Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will. I wish there were a waiver of the point of order, but on the basis of the gentleman's point that was made, I hope that we have made our point. At this point, I will concede the point of order, looking forward for my legislation to pass, and ask to withdraw the amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Yes. THE CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Knowing your history, Mr. Chairman, and many of these important efforts, particularly in the State funding, I just wanted to mention that any 1 percent cut would impact child survival and health programs, global funds to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, the Development Assistance Fund, the International Disaster and Famine Assistance. These are varied programs that simply cannot afford any more of a cut. We are obviously fighting international poverty. The U.S. Global Leadership Campaign has been on the Hill this past week. Secretary of State Powell and Secretary Albright have begged us to maintain our investment in these areas. And I can't imagine what a 1 percent cut would do to this very, very small part of the budget, which is 1.2 percent. And I would hope that our colleagues would see the necessity of having a better face or a continuing face to fight against issues dealing with children, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria. I hope that we can oppose this amendment for the devastation it would do to many programs that put the face of America to the world.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 895, the Oxley resolution. I support efforts to identify, track, and pursue suspected foreign terrorists and their financial supporters by tracking terrorist money flows and uncovering terrorist networks. But it does not serve the nation well to condemn the media for performing its watchdog function even in a time of war. Indeed, it is especially important during wartime that the media be even more vigilant and aggressive in informing the public. I do not support the resolution because it encourages the media to become lapdogs who see their role as cheerleaders for the Administration rather than as watchdogs who exist to safeguard the public interest. During the 1790s under the Alien and Sedition Acts, and then again during the Civil War and World War I, the government prosecuted journalists. Today, we are again hearing government officials calling for prosecution of journalists who report on the conduct of the global war on terrorism and the war in Iraq and disclose to the American public information which the Administration would rather the American people not know. Some even accuse journalists who do so of treason. But what these self-styled media critics fail to understand is that the American people have a need for a free press to check the excesses of government, and never more so than today. Mr. Speaker, the resolution declares, without any proof or evidence, that the House of Representatives ``finds that the Program has been conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, that appropriate safeguards and reviews have been instituted to protect civil liberties, and that Congress has been appropriately informed and consulted and will continue Program oversight.'' This is a major flaw in the resolution. Affirming as fact claims that are not nothing more than unsupported assertions is not persuasive or in the best interest of the Congress and the country. Rather, it is merely argument by ipse dixit. Today the Supreme Court ruled that the Administration overstepped its bounds regarding Guantanamo Bay detainees. Who's to say that the Administration has not overstepped boundaries in the area of domestic spying as well? The fact is we simply do not know. We do not know because this Republican-led Congress has been derelict in its Constitutional duty of oversight. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Homeland Security Committee, I support efforts to identify and track down terrorists and oppose the leaking of classified information. But I will not play politics with this Nation's security. Nor will I support the majority's trampling on liberty and freedom of the press. Most disconcerting is the chilling effect this ill-conceived resolution will have on the press. In the words of one of our distinguished founding fathers, George Mason, `The freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.' I oppose the resolution and urge its defeat.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Frank amendment because I believe I can embrace security and freedom and liberty.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I rise to inform the House of the happy news that the ``Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Collection,'' will be archived at Morehouse College, Dr. King's alma mater. The good news is that this collection, widely regarded by leading historians to be among the most important of the 20th century, will remain in Atlanta, Georgia, the city in which Dr. King was born and laid to his final rest. Valued at over $30 million, the King collection consists of more than 20,000 square feet of notes, speech drafts, notebooks, canceled cheques, index cards, sermons, and other items obtained by local Atlanta businesses and philanthropists during a last-minute fundraiser. These items, rather than disappearing into private collections, will instead be housed at Morehouse College, an African American liberal arts college and Dr. King's alma mater. From a blue spiral notebook used in a prison cell to a very early draft of the ``I have a Dream'' speech, these papers reveal the voice, character, and spiritual tenacity that changed America and continues to inspire freedom-loving people around the world. Although many, many people worked to make this possible, special thanks are due Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin; Andrew Young, former U.N. Ambassador, Atlanta Mayor, and Member of Congress; and Mr. and Mrs. Kase and Eileen Lawal of Houston, Texas. Each of them gave generously of their time and talent and resources to secure the benefits of the Dr. King Collection for the public benefit. I hope they realize the beneficial impact their actions, in preserving for generations to come, access to the thought and ideas of one of the world's most consequential human beings. This is only the most recent example of their commitment to the causes for which Dr. King lived and died. I also wish to thank the children of Dr. King and Coretta Scott King: Martin III, Yolanda, Dexter, and Berneice. They shared their father and mother with the American people. They lost their father early. They have given the nation a lot. And now they have given the nation more: a treasure trove of history, consisting of more than 7,000 items that include theological writings, index cards with sketched sermon ideas, drafts of an address on being awarded the Nobel prize, and the draft of a eulogy Dr. King began upon learning of the assassination of John Kennedy. Additionally, this collection includes Dr. King's private library of books, most of which are annotated with extensive writing in the margins. The papers also include an early four-page draft of the most famous speech Dr. King delivered at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. Dr. King, one of the giants of the last century, will be remembered for his tireless and ceaseless efforts to advance race relations, civil rights, social justice and human rights. We will always look to his words, and our memories, to renew our resolve to find justice and equality for all. Dr. King brought his vision and warmth into every room, and left it imprinted on our souls. His legacy requires us to continue in his stead, and pursue nothing less than true justice.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is a conflict, and you are conflicted when you come to the floor and a good friend and colleague wants to undermine his own city. Frankly, I think my colleagues need to understand what this sanctuary means. It is a misnomer. It gives a suggestion that we are, in fact, welcoming and providing a grand parade. What it simply says is that we are going to burden, this amendment is going to be an unfunded mandate on local cities and jurisdictions whose law enforcement officers are busy in various parts of their communities trying to protect Americans from break-ins. There is no way that you can connect the tragedy and horrificness of this executed individual, which no one has disagreed with, with the policies of individual cities where they make a decision that they are utilizing their police officers to take care of the juveniles who need help, to take care of the victims of rape, unfortunately, who need help, to take care of those who are victimized by homicide who need help. The City of Houston is on record, the chief of police is on record, and the record is that our officers are there to do the work of the local government. They are not there to do the work of the Federal Government. I would wish my good friend and colleague would add and join us in reinvesting into border patrol agents and ICE agents. And, by the way, any suggestion that they are not cooperating, I met with the police chief. There is no indication whatsoever in Houston that they are not cooperating with the local law enforcement and ICE. What you do with this, and I hope my colleagues are listening. I know this sounds like Let's Bash an Immigrant Day. But what you will be doing is you will be cutting off funds from your local jurisdictions. They need to make their own decisions without the punitive measures of this Federal Government, particularly when we have fallen down on the job and not provided the kind of funding that we need for internal enforcement and for law enforcement and for border patrol agents. So I would hope this distinguished gentleman would understand that you are putting an unfunded mandate on your own city and many other municipalities across America.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Frank amendment to H.R. 5672, which would prohibit funds from being used for a manned space mission to Mars. I believe the amendment should be defeated. NASA recently announced the work assignments for Exploration Systems' Constellation program at NASA centers. These assignments will ensure that the agency can begin to meet the challenges of the Vision for Space Exploration while maintaining 10 healthy and productive field centers. NASA's plan to implement the Constellation Program depends upon funds that carry over from fiscal year 2006-2007 into fiscal year 2008-2009. This authority ensures that funding will be available in 2008, when development work begins to ramp up significantly with the Critical Design Review for Constellation's Crew Exploration Vehicle, CEV. If NASA is unable to secure the necessary resources, the gap between Shuttle retirement and CEV availability will expand. This will increase both the risks and overall costs for bringing the new CEV and CLV systems online, as well as increasing the safety risk of operating the International Space Station. An extension of the gap will also cause an unacceptably high number of departures of our skilled workforce across the NASA Centers, and threaten to erode the Nation's industrial base for human space flight activities. We therefore consider preservation of this funding an important economic issue for our districts, as well as a national priority. The CEV and the companion Crew Launch Vehicle are once-in-a- generation development efforts. The effective transition from the Space Shuttle to the CEV will be NASA's greatest management challenge over the next several years. NASA's Exploration Systems ought be fully funded, not cut, to ensure that NASA has the resources it needs when the critical moment arrives. I urge defeat of the Frank amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to clarify, I think, the discussion here on the floor, and my deepest sympathy for cases that have been previously cited. The sanctuary terminology, again, is a misnomer. It is a suggestion that law enforcement has actually put a welcome mat out for criminals. It is well known that any criminal that does a criminal act or is stopped for a traffic infraction is, in fact, taken care of by the local municipality. Where we have had failures is that we have not had sufficient funding for internal enforcement officers and others dealing with immigration issues for these individuals to be transferred. I cannot stand here on the floor and allow the debate to suggest that local law enforcement, sheriffs, constables, police are letting horrific criminals go. They simply are not. If you do the crime, you will be arrested and do the time if your law enforcement are engaged. This will punish cities who are not turning their law enforcement, their meager law enforcement resources, into immigration patrols. That is a responsibility of the Federal Government. And to suggest that this amendment is going to stop the railroad killer and others; that was a combination of U.S. Marshals and FBI and HPD and everyone who was focused on finding that killer. No one is letting killers get away. And this particular amendment is not what Members may think it is, a way to get and to stand tall on illegal immigration. This is a way to undermine your respective local jurisdictions who have the responsibility of the enforcement of the law to protect the citizens of the jurisdiction or this Nation. All this does is jeopardize their funding when one citizen says, ``You know what? They let this individual go that looked like they were undocumented, and they were driving a car.'' This is what this does. And you go to any of your towns and find out that there are individuals whose surnames are other than ours or other than what you would perceive to be a standard name, if you will, and has a Hispanic sound or has some other sound to it and you want law enforcement then to arrest them, and you would suggest that law enforcement is not doing their job if they release them. This is the kind of determination you are going to ask on the streets of your respective cities and counties and jurisdictions when you should be dealing with this from the funding perspective of the Federal Government. This is a bad provision. Whether it has been voted on before, it is a bad provision, and all it is going to do is hurt the cities. And, clearly, my good friend and colleague knows that this debate is going on in the City of Houston as we speak, and those are the individuals that need to make that decision. I ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman. I likewise thank you for your leadership and the chairman's leadership, and I would like to enter into a colloquy. It is, I think, appropriate to do so as there is a pending launch going forward in the Nation's space program, space shuttle program, to talk about the next generation of scientists and astronauts. Mr. Chairman, in 1992, Dr. Mae C. Jemison became the first woman of color to travel into space. After retiring from NASA, she worked as an active advocate of science education, especially for minorities and economically disadvantaged students. Dr. Jemison is a doctor by training, and she is a pioneer in aeronautics. And through the creation of the Dr. Mae C. Jemison Grant Program, we hope to provide other minorities and women in America with the opportunity to succeed in science and engineering. Frankly, what we want to do is to create the next generation of our scientists and our astronauts. I would say to you that, unfortunately, we are woefully noncompetitive. The Dr. Mae C. Jemison Grant Program is intended to ensure equal access for minority and economically disadvantaged students to NASA's education programs. The program facilitates NASA's ability to work with institutions serving minorities to bring more women of color into the field of space and aeronautics. We must pursue this program to safeguard equal opportunities in fields of study and professions that have far too low of a minority ratio. Mr. Chairman, I hope that as this particular program is authorized in the NASA authorization bill, we will find it in our good graces to be able to fund it. My question, as I yield to the gentleman, is, would the gentleman agree with me to work with me to find a way to recognize and to fund this particular program?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. Let me say that it is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that we do recognize this as a grant program and that as you have indicated, that this program be funded under the education programs in NASA, and to be specifically funded, and as indicated in the Record, I had an amendment to offer. At this time, I will not be offering the amendment. And therefore, I hope to accept the assurances and be able to move forward on this program so that it can be funded

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I think the focus of the debate has gone awry. You are right. It is not an immigration issue. It is a citizen issue. But I do want to tell my colleagues that many people have fled persecution, sought asylum, and then become citizens. They come as adults, they come as elderly persons, but they are now citizens. They have been fleeing the persecution of oppression, and they come here for hope, and they come for a dream of opportunity. When they become citizens, this will simply allow them to partake of that dream, and that is to vote. This is a bad amendment because it does not respect the idea that this is a country of freedom. I ask my colleagues to oppose the Stearn Amendment and support the full implementation of the Voter Rights Act Reauthorization.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Stearns amendment to H.R. 5672, which would prohibit the Department of Justice from enforcing section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. The amendment is divisive, punitive, and will take America in exactly the wrong direction. 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 protects citizens, not illegal immigrants: 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. The immigrant debate should not influence 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, three- quarters 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. Section 203 was enacted to remedy the history of educational disparities, which have led to high illiteracy rates and low voter turn out: 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 250,000 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. 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 wait 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. I urge defeat of the Stearns Amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Steams Amendment to H.R. 5672, which would prohibit funds from being used for the design, renovation, construction, or rental of any headquarters for the United Nations in any location in the United States. I believe the amendment is unwise, short-sighted, and harmful attack on one of the most important international institutions in the world. Withholding funds that are lawfully owed to and desperately needed by the United Nations to perform its essential functions is harmful to the U.N. and against the interests of the United States. In this era of new global challenges, the global war on terror to the problematic war in Iraq to the threats to world peace posed by ambitions of North Korea and Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we need the U.N. more than ever. And for the most part, the U.N. does a good job meeting these challenges. The organization conducted the first-ever national election from scratch in Afghanistan and trained 150,000 Iraqis as election staff for the elections in that country. The U.N. also was instrumental in coordinating the massive tsunami relief and reconstruction effort, involving multiple governments and hundreds of NGOs, that brought relief and healing to hundreds of thousands of people suffering in Indonesia. The U.N. helped to end violence and instability in Haiti, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. With 191 diverse members, the U.N. is not perfect. It is unrealistic to expect perfection from an imperfect international system. The U.N. surely has many of the virtues and faults of its member countries, including our own country. But with all its faults, it is still an indispensable forum for the peaceful resolution of conflict. Despite both managerial and systemic limitations, the U.N. has shown resourcefulness in confronting the new challenges posed by failed states, infectious diseases that transcend borders, global climate change, famine, weapons trade and terrorism. The U.N.'s current Secretary General, Kofi Annan, is a leader determined to implement serious reforms. He recognizes that the United Nations is at a critical crossroads and that it must be modernized and rationalized if it is to survive. For over a year now, informed by the work of the high-level panel he appointed, the Secretary General has been working on a plan to overhaul the U.N. completely so that it is more professional and more capable of confronting global threats, challenges and change. I caution my colleagues to resist the temptation to withhold the payment of our U.N. dues. As we all know, the United States just recently completed a multi-year process of paying off a massive debt to the U.N. that had accumulated over many years. During that process, we successfully reduced the percentage of the U.N. budget that U.S. taxpayers are responsible for funding. So as we map out our nation's strategy for the next decade at the glass edifice on the East River, we must remember that operating the United Nations costs a lot of money. But not nearly as much money as international strife and chaos. The United Nations is deserving of the continuing support of the world, and of the United States of America. I urge defeat of the Stearns amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Weiner knows that I have voted with him consistently on the COPS program and, of course, am chagrinned to stand here to argue against a program that is so vital, but Mr. Mollohan is correct. These are tough decisions that have to be made, and the decision that has to be made is whether we want to remain competitive in science and technology, and we have to cut the science programs. It is a bad budget that we have to operate under, but frankly, in the shadow of a pending launch and the commitment to remain at the cutting edge of science that generates out of exploration and technology and science that comes under this particular funding, we are losing ground. I would hope that we go back to the drawing board and get the money that we need for the COPS program. It is a good program, but this is not the kind of decision that draws anyone to a degree of happiness. This is splitting the baby, and we have nothing when we get through with it. This is an important program to support, and that is the space exploration, the science programs. The minimum moneys we have and the fact that we have to take moneys for the COPS program, we need to fund it from the President's budget. He needs to fund the COPS program. This is not the way to do it. I would ask my colleagues to oppose the Weiner amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to my colleague's amendment, not because of the merit of the intent, but because of the harm it does in taking money away from an already under-funded NASA. This amendment would cut $476.5 million from science, aeronautics and space exploration systems. I wish the President's budget had allowed for full funding of the COPS program. The quarral is with the White House not with NASA. I wholeheartedly support the work of NASA, and I am committed to the future of scientific and space exploration. I am deeply concerned that the amount appropriated in the FY07 budget does not meet all the needs for future space exploration as we move forward in this new century. A lack of necessary budget authority makes scientific innovation and space exploration very difficult. As I have stated before, this Administration has made many bad budgetary choices, including zeroing out the COPS program. However, it is not in the nation's best interest to compound that mistake with this one. My greatest concern at this point is that we may not allocate enough money or resources to ensure the safety of all NASA astronauts and crew. After the Columbia disaster, safety must be our highest priority and it is worrisome that there is not a noticeable increase in funding to address all safety concerns. Additionally, I am concerned that pressure to retire the Shuttle by a fixed date to free up resources for other activities, coupled with the need to fly up to 28 Shuttle flights to assemble the Space Station, could--if not handled properly--lead to the types of schedule and budgetary pressures that were cited by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, CAIB, as contributing to the Columbia accident. I know that this concern is paramount at NASA as we move forward in the future. NASA has the ability to inspire the generations toward untold discoveries. As always I look forward to working with the good men and women of NASA as we push the boundaries of our world once again. Thus, because this amendment cuts funding so desperately needed by the researchers, engineers, and innovators at NASA, I cannot support it, and I urge my colleagues to follow my lead.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I intend to ultimately withdraw this amendment, but I thank the chairman for allowing me to rise to discuss, I think, a very important element of our foreign policy. First of all, I will like to acknowledge the U.S. Global Leadership Campaign that brought to my attention, after meeting with former Secretary Powell and former Secretary Albright, the very poor state of foreign aid in terms of dollars. Previously, we had some $35.1 billion, and now $32.28 billion. Obviously, working under the constraints of the budget amendment passed by this administration and this Congress certainly misdirected or at least caused confusion among the population because they believe we spend too much on foreign aid; whereas it really shows it is only about 1.2 percent. I say that because my amendment specifically talks about eliminating funds for supporting programs that target segments of the Muslim and Arab American communities for national security investigations. Now, Mr. Chairman, as a Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I am not standing here in complete ignorance of the war on terror and of the importance of securing the homeland and ensuring that all of our law enforcement agencies are able to conduct the investigations necessary to secure the homeland. In fact, I am a strong proponent, as a member of the Subcommittee on Intelligence of that Homeland Security Committee, of increasing intelligence, if you will, backed up by civil liberties and other necessary protections. But it is well known that after 9/11 the Muslim community and the Arab community in America have been racially profiled. In fact, recently, at an Arab American Economic Summit just held in Houston this week, some of the diplomats, dignitaries, individuals with the appropriate paper, if you will, ambassadors that were traveling from the District of Columbia to Houston were, in fact, detained by our local airports and other authorities. And one would say that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, if you will, and I have probably made that particular phrase up, but I do understand the cautiousness. But what we are doing is we are discouraging the legitimate travel for business, cultural exchange, diplomacy and education. We are distracting focus and attention from the guilty to the innocent, and we are diverting scarce Federal law enforcement resources by utilizing them in a targeting fashion. I hope that we will have an opportunity in this Congress to focus on the issues of intelligence so that we can target individuals who are truly here to harm us. But I also hope that we can establish the fact that racial profiling for your last name, for your religious faith, is clearly un-American and that what we should be doing is encouraging travel from the Mideast of those who are here for cultural reasons, those who come for business and, yes, the many, many students who have been discouraged from coming to the United States because of the tough requirements on visas directing and their family sending them to European countries, as much for not being able to get visas as being fearful for their young people to be here, that they might be racially profiled. This is a concern that I believe is necessary to express to this body, and I hope as the various initiatives of this particular appropriations through Justice, through the State Department, really become concerned with the unfair targeting of the Muslim American and Arab American community. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time. Mr. Wolf, I intend to withdraw this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I accept the unfortunate aspect of legislating on an appropriations bill. But I do believe it is an important enough issue that I hope, as it is placed in the Record, we will know that it is important as we proceed with the appropriation. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand partly the continued reasoning for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and I encourage my colleagues from Georgia and Texas to recognize that the vestiges of discrimination still require this particular initiative to be authorized and do so immediately. This is a Supreme Court decision in the League of United Latin American Citizens versus the Governor of Texas. Specifically it says against this background, the Latinos' diminishing electoral support indicates their belief that the person was unresponsive to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group. In essence, the State took away the Latino's opportunity because Latinos were about to exercise it. This bears the mark of intentional discrimination that could give rise to an Equal Protection violation. The Voting Rights Act protects those from discrimination and protects their right to vote. Although this opinion gives a reckless aspect to midterm redistricting, which I hope we can correct legislatively, it does reaffirm the value, the importance and the sanctity of the Voting Rights Act in encouraging and protecting all Americans' rights to vote. I ask my colleagues to read this opinion for a better understanding of why the Voting Rights Act is an effective civil rights initiative that should be reauthorized.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name from H.R. 4157, the Health Information Technology Act of 2005.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman. Let me take an appropriate time to thank both of the proponents of this bill, the ranking member, Mr. Mollohan, for his consistent leadership and caring attitude toward these issues; and, Mr. Wolf, let me thank you very much for the 6 years of service that you have given. Obviously, you have a great passion for so many issues that deal with the improvement in the quality of lives, not only for those in this country, but around the world. I do want to raise a number of issues, Mr. Chairman, and as I thank both the full committee chairman, Mr. Lewis, and then the ranking member, Mr. Obey, I am really disappointed as to where we find ourselves with the NASA funding. I know the choices have been made with the Moon to Mars account having risen 30 percent, but I think it is important to note that the President requested some 14 percent less for NASA education, $25 million, compared to 2 years ago, from $178.9 million to $153.3 million. NASA's education programs capitalize on the excitement of NASA's discoveries and missions to inspire future generations of space scientists. I know in speaking to Historically Black Colleges, this has had a terrible impact. In fact, one of the programs that was authorized under the NASA authorization that the Science Committee, of which I am a member, voted unanimously for, the Dr. Mae C. Jemison Program, the first African American female astronaut still remaining in history, a program named after her to encourage math and science among minority girls. Certainly with the brain drain that we have and the lack of scientists that we are producing in this country, this is an important program. Might I also mention that in a few days we will launch another space shuttle. But I am concerned, and I have raised this with the director and have sent him a letter, that this shuttle is going in spite of the opposition of safety engineers at NASA. I believe that this record must not close on an appropriation bill without requiring answers from NASA, and I hope to get those answers in the next 24 hours.