Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much. I thank the Speaker, and I thank this extraordinary effort on behalf of my amendment. My amendment includes a provision to the Government Accountability Study on the status of the National Flood Insurance Program before the changes that will be in effect with the enactment of this Act. This amendment seeks to identify any inconsistencies in eligibility standards for coverage. As I said earlier, this is an enormous step toward helping homeowners get out of poverty when they lose everything. Insurance is just that. I thank Mr. Baker, I thank Mr. Oxley of the full committee, Mr. Frank of the full committee, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ms. Waters, and the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Ney. This had to be a yeoman's task of bipartisan effort. And all of my other colleagues on the jurisdiction. And might I just add, I thank Mr. Frank for including my eminent domain amendment in previous legislation on this issue dealing with Katrina, but the overall question of flooding. This bill develops an appropriate reform on the demands on flood insurance in times of natural disaster, such as what we saw with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The Government can serve a crucial role in the ability of our Nation to be resilient to natural disaster. This program, for instance, provides for properties located in low to moderate risk areas to be eligible to purchase flood insurance policies for premiums as low as $112. With FEMA being led by a new director, and knowing that under Homeland Security, a committee that I sit on, that we want to reform, we want to make this system work for those who have experienced a disaster, then this legislation is a step toward making it work. In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program in response to the rising costs of taxpayer-funded disaster relief for flood victims and the increasing amount of damage caused by floods. The NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance available in communities that agree to adopt and enforce the floodplain's management ordnances to reduce future flood damage. The NFIP is self-supporting for the average historical loss year. This means that, unless there is a widespread disaster, operating expenses and flood insurance claims are financed through premiums collected. According to a RAND Corporation study conducted for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, nationwide about 49 percent of single family homes in special flood hazard areas are covered by flood insurance from the National Flood Insurance Program. In the South and West, the percentage is higher, about 60 percent. However, outside of the high-risk areas there is a steep drop-off in coverage. Only about 1 percent of homeowners purchase flood insurance in these low-risk areas. We can see by what is happening in this region, in the Maryland, Washington, Virginia region, that we need to have a sensitivity to the need for flood insurance because we cannot predict the weather. My district in Harris County had only a 25 percent market penetration rate, which means that only one in four households was covered with a flood insurance plan. Given the extent of damage and flooding from circumstances as extreme as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and as common as our recent storms last week, this rate is unsustainable for my constituents and others around the Nation. As we all know, many Members of Congress have been fighting to make their constituents whole, and so we know that it has been important to understand what happened. It is important to remember that often residents will not receive Federal aid for flooding in the disaster area, but, on average, households can receive $700 from organizations such as the Red Cross, but this amount is clearly not enough. So this particular amendment requires the GAO to establish the extent to which eligibility standards for pre-FIRM properties were inconsistent and resulted in disparities in coverage among such properties and their owners. That can be a narrow and selective study so we can have this as part of the larger report. The intent is to discover whether or not the application of eligibility standards remained consistent and, if not, whether some homeowners who should have been eligible for flood insurance did not receive it. We hope with this amendment that the GAO study will be able to answer the following question: Has there ever been a case where someone should have gotten insurance but did not? A small, isolated selection of cases will help bring about this very important data and add to this legislation and add to the studies that are necessary to make hard-working homeowners and others who desire the American dream to be made whole in the face of terrible disasters. With that, I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. My amendment includes a provision to the Government Accountability Study on the status of the national flood insurance program before the changes that will be in effect with the enactment of this act. This amendment seeks to identify any inconsistencies in eligibility standard for coverage. First, let me say that I applaud Mr. Baker, Mr. Frank, and my other colleagues on committees of jurisdiction who developed a bill that appropriately addresses the demands on flood insurance in times of natural disaster, such as what we saw with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The government can serve a crucial role in the ability of our Nation to be resilient to natural disaster. This program, for instance, provides for properties located in low-to-moderate risk areas to be eligible to purchase flood insurance policies with premiums as low as $112. In 1968 Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in response to the rising cost of taxpayer-funded disaster relief for flood victims and the increasing amount of damage caused by floods. The NFIP makes Federally backed flood insurance available in communities that agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage. The NFIP is self-supporting for the average historical loss year. This means that unless there is a widespread disaster, operating expenses and flood insurance claims are financed through premiums collected. According to a RAND Corporation study conducted for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), nationwide about 49 percent of single-family homes in special flood hazard areas (SFHAs) are covered by flood insurance from the National Flood Insurance Program. In the South and West the percentage is higher, about 60 percent. However, outside of the high risk areas there is a steep drop-off in coverage. Only about one percent of homeowners purchase flood insurance in these low risk areas. My district in Harris County, Texas, had only a 25 percent market penetration rate, which means that only 1 in 4 households was covered with a flood insurance plan. Given the extent of damage and flooding from circumstances as extreme as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and as common as our recent storms last week, this rate is unsustainable for my constituents, let alone for their local governments. It is important to remember that often, residents won't receive Federal aid for flooding or other natural disaster damage if the area is not declared a disaster area. On average, households can receive $700 from organizations such as the Red Cross--but this amount clearly won't cover the full cost of the damage. Nationwide, flash flooding is the leading cause of weather-related deaths in the U.S.--approximately 200 deaths per year. Implicit in the reforms established in this bill, however, is the need for an honest and transparent government process. My amendment contributes language to the GAO study analyzing the pre-FIRM (Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act) properties and mandatory purchase requirements for natural 100-year floodplain and non-Federally related loans. Specifically, my amendment requires the GAO to determine the extent to which eligibility standards for pre-FIRM properties were inconsistent and resulted in disparities in coverage among such properties and their owners. The intent is to discover whether or not the application of eligibility standards remained consistent, and if not, whether some homeowners who should have been eligible for flood coverage did not receive it. With this amendment, I hope the GAO will be able to answer the following question: Has there ever been the case where someone should have gotten insurance, but didn't? I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and support effectively reforming the National Flood Insurance Program.

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

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlemen, both, and in fact, Mr. Chairman, with great appreciation for both of you for this deference to me today. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 4973 pursuant to H. Res. 891, I may offer amendment No. 5 out of sequence.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his distinguished leadership on this issue, along with Mr. Oxley, as well as the ranking subcommittee member, Mrs. Waters, and the leadership of Mr. Ney. Let me also acknowledge the leadership of Mr. Baker, who I assume has walked the walk in our region, in our gulf coast region. I, too, have walked those streets and seen the impact that the devastation of Katrina has caused, and likewise in the City of Houston, not only the, if you will, Katrina survivors but also those who experienced the flooding of Rita. In addition, I walked along the pathways and saw the devastation in Mr. Taylor's district, and again thank him for his leadership, along with many, many Members who have addressed this question. Mr. Frank, I hold in my hand a book that says, From Poverty to Opportunity: A Covenant for a New America, which talks about overcoming poverty. I say that, and I support certainly this document, but I raise that with respect to H.R. 4973, because it helps those who have done everything right in America. They pay their taxes, and they have worked and invested in the American dream, and that is their home, to be able to find relief. This bill provides an extra $25 billion to cover the Katrina-related claims, but it is also an overhaul, an important overhaul of the flood insurance program, because it allows the National Flood Insurance Program to offer actuarially priced business interruption. How many of those who came through these recent storms lost their homes and their businesses? In fact, I was just with the FEMA director in Houston on Friday. In the room were two elderly persons who stood up and said, we have flood insurance, but nobody did anything. We didn't get anything. We lost everything. So there is a fracture in the system. I hope that this will be able to, one, provide, if you will, an embellishment of this program but also be able to give people help for the losses that they experience. I want to say very much thanks for the phase-out subsidy of vacation homes. That is the right way to do it. We know that sounds bad to some individuals. We thank them for having vacation homes, second homes, but we certainly don't want to strike it out immediately. Give them an opportunity to get coverage; and we recognize they, too, need coverage. But we understand the economies of scale. This is a reasonable and respectable approach to take. Let me also say that we are also delighted that you are dealing with flood maps. Mr. Etheridge and myself on the Science Committee did work on inland flooding. Hurricane Allison, what we call Storm Allison in Houston was what we call inland flooding. We lost billions of dollars in the medical center because it wasn't called a hurricane, but the flooding destroyed so much. We appreciate the fact that this will update flood maps, maintain an inventory of levees in the United States and move more quickly to update flood elevation standards and flood maps in the areas affected by last year's hurricane. Most importantly, this is a model of what we can do to ensure that homeowners and taxpayers and hard-working Americans certainly are not thrown into poverty. Certainly we hope that we will move others out of poverty. I would ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, just a few days from today, brave Americans will again enter into space, pressing forward the intellectual and, of course, scientific expertise that Americans possess. I support the space exploration program, but I stand today as a member of the House Science Committee who has continually asked the question about safety, safety, safety. After the incident of Columbia, we implemented safety procedures. Unfortunately, today, we find that one of the engineers that had concerns about the space shuttle's launch on July 1 has now been removed as an engineer from this program. Whistle-blower protection. Safety requirements. It is time, before they launch, that they tell Members of Congress the facts and that we can be assured that all manner of testing, all assessment has been made to ensure a safe launch, as safe as possible, so that lives can be protected. Vehicles may be lost, but the lives of astronauts should be protected. We need answers, and I look forward to getting those answers as soon as possible.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have voted for estate tax relief before but I oppose this bill because it is irresponsible to cut taxes for the wealthy when the Nation is at war and the national debt is over $8 trillion. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think it is unconscionable to be considering voting another tax cut to the wealthiest 0.3 percent of Americans. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this estate tax proposal will cost the Federal Government $602 billion, plus an extra $160 billion when interest is accounted for. Only 0.5 percent of the richest families in America currently pay estate taxes. Moreover, under current law in 2009, only 3 out of every 1,000 estates will pay a penny in estate taxes--all couples with estates up to $7 million, 99.7 percent, will pass on their entire estates tax-free. Any compromise proposal which deviates from 2009 current law--such as H.R. 5638--is therefore crafted entirely to benefit this tiny sliver of the richest estates. American voters stand strongly against drastic estate tax legislation. According to recent polling data, nearly 60 percent of voters hold the initial, unaided view that estate tax should be left as is or reformed, and only 23 percent support repeal. When asked about the estate tax in the context of other budget priorities, voters rank repealing the estate tax as the last priority, and 55 percent of voters oppose repeal. This so-called compromise, nearly as regressive and costly as a full repeal, is no compromise at all. Passing even this compromise legislation would constitute one of the most regressive tax cuts in the history of the United States. Middle- and lower-class Americans will be forced to shoulder the burden of radically decreasing the estate tax-- both monetarily and through decreased public programs. In order to cover the monetary gap, the Government will plunge further into debt, which will limit its ability to address the Social Security solvency gap and reduce the money available for public programs. It will also have to tap other tax sources, like payroll taxes, which will overwhelmingly hinder lower-income families. I urge my colleagues to uphold the core American values of fairness and belief in meritocracy by rejecting this tax cut. If we really wish to help the most deserving American families, we should raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over 3 years. Mr. Speaker, did you know that today's minimum wage of $5.15 today is the equivalent of only $4.23 in 1995, which is even lower than the $4.25 minimum wage level before the 1996-97 increase? It is scandalous, Mr. Speaker, that a person can work full-time, 40 hours per week, for 52 weeks, earning the minimum wage would gross just $10,700, which is well below the poverty line. A minimum wage increase would raise the wages of millions of workers: An estimated 7.3 million workers, 5.8 percent of the workforce, would receive an increase in their hourly wage rate if the minimum wage was raised from $5.15 to $7.25 by June 2007. Due to ``spillover effects,'' the 8.2 million workers, 6.5 percent of the workforce, earning up to $1.00 above the minimum would also be likely to benefit from an increase. Raising the minimum wage will benefit working families. The earnings of minimum wage workers are crucial to their families' well-being. Evidence from the 1996-97 minimum wage increase shows that the average minimum wage worker brings home more than half, 54 percent, of his or her family's weekly earnings. An estimated 760,000 single mothers with children under 18 would benefit from a minimum wage increase to $7.25 by June 2007. Single mothers would benefit disproportionately from an increase-- single mothers are 10.4 percent of workers affected by an increase, but they make up only 5.3 percent of the overall workforce. Approximately 1.8 million parents with children under 18 would benefit. Contrary to popular myths and urban legends, adults make up the largest share of workers who would benefit from a minimum wage increase. Seventy-two percent of workers whose wages would be raised by a minimum wage increase to $7.25 by June 2007 are adults, age 20 or older. Close to half, 43.9 percent, of workers who would benefit from a minimum wage increase work full time and another third, 34.5 percent, work between 20 and 34 hours per week. Minimum wage increases benefit disadvantaged workers and women are the largest group of beneficiaries from a minimum wage increase; 60.6 percent of workers who would benefit from an increase to $7.25 by 2007 are women. An estimated 7.3 percent of working women would benefit directly from that increase in the minimum wage. A disproportionate share of minorities would benefit from a minimum wage increase. African Americans represent 11.1 percent of the total workforce, but are 15.3 percent of workers affected by an increase. Similarly, 13.4 percent of the total workforce is Hispanic, but Hispanics are 19.7 percent of workers affected by an increase. The benefits of the increase disproportionately help those working households at the bottom of the income scale. Although households in the bottom 20 percent received only 5.1 percent of national income, 38.1 percent of the benefits of a minimum wage increase to $7.25 would go to these workers. The majority of the benefits, 58.5 percent, of an increase would go to families with working, prime-aged adults in the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution. Among families with children and a low-wage worker affected by a minimum wage increase to $7.25, the affected worker contributes, on average, half of the family's earnings. Thirty-six percent of such workers actually contribute 100 percent of their family's earnings. A minimum wage increase would help reverse the trend of declining real wages for low-wage workers. Between 1979 and 1989, the minimum wage lost 31 percent of its real value. By contrast, between 1989 and 1997, the year of the most recent increase, the minimum wage was raised four times and recovered about one-third of the value it lost in the 1980s. Income inequality has been increasing, in part, because of the declining real value of the minimum wage. Today, the minimum wage is 33 percent of the average hourly wage of American workers, the lowest level since 1949. A minimum wage increase is part of a broad strategy to end poverty. As welfare reform forces more poor families to rely on their earnings from low-paying jobs, a minimum wage increase is likely to have a greater impact on reducing poverty. Mr. Speaker, the opponents of the minimum wage often claim that increasing the wage will cost jobs and harm the economy. Of course, Mr. Chairman, there is no credible study to support such claims. In fact, a 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. The truth is that following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades. And after the minimum wage was increased, the country went on to enjoy the most sustained period of economic prosperity in history. We had historic low levels of unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, and decreased poverty rates. Studies have shown that the best performing small businesses are located in States with the highest minimum wages. Between 1998 and 2004, the job growth for small businesses in States with a minimum wage higher than the Federal level was 6.2 percent compared to a 4.1 percent growth in States where the Federal level prevailed. So much for the discredited notion that raising the minimum wage harms the economy. It does not. But it increases the purchasing power of those who most need the money, which is far more than can be said of the Republicans' devotion to cutting taxes for multimillionaires. Mr. Speaker, Americans overwhelmingly side with progressive principles of rewarding hard work with a living wage. In a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, 86 percent of Americans favored raising the minimum wage. In the 2004 election, voters in Florida and Nevada, two States won by President Bush, overwhelmingly approved ballot measures to raise the minimum wage. Even in Nevada's richest county, 61.5 percent of Douglas, where Bush received 63.5 percent of the vote, voters supported raising the minimum wage. Forty-three percent of Americans consider raising the minimum wage to be a top priority. In contrast, only 34 percent considered making the recent Federal income tax cuts permanent and only 27 percent consider the passage of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as top priorities. Members of Congress have legislated a minimum salary for themselves and have seen fit to raise it eight times since they last raised the minimum wage. It is time we gave the Americans we represent a long- overdue pay raise by increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 over 3 years. Even this amount does not keep pace with the cost of living. The minimum wage would have to be increased to $9.05 to equal the purchasing power it had in 1968. And if the minimum wage had increased at the same rate as the salary increase corporate CEOs have received, it would now be $23.03 per hour.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, H.R. 5638, the ``Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act of 2006.'' Mr. Speaker, I have voted for estate tax relief before but I oppose this bill because it is irresponsible to cut taxes for the wealthy when the Nation is at war and the national debt is over $8 trillion dollars. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that Thomas's estate tax proposal will cost the Federal Government $602 billion, plus an extra $160 billion when interest is accounted for. Only 0.5 percent of the richest families in America currently pay estate taxes. Moreover, under current law in 2009, only 3 out of every 1,000 estates will pay a penny in estate taxes--all couples with estates up to $7 million--99.7 percent--will pass on their entire estates tax-free. Any compromise proposal which deviates from 2009 current law--such as Thomas' bill and Kyl's older proposal--is therefore crafted entirely to benefit this tiny sliver of the richest estates. American voters stand strongly against drastic estate tax legislation. According to recent polling data, nearly 60 percent of voters hold the initial, unaided view that estate tax should be left as is or reformed, and only 23 percent support repeal. When asked about the estate tax in the context of other budget priorities, voters rank repealing the estate tax as the last priority, and 55 percent of voters oppose repeal. This so-called compromise, nearly as regressive and costly as a full repeal, is no compromise at all. Passing even this compromise legislation would constitute one of the most regressive tax cuts in the history of the United States. Middle- and lower-class Americans will be forced to shoulder the burden of radically decreasing the estate tax-- both monetarily and through decreased public programs. In order to cover the monetary gap, the government will plunge further into debt, which will limit its ability to address the Social Security solvency gap and reduce the money available for public programs. It will also have to tap other tax sources, like payroll taxes, which will overwhelmingly hinder lower-income families. I urge my colleagues to uphold the core American values of fairness and belief in meritocracy by rejecting this tax cut. If we really wish to help the most deserving American families, we should raise the minimum wage.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today the House took several measures that I believe it is important for the American people to understand. Of course, it sounds like the estate tax potential has great merit for many who believe that they are either engaged in family farming or small businesses. Might I say that the existing relief under estate tax actually gives those whose estates are $7 million absolute relief. So at this time when we are at war, to give another $800 billion giveaway really is unreasonable. And, therefore, even though I have in the past supported the estate tax, this is not the time. And the reason is because, of course, the minimum wage has not been raised for the past 6 years. In fact, it is at a rate that shows that it is as low as it was 50 years ago in today's dollars. When are we going to see relief for those single parents and hard-working families who can barely make ends meet on $5.15? Then we want to give the President a line item veto, which has already proven to be unconstitutional. It is up to this Congress to be fiscally conservative, not rely on an unconstitutional law such as line item veto.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill because the legislative line-item veto it seeks to create is merely a gimmick to divert attention from the majority's pitiful record when it comes to fiscal management. In addition, and even more important, this so-called line item veto represents a dangerous, and in my view unconstitutional, transfer of power from the legislative branch to the Chief Executive. Mr. Speaker, while H.R. 4890 seeks to address an important problem-- the massive deficits run up by the majority and the majority's squandering of the $5 trillion projected surplus bequeathed it and the administration by the Clinton administration--their ``solution'' to the problem resorts to legislative gimmicks instead of tackling the problem directly. Since one-party control of the government began in 2001, Federal spending has ballooned 42 percent; an increase of over $830 billion a year, reflecting the budgets that President Bush has submitted to Congress. During that time, the President has not vetoed a single piece of legislation. In fact, President Bush has used the veto less than any President in the past 175 years. Yet while the proposed line-item authority would give a big new stick to the executive branch, it would do little to bring fiscal sanity back to the appropriations process. Indeed, it might actually have the opposite effect of encouraging these special-interest handouts. Conservative columnist George Will observes that the President may simply use the authority as a form of legislative horse-trading, suggesting that the administration could ``buy legislators'' support on other large matters in exchange for not vetoing the legislators' favorite small items.'' Both the Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional Research Service have reached similar conclusions. Indeed, it seems the President's version of the line-item veto is more about transferring power to the executive branch than actually reigning in Federal spending. That power transfer has already once been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The majority decided that ``the President's role in the legislative process can be altered only through the cumbersome process of amending the Constitution,'' and there is no reason to believe that this attempt will be met any more favorably. In fact, the House bill actually gives the executive branch more power than the previous act, allowing the President up to 45 days to exercise the authority (instead of the previous act's five) and 90 days to withhold funds even after Congress has overridden his veto. If Congress really wants to get a handle on spending, it should reform the earmarking process, instead of resorting to legislative gimmicks. The President could also do the unthinkable--bring out the old-fashioned veto stamp for the first time in 5 years.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as we work toward completing our appropriations work, I think it is important to acknowledge that there are some policy questions of concern. I have introduced legislation to address the signing statements of the Executive, the President, which allows the President not to veto legislation when he is opposed, but really to send out signing statements that then causes the executive branch to totally ignore the laws of Congress. If we are to have a separation of powers, we need to make sure that Congress has its own powers to pass its laws and have them applied. I also think it is important to acknowledge that the no-knock decision by the Supreme Court is in and of itself unconstitutional, and I will be writing legislation to put back in place that the fourth amendment is truly constitutional. It is important, as well, as we debate the immigration issue that we bring down the tone of divisiveness, and I hope to file a sense of Congress resolution that would encourage all Members of Congress not to divide us on the debate of immigration. I hope we will pass legislation as well that says no amnesty should be given to those in Iraq who kill American soldiers. I will be introducing legislation on that as well.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Keeping the Flame of Hope Alive. Throughout their long and daunting journey from oppression and persecution to asylum and protection, and eventually to a place they can call home, refugees show incredible strength, courage and determination. Their journey is a dangerous and arduous one and every day spent in exile is a day too long. But in every step of their journey refugees carry with them an unshakable, unrelenting hope. By hanging on to their hopes for basic survival, sustenance and protection, and for the chance to one day rebuild their lives, refugees defy all odds. The U.N. Refugee Agency must continue to be impressed by the tenacious hopefulness of refugees which, in turn, motivates us to leave no stone unturned in the fulfillment of our mandate, to protect them and to find durable solutions to their plight. On World Refugee Day, we ask you to remember the millions of refugees under U.N. care who are trying to pick up the pieces of once-peaceful lives. As different as they are from each other, one thing connects them all: hope for a better future and a chance to restore lasting peace to their lives. Help us keep that flame of hope alive! Latest Statistics: 20.8 million Latest statistics indicate that of the 20.8 million people of concern: 8.4 million are refugees who have fled their countries due to civil wars and ethnic, tribal and religious violence and who cannot return home 6.6 million are internally displaced persons--people forced to flee their homes, but who have not crossed a border 2.4 million are stateless people 1.6 million are returnees 773,000 are asylum seekers 960,000 are others of concern

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would be delighted to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the World Refugee Day as we keep the flame of hope alive, showing some 20.8 million internally displaced refugees fleeing persecution who are now looking to the world to ask for relief. As I stand to acknowledge that day, I draw the House's attention to a day I believe that symbolizes the hopes and dreams of many. Although the occasion of Juneteenth happens to be a holiday that is celebrated by African Americans, it is, in fact, the oldest nationally celebrated commemoration of the ending of slavery in the United States. So I say simply that it is symbolic of people who are in need of empowerment. And, in fact, this celebration took place in this country, and certainly in the State of Texas, over the last 3 days, this past weekend. I participated with my colleagues in different States to celebrate Juneteenth, as well as my constituents, on Saturday and Sunday and Monday. From its Galveston, Texas, origin in 1865, the observance of June 19 is considered the African American Emancipation Day even as it claimed a time frame in which African Americans were actually denied the knowledge of their freedom. Those in Texas did not hear of the declaration that President Lincoln made until 1865. Today Juneteenth commemorates, I believe, African American freedom and symbolically freedom around the world. And that is why in the beginning I stood and acknowledged this is World Refugee Day, for refugees are looking for freedom and hope, and they belong to us, and they are placed around the world. This special day of Juneteenth, however, emphasizes education and achievement. It is a day, a week, and in some areas a month marked with celebrations, guest speakers, picnics, and family gatherings. It is a time for reflection and rejoicing. It is a time for assessment, self-improvement and planning for the future. But it is a time for reinvesting, restoring ourselves. It relates to the struggle of freedom. It reinforces the fact that freedom is not easy and it is not free, and as those who stood witness waiting in the State of Texas near the Galveston Bay to find out whether they were free, there are many who still stand waiting for that call of freedom. The growing popularity of Juneteenth signifies a level of maturity and dignity in America long overdue. In cities across the country, people of all races, nationalities and religions are joining hands to truthfully acknowledge a period in our history that shaped and continues to influence our society today. Sensitized the ties to the conditions and experiences much others only then can we make significant and lasting improvements in our society. The civil rights movement of the fifties and sixties yielded both positive and negative results for the Juneteenth celebrations. While it pulled many of the African American youth away and into the struggle for racial equality, many linked these struggles to the historical struggles of their ancestors. They wanted to be free of the Juneteenth celebration. This was evidenced as students began to participate in student demonstrations involved in the Atlanta civil rights campaign in the early 1960s, who wore Juneteenth freedom buttons. Again, in 1968, Juneteenth received another strong resurgence through the Poor Peoples March to Washington, D.C. Reverend Ralph David Abernathy called for people of all races, creeds, economic levels and professions to come to Washington to show their support for the poor. Juneteenth has a way of generating the kind of compassion for the struggle and, of course, a reason for fighting for freedom. Let me thank Representative Al Edwards, a constituent of mine and a State representative who can be called the father of Juneteenth in the State of Texas, establishing the first State holiday for African Americans, Juneteenth, June 19, here in the State of Texas that we have the opportunity to celebrate. He has not finished his work, for he continues to promote the Juneteenth Commission, and I am very proud that on Monday morning, we opened and christened the first Juneteenth statute in the State of Texas. This holiday, however, is spreading across the country as a symbol of freedom. Tomorrow we will have the opportunity, as we have had today, to acknowledge the that people are still struggling for freedom by World Refugee Day, but tomorrow this body will have the opportunity to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act of 1965, now in 2006, now named the Fannie Lou Hammer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act. I ask my colleagues in the name of Juneteenth and many other symbolic holidays that establish and create freedom, that we should stand tall for the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. It should not be a political struggle or a power struggle. It should be the right struggle, the right thing to do. And for those who intend to offer what we call poison pill amendments, I would ask my colleagues to defeat them handily, because the Voting Rights Act is a symbol of freedom for all, all colors, all creeds, to be able to suggest that every citizen has a right to vote. Whether they speak English or not, Mr. Speaker, they have a right to vote, and these amendments that are being offered to undermine their voting rights say that if you are a citizen and you speak a different language, you cannot have the protection of the Voting Rights Act. I ask my colleagues to join us in continuing the freedom statement of the Juneteenth holiday and to vote for the Voting Rights Act tomorrow. Juneteenth is alive and well. Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark the occasion of Juneteenth, the oldest nationally celebrated commemoration of the ending of slavery in the United States. From its Galveston, Texas origin in 1865, the observance of June 19th as the African American Emancipation Day has spread across the United States and beyond. Today Juneteenth commemorates African-American freedom. This special day emphasizes education and achievement. It is a day, a week, and in some areas, a month marked with celebrations, guest speakers, picnics and family gatherings. It is a time for reflection and rejoicing. It is a time for assessment, self-improvement and for planning the future. Its growing popularity signifies a level of maturity and dignity in America long over due. In cities across the country, people of all races, nationalities and religions are joining hands to truthfully acknowledge a period in our history that shaped and continues to influence our society today. Sensitized to the conditions and experiences of others, only then can we make significant and lasting improvements in our society. The Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's yielded both positive and negative results for the Juneteenth celebrations. While it pulled many of the African American youth away and into the struggle for racial equality, many linked these struggles to the historical struggles of their ancestors. This was evidenced by student demonstrators involved in the Atlanta civil rights campaign in the early 1960's, whom wore Juneteenth freedom buttons. Again in 1968, Juneteenth received another strong resurgence through Poor Peoples March to Washington D.C.. Rev. Ralph Abernathy's call for people all races, creeds, economic levels and professions to come to Washington to show support for the poor. Many of these attendees returned home and initiated Juneteenth celebrations in areas previously absent of such activity. In fact, two of the largest Juneteenth celebrations founded after this March are now held in Milwaukee and Minneapolis. Texas Blazes the Trail On January 1, 1980, Juneteenth became an official state holiday through the efforts Rep. Al Edwards, an African American state legislator. The successful passage of this bill marked Juneteenth as the first emancipation celebration granted official state recognition. Representative Edwards has since actively sought to spread the observance of Juneteenth all across America. Juneteenth In Modern Times Throughout the 80's and 90's Juneteenth has continued to enjoy a growing and healthy interest from communities and organizations throughout the country. Institutions such as the Smithsonian, the Henry Ford Museum and others have begun sponsoring Juneteenth-centered activities. In recent years, a number of National Juneteenth Organizations have arisen to take their place along side older organizations--all with the mission to promote and cultivate knowledge and appreciation of African American history and culture. Juneteenth today, celebrates African American freedom while encouraging self-development and respect for all cultures. As it takes on a more national and even global perspective, the events of 1865 in Texas are not forgotten, for all of the roots tie back to this fertile soil from which a national day of pride is growing. The future of Juneteenth looks bright as the number of cities and states come on board and form local committees and organizations to coordinate the activities. With the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006 coming up on the floor tomorrow, it is important to remember that the VRA is one of the most effective civil rights statute ever enacted, and while its successes has generated increased political power for many at the local, state, and federal levels, there is still much work to be done. Critical provisions of the Act, including the language assistance provisions contained within Section 203, are set to expire next year. The right to vote is only meaningful when the language of the ballot and other election materials is fully comprehensible to the voter. Recently, a 9-foot bronze statue, created by Eddie Dixon of Lubbock, was erected in the city of Galveston, TX. The Statue depicts a man holding the state law that made Juneteenth a state holiday in 1979. It was at the Ashton Villa where Maj. Gen. Gordon Granger of the U.S. Army is believed to have read a proclamation on June 19, 1865, announcing that slaves were free. The historic emancipation proclamation enacted by President Abraham Lincoln went into effect Jan. 1, 1863. Monday marked the 27th year that people have gathered to celebrate Juneteenth.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, workers across this country are increasingly being asked to do more with less. As prices rise on housing, health care, energy and education, the millions of Americans who work full time and make minimum wage are slipping farther and farther into poverty. The minimum wage in this country has not been raised since 1997 and is now at its lowest level in 50 years when adjusted for inflation. Making only $5.15 an hour, a full-time minimum wage employee will earn only $10,700 annually. This is far from enough to make ends meet-- especially for the 75 percent who are responsible at least half of their family's income. Raising children on a middle-class income is hard enough--imagine trying to do it on one-third of that amount. Mr. Speaker, Democrats believe that the minimum wage should be a living wage. No American who works full-time, all year, should live in poverty, unable to support their family. Last week, Democrats were successful in inserting a minimum wage increase into the Labor-H-H-S appropriations bill. But now the Republican leadership is stalling a floor vote. It is time for real action to move hard working Americans out of poverty. Seven million Americans deserve a raise today.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the House should be cited for dereliction of duty. Over the years, we have failed to raise the minimum wage. That is why Amanda and her two children can barely survive in Wisconsin, and why this headline says: ``States lead the way to raise minimum wage. Inaction in Washington has helped push this bipartisan effort.'' Isn't it a shame that the Republican majority in this Congress doesn't get it? Although we have an amendment to raise the minimum wage in our Labor-HHS bill, there is rumor that it will be stricken. The minimum wage is the lowest in 50 years and hasn't been raised since 1997. At $5.15 an hour, you can only earn $10,700 a year, supporting a family of one, two, three, six and seven and others. This is a crisis. Americans who earn dollars invest back into our economy. We cannot make ends meet. Seventy-five percent of those who earn this are responsible for at least half of their family's income. If you can't raise your children on a middle-income salary, how can you do it on one-third the amount? Democrats believe in increasing the minimum wage, and we know that we will see the minimum wage increase. It is time for Republicans to wake up.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman. It is an honor to follow his leadership on these issues of empowerment and particularly of African American men. I rise today to acknowledge the very special moment of history we have today to pass this resolution in honor of Mr. Cameron, and particularly I rise to pay tribute and honor my colleague from Wisconsin, the honorable Gwen Moore, for her insightful leadership to bring to the attention of this House a man who survived lynching, a man who is symbolic of almost 5,000 who were lynched as others watched and stood by, a man who dedicated his life to civil rights even though he was threatened every day such that he had to leave his place of birth, a place that he loved, the State of Indiana, and move to Wisconsin. A person who used the tragedy of his life, the tragedy of his two young friends to be a man who perpetrated reconciliation and the ending of racism. Thank you to the Honorable Gwen Moore for enlightening this body and allowing us to pay tribute as we debate this week the Voter Rights Act reauthorization. Yes, this is a moment in history for this House to take, and I hope it will take it enthusiastically and unanimously support the resolution offered today honoring Mr. Cameron for his enormous leadership. Thank you, Congresswoman Gwen Moore.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman. Having just come back from Iraq, and recognizing the valiant effort of our soldiers on the front line, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I thank the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina for his leadership in yielding, and I thank the proponent of this legislation. I have the greatest respect for our families, and I offer to say that the decisions of the family to be able to be protected is utmost, and so there will be no disagreement on legislation of this kind. I rise to support it, as well as I raise with my colleagues the need for families to also be able to mourn with a fallen soldier ceremony or be able to have their loved ones come first to this soil at Dover Air Force Base. We hope to be able to allow that mourning in the manner that families desire and a public honoring as they may desire. Their fallen heroes deserve to be honored properly in their hometown and at Dover Air Force Base. But as we pay tribute to those who have fallen, we want to nurture and support our families, provide them with the privacy that they desire and the respect. At this moment, Mr. Speaker, I ask for, in the course of my debate on the floor today in support of H. Res. 731, a moment of silence and recognition of the three soldiers who lost their lives this past weekend, in particular at the checkpoint in Baghdad: David J. Babineau of Springfield, MA; Thomas Tucker of Oregon; and our own Kristian Menchaca, age 23, of Houston, TX, who grew up in a near northside neighborhood whose family now mourns his loss and the loss of others, recognizing that these brave young men, 25, 23, 25, are all heroes, and I ask for a moment of silence as we ask that they may rest in peace.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5228 and note that while this is not a bad bill, it does track current law. Therefore, it does not really address the major problems that currently plague the lobbying industry. This bill would amend the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, FARA, to require the representatives of foreign governments that have been designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of terrorism to disclose to the Attorney General any lobbying contact they have made with a legislative branch official, a vital need for those governments really sponsoring terrorism, many of whom are on the list held by the Attorney General. Moreover, this bill will require such agents of foreign principals to disclose their contacts in a timely manner or risk their diplomatic or consular accreditation by the Secretary of State. Let me make it very clear, there are some members of the list, some nation states on the list that if a bill was to come forward on this floor, I would vote to remove them from the list. But I think overall the underlying purpose of this is to ensure that those who are perpetrating terrorists and are activating or providing or facilitating terrorist acts around the world, that any who represent them in the United States should have to report. Under the current law, agents of foreign principals that are required to register under FARA already must disclose all lobbying contacts with legislative and executive branch officials. Thus, the premise and point of this legislation seems somewhat unclear and may only track current law. The best component of this bill is that it would require for the first time that the Justice Department post these lobbying contact reports on the Internet. This is excellent. Currently FARA only requires paper reports that are only available at the DOJ offices. And even though DOJ has put much of this information into their own computerized system, they have refused to share the information with the public. This bill would bring much-needed sunlight to a dark industry. I have been a constant critic of the lack of oversight of this body. This legislative initiative provides another tool for Congress to raise its head of oversight. Things don't work in this country as long as we have a lack of the three branches of government functioning independently and individually as they should. This gives Congress and the public another tool of oversight. The lobbying industry is growing at a startling rate, and current laws have proven inadequate to keep up with this evolving industry. The recent list of stories detailing the cozy relationships between lobbyists and certain Members of Congress are only the tip of the iceberg. They are symptoms of deeper problems with lobbying regulations and oversight. While this bill does not do much to take down the house that Jack built, it is a good step in the right direction. It calls upon Congress to raise its head on oversight. I rise today in support of H.R. 5228, but note that while this is not a bad bill, it does track current law and therefore does not really address the major problems that currently plague the lobbying industry. This bill would amend the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, FARA, to require representatives of foreign governments that have been designated by the Secretary of State as State Sponsors of Terrorism to disclose to the Attorney General any lobbying contacts that they have made with a legislative branch official. Moreover, this bill will require such agents of foreign principals to disclose their contacts in a timely manner or risk their diplomatic or consular accreditation by the Secretary of State. Under the current law, agents of foreign principals that are required to register under FARA already must disclose all lobbying contacts with legislative and executive branch officials. Thus, the point and premise of this legislation are unclear and seemingly unnecessary. The best component of this bill is that it would require, for the first time, that the Justice Department post these lobbying contact reports on the Internet. This is excellent. Currently, FARA only requires paper reports that are only available at the DOJ offices, and even though the DOJ has put much of this information into their own computerized system, they have refused to share their information to the public. This requirement would bring much needed sunlight to a dark industry. The lobbying industry is growing at a startling rate and current laws have proven inadequate to keep up with this evolving industry. The recent spate of stories detailing the cozy relationships between lobbyists and certain Members of Congress are only the tip of the iceberg--they are merely symptoms of deeper problems with lobbying regulation and oversight. While this bill does not do much to take down ``the House that Jack built,'' it is a good step in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes again to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio for his insight. And I am hoping that as we move this bill along, this instruction that he has given us will be taken into account. Might I close by simply saying that one of the strong elements of this bill, which I think maybe Members of Congress might not have been aware of, and I hope is made very plain, as these various individuals meet with members in the White House, meet with Vice President Cheney on issues that we have concern with, they will have to report and it will be publicized, those interactions. There is a component of this that will be worthy of the oversight that this particular bill gives at this instance. But I think it is important that when we do engage in oversight that our legislative initiatives pass constitutional muster. With that, I would ask for the words of our various speakers, including Mr. Kucinich, to be taken into consideration as we move this bill along. And as indicated, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.