not have the resources even to participate in what you call a pay-as-you-go clinic, which they would want to do. So, my only point on the method that you have just given is, for God's sake, we need a new direction in America. We really need a new direction, and that would cover all of the basic bread and butter issues that you have just recounted. So what I am hoping is that Democrats do not let up, that we tell the American people that we would much rather stand with them than fall amongst the throng who think it is always good to be with the special interests. I would much rather pass a minimum wage, I would much rather ask the question why the gas per gallon is so high and do something about it. I would much rather keep kids in college and take care of the environment and see people go back to work. That is what I think we are saying here tonight.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Monumental.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be read in its entirety.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to share with Mr. Mollohan and Mr. Wolf that, as we proceeded through the bill, we recognize the challenges that you face as appropriators and the difficulties of this legislative process in the appropriations process. I want it to be known that I have legislation on this Tulia example that this example or amendment tries to track. Tulia, Texas, is a community that experienced abuse of power. We always want to celebrate good law enforcement, and they have a tough job. I meet with my local law enforcement. I try to find more resources for them to do their jobs, as I am attempting to do in Houston, Texas, as we work together to provide more funding for some of the challenges we have in the criminal justice system. But in Tulia, Texas, more than 100 persons in that community were eventually tried and convicted in false drug charges; and it was on the testimony of one single law enforcement officer who ultimately, of course, was removed and himself indicted for perjury. The Jackson-Lee amendment seeks to restore justice into justice systems by making the operation of federally funded State and local anti-drug task forces more transparent in order to prevent civil rights abuses such as those that occurred in Tulia, Texas, and more recently in Hearne, Texas. Grants for the local State and anti-drug task forces come from the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs. I am an ardent proponent of initiatives that strengthen and support our law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, as a member of the Committee on Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, I make it a goal whenever possible to advocate for increased funding facilities, better facilities, training and equipment, and for improved interruptible communications for first responders and law enforcement officials. However, with this amendment, I seek a simple concept, something that is not an extra added burden. The data is already there. I seek to restore the integrity, the honesty, the even-handedness and even judiciousness of our law enforcement agencies by asking them to collect and make publicly available data as to the racial distribution of convictions they garnered as a result of their operations. The question is whether one population over another is targeted. By asking for the collection and publication of such data, the Jackson-Lee amendment holds State and local recipients accountable for the manner in which they conduct their anti-drug programs and deter law enforcement agencies or individual rogue cops from engaging in racial profiling if they seek to receive Federal funds under this bill. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say this is not a labeling of our law enforcement on the front line. This is just simply asking for reporting that is prescribed under the amendment that is authorized in law as filed in 42 U.S.C. 3782, 42 U.S.C. 3759 and 42 U.S.C. 3789(e), the Byrne program, as well as 42 U.S.C. 3751 and 3753. Section 3782 lays out the parameters of the establishment of rules, regulations and procedures that are necessary for exercise of agency functions in carrying out the provisions of Byrne. Specifically, it authorizes a promulgation of rules and regulations that ensure that the entire program has a high probability of improving the criminal justice system and is likely to contribute to the improvement of the criminal justice system and a reduction and prevention of crime. More importantly, Mr. Chairman, however, the rules and regulations promulgated must help the reporting agencies determine the program's impact on communities and participants. The very negative results of the program that we saw in Tulia and Hearne, Texas, clearly and unequivocally contravene these provisions. The Jackson-Lee amendment seeks to correct this problem. Mr. Chairman, lives were interrupted. Mothers lost sons and daughters to jail time. I would ask for those who are unfamiliar with this case to just look on the Web site. You will find this is a unique case, when more than 100 people were sent to the judicial system, incarcerated, tried, convicted, and they were innocent. There were people who were not even around that this officer, through funding, testified against. I would simply ask that this amendment be accepted by my colleagues, because what it does is ask for justice, and it asks for the facts. If you have done the crime, you do the time. We understand that. But what we want to say is that 15 percent of the African American population of Tulia was arrested, prosecuted, sentenced to decades in prison based on uncorroborated testimony of a federally funded undercover officer who had a record of racial impropriety in the course of enforcing the law. Let us not have this happen again. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 5672, which states that none of the funds made available in this Act under the heading ``Office of Justice Programs--Justice Assistance'' may be used to fund State or local anti-drug task forces that do not collect, and make publicly available, data as to the racial distribution of convictions as a result of their operation. The Jackson-Lee amendment seeks to restore ``justice'' into the justice system by making the operation of federally funded state and local anti-drug task forces more transparent in order to prevent civil rights abuses such as those that occurred in Tulia, Texas, and more recently in Hearne, Texas. Grants to fund state and local anti-drug task forces come from the ``Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs (Byrne Program),'' in Title 42 U.S.C., Subchapter V. I am an ardent proponent of initiatives that strengthen and support our law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, as a member of the Committee on Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, I make it a goal whenever possible to advocate for increased funding, better facilities, training, and equipment, and for improved interoperable communications for first responders and law enforcement officials. However, with this amendment, I seek to restore the integrity, honesty, evenhandedness, and judiciousness of our law enforcement agencies by compelling them to collect and make publicly available data as to the racial distribution of convictions they garnered as a result of their operations. By compelling the collection and publication of such data, the Jackson-Lee amendment holds state and local grant recipients accountable for the manner in which they conduct their anti- drug programs and deters law enforcement agencies from engaging in racial profiling if they seek to receive federal funds under this bill. Mr. Chairman, the type of reporting that is prescribed under my amendment is authorized in law as found in 42 U.S.C. 3782, 42 U.S.C. 3759, and 42 U.S.C. 3789e, the Byrne Program as well as 42 U.S.C. 3751 and 3753. Section 3782 lays out the parameters of the establishment of rules, regulations, and ``procedures that are necessary to the exercise'' of agency functions in carrying out the provisions of Byrne. Specifically, it authorizes the promulgation of rules and regulations that ensure that the entire program has a ``high probability of improving the criminal justice system'' and is ``likely to contribute to the improvement of the criminal justice system and the reduction and prevention of crime.'' More importantly, however, the rules and regulations promulgated must help the reporting agencies determine the program's ``impact on communities and participants.'' The very negative results of the program that we saw in Tulia and Hearne, Texas, clearly and unequivocally contravene these provisions, and the Jackson Lee amendment seeks to correct this problem. Section 3789e contains a report to the President and to Congress that relates to the nature of the activities conducted under this program. The Jackson-Lee amendment seeks to ensure that unethical and dishonest application of anti-drug task forces funded under this program do not slip through the cracks. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is vital to protecting the integrity and the evenhandedness of the activities funded under this program. Many years of Civil Rights jurisprudence and law have been ignored and thrown out the window when America permitted situations such as that in Tulia and Hearne to take place with impunity. In recent years, it has become clear that programs funded by the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program have borne opportunities for the abuse of the penal system, racially disparate treatment, corruption and tainting of law enforcement agencies, and the commission of civil rights abuses across the country. This is especially the case when it comes to the program's funding of hundreds of regional narcotics task forces. Operation of anti-drug task forces around the country, which has lacked state or federal oversight, has been riddled with corruption and is the root of some of America's most horrific law enforcement-related scandals. One of the better known federally-funded anti-drug task force scandals occurred in Tulia, Texas, several years ago. Fifteen percent of the African American population of Tulia was arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to decades in prison based on the uncorroborated testimony of a federally-funded undercover officer who had a record of racial impropriety in the course of enforcing the law. The Tulia defendants have since been pardoned, but these kinds of scandals continue to plague the Byrne grant program. More recently, on May 11, 2005, the District Attorney of Robertson County in Hearne, Texas, and the South Central Texas Narcotics Task Force, in a case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of 28 African Americans, offered to settle their case after 5 years of litigation. This case arose from the arrest of 28 individuals--out of 4,500 other residents of Hearne in November 2000 on charges of possession or distribution of crack cocaine. During litigation, the presiding judge was asked to dismiss the charges because they were based on evidence from an unreliable informant, as reported to the Houston Chronicle. These scandals are not the result of a few ``bad apples'' in law enforcement; they are the result of a fundamentally and systemically flawed bureaucracy that is prone to corruption by its very structure. Byrne-funded regional anti-drug task forces are federally funded, state managed, and locally staffed, which means they do not really have to answer to anyone. In fact, their ability to perpetuate themselves through asset forfeiture and federal funding makes them unaccountable to local taxpayers and governing bodies. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to ensure that state and local law enforcement agencies are held accountable and discouraged from engaging in racial profiling. point of order

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I know that procedurally, even though I cite a number of sections which I believe would comply with removing the point of order, might I say that, in the course of the gentleman's response, I would just simply say to him that, because this is such a repetitive incident, such as the one that occurred in Hearne, Texas, and a South Central Texas narcotics case and a case filed by the American Civil Liberties on behalf of 28 African- Americans, that the case was offered to settlement, this case arose from the arrests of 28 individuals out of 4,500 other residents of Hearne in November, 2000, on charges of possession or distribution of crack cocaine. That, again, was an example where this individual, using Federal monies, had given misinformation to the judicial system. These scandals point out the bad apples. I think this is sufficient.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this is about natural gas. Natural gas not for Texas or Louisiana but natural gas for the entire country, Midwest, Southwest, east coast, for the entire country. Energy imports now make up one-third of America's trade deficit. Through this bill America could improve the supply/demand imbalance, lower consumer prices, and increase jobs by producing more of its own energy resources. I want to make sure that we do have an environmentally safe way of finding energy. I also want to expand the opportunities for jobs. And this manager's amendment creates petroleum and mining programs in historically black colleges and Hispanic-serving colleges. In addition, it provides consideration for programs dealing with energy and mineral resource programs to train future geologists so that we can be independent as well as look to alternative fuels. And then I would hope that this legislation, as it moves towards conference, can reinforce our commitment to giving competitive advantage to a certain extent to small minority-owned and women-owned businesses so they have equal access to oil and gas leases. I hope we can work together as we move this legislation forward. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that two of my amendments to H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2006, have been incorporated into the Manager's Amendment. In addition, I have another amendment which I will be introducing on the floor. First and foremost, I must admit that I do have reservations about certain provisions in this bill and the process with which this bill has arrived on the House floor. I think many of us would agree that the issues central to this bill, the future of energy exploration off of our Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf coastlines, deserves more time for deliberation and debate. Also, I would have preferred if this bill would have included more careful consideration of the environmental impact offshore drilling would have on our Continental Shelf Activities. However, this bill is about helping the production of clean natural gas cheaply for all of America. Energy is the lifeblood of every economy, especially ours. Producing more of it leads to more good jobs, cheaper goods, lower fuel prices, and greater economic and national security. However, the U.S. is more than 60 percent dependent on foreign sources of energy, twice as dependent today as we were just 30 years ago. Although energy is the lifeblood of America's economic security, this growing and dangerous dependence has resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of good American jobs, skyrocketing consumer prices, and vulnerabilities in our national security. Energy imports now make up one third of America's trade deficit. Through this bill, America could improve the supply-demand imbalance, lower consumer prices, and increase jobs by producing more of its own energy resources. With my district of Houston being the energy capital of the world, I support the efforts that this bill makes to recognize state stakeholders and incorporate their interests in revenue sharing. According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS), America's deep seas on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) contain 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (the U.S. consumes 23 TCF per year) and 86 billion barrels of oil (the U.S. imports 4.5 billion per year). Even with all these energy resources, the U.S. sends more than $300 billion (and countless American jobs) overseas every year for energy we can create at home. In some cases, the U.S. is facing much-higher energy prices than other countries. Natural gas, for example, is as much at ten times more expensive in the United States than it is in foreign nations. This fact alone has led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of high-paying American jobs, as natural gas-dependent factories are forced to close their doors and move overseas in search of more affordable energy. The outsourcing of American jobs is an issue of central importance to me and my constituents, and I believe this bill is a step in the right direction of bringing jobs back to hard-working Americans. Yet the present issue I would like to speak on addresses the fact that contracts and leases, as considered in this bill, engage fierce competition from national and multinational corporations, in addition to domestic businesses. The share of businesses owned by minorities rose from 6.8 percent of all U.S. businesses in 1982 to 15.1 percent in 1997, yet this is far below representative of the proportion of the minority population today. Historically, minority and women-owned businesses have been disadvantaged in seeking and winning these contracts. According to a survey by the Small Business Administration, minority-owned employer establishments had lower survival rates than non-minority-owned employer establishments between 1997 and 2002. During 1997-2001, the business expansion rates of three minority business groups were higher than that for non-minority-owned businesses. While 27.4 percent of non-minority owned establishments expanded during this period, 34.0 percent of Hispanic-owned employer establishments expanded, as did 32.1 percent of Asian and Pacific Islander owned establishments, and 27.8 percent of American Indian/ Alaska Native-owned establishments. There may be inherent disadvantages for these businesses, but it is clear their potential is tremendous. This amendment ensures that these businesses have the ability to compete fairly for these lucrative opportunities. I am very proud that my district, Harris County and Houston ranks sixth and Texas ranked fifth in the country for the largest number of African-American owned firms, following New York, California, Florida, and Georgia. Minority and women-owned businesses across the country will appreciate the effort to preserve their opportunity to compete for these contracts. I encourage the esteemed members of the committee to remember that there are a great many barriers to minority and women business professionals, and provisions such as these preserve equal access and open opportunities. In addition, we must continue to safeguard equal opportunities in fields of study and professions that have far too low of a minority ratio. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, Americans who are African-American, Hispanic, and Native American make up only 9.7 percent of the science and engineering workforce, compared to 16.8 percent of the entire U.S. labor force. The National Science Foundation contends that although the proportions of women, Blacks, and Hispanics in science and engineering occupations have continued to grow over time, there are still fewer numbers in science than their proportions of the population. In addition, the representation of African-Americans in science and engineering occupations increased from 2.6 percent in 1980 to 6.9 percent in 2000. The representation of Hispanics increased from 2.0 percent to 3.2 percent. However, for Hispanics, this is proportionally less than their increase in the population. With these provisions, the door should be opened a few more inches. We want America's youth to find their way to engineering and the sciences. I encourage the esteemed members of the committee to remember that there are a great many barriers to minorities and women pursuing degrees in the sciences and in advancing their small businesses. Accordingly, my amendments which have been incorporated into the Manager's Amendment and my amendment regarding minority serving institutions which I will introduce on the floor provide provisions which preserve fundamental American values of equal access and opportunities. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and final passage.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Inslee amendment which we have accepted and I thank you, but I wanted to ask these two questions: one, the issue of revenue sharing perspectively does not limit itself just to States that names have been called. It does expand to the potential of revenue sharing. And secondly, the commitment that we would have to give advantage or give an opportunity for small, medium, women-owned, and minority-owned businesses in the granting of leases as we move toward conference and be able to develop expanded opportunities for jobs.