Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. In your lifetime, Mr. Delahunt, have you ever heard of this number of generals, and I know Vietnam, I am trying to recount my history, this number of generals and sacrificing their career, offering their great history before us, willing to tell the truth to the American people? I think this is history that we have not seen in the past; that they have been willing to sacrifice themselves in order to tell the truth to the American people.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If you will yield for one moment, you are absolutely right. We have a picture of these distinguished gentlemen. We know that some have suffered wounds, some may have even been in Vietnam, and to say tomorrow there will be somewhat of, I want to be, if you will, dignified and within the respect of this august body, but tomorrow, we will not be giving it respect. What we really should do is have a debate into next week and next week, and we should open the doors of our hearing rooms for these generals who have been frustrated and doing op-eds and speaking to the American people from a forum that give them sound bites. We should dignify their service to this country and bring them in for them to be heard, and I hope that we will do that.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Absolutely.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise at this time for purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the gentlemen from Michigan and Massachusetts, which was the intent of bringing up the amendment so that we would have an opportunity to discuss a very important issue. Sometimes it takes money, but sometimes it takes policy. We recognize that one of the advantages of modern life is the convenience of air travel. America's air transportation system is the best and safest in the world, but airports are not quiet. If you ask any resident that lives near a busy airport, you will hear many grievances about the noise level. Although there is no way to make airports soundproof, it is possible to reduce airport noise so it is less disruptive to the lives of the families that live near some of the Nation's busiest airports, work and pay their taxes. Under the Airport Improvement Program administered by the FAA, grants are available to airports and local governments to fund noise reduction projects located in areas significantly affected by airport noise above 65 decibels over a 24-hour average, as indicated by the notation 65 dB(A) DNL. Noise mitigation grants are generally not available for areas in which the noise level may be substantial but does not exceed the 65 dB(A) DNL. Thereby, money does not solve the problem; policy does. However, substantial impacts occur to millions of people well below the 65 decibel level. This value is inadequate for several reasons: From a scientific perspective, it is not supported by research. The 65 decibel level is derived from the Schultz Curve which correlated people reporting being highly annoyed by noise with noise levels. Substantial impact occurs well before people become highly annoyed. In addition, the data used in the Schultz Curve for airports shows that ``highly annoyed'' occurs around 57 decibels, not 65, and that comes from a Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. The EPA has identified 55 dB(A) DNL as a more appropriate noise level. The day/night average sound level is the level of noise expressed in decibels as a 24-hour average, and averages do not adequately account for the impacts of aircraft noise on individuals. Research has shown that noise disruption as low as 55 decibels can negatively affect communities near airports. Unfortunately, communities that have a dB(A) less than 65 are precluded from applying for an Airport Improvement Program grant to reduce airport noise. We need to help them. I have even heard from cities in Minnesota. It is all over the country. It is important to stress that this amendment does not entitle any airport, local government or other eligible entity to receive a noise mitigation grant. Nor does it have any financial impact. This amendment only affects an applicant's eligibility to be considered for an airport noise reduction grant. Each applicant must demonstrate that its proposed project deserves to be funded, but no applicant can be disqualified from consideration merely because the area covered by the grant request does not have a dB(A) DNL greater than 65. I would ask the gentleman to agree to work with me and, of course, others in this Congress who have similar interests for the betterment of the airports and airlines and airline travel, but also for those hardworking taxpaying communities to provide some relief to these affected communities. And I would yield to the gentleman.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I am yielding to the gentleman.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I think the colloquy states.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank Congressman Baca for bringing us together to acknowledge that hateful speech generates hateful acts. And I hope that we will have an opportunity as we discuss the immigration pathway for so many who are claiming America's dream that we will bring the tone down. Let me applaud the community of Houston where I come from where we are establishing weekly meetings called Houston's Unity Effort on Immigration. Let me tell how immigration and hateful talk can generate ugly acts. The sodomizing of a teenager by Anglo youth, white youth, a Hispanic youth when the piquing comments about immigration were rising to the worst that we could hear. That young man now lays in a hospital bed recuperating, and I have asked for an Attorney General investigation as to the violation of his civil rights. Or, as been said, a video game that gives the highest points to a dead Mexican pregnant woman coming over the border. That is a lack of understanding and sensitivity. And just recently in Round Rock, Texas where a bailiff called a young teenager who simply wanted to express their constitutional rights in walking out of a high school to claim some sort of dignity on immigration called them a wetback, and that same community charging them with misdemeanors for simply expressing their freedom of speech. I know this Nation can do better and I know that we can do better. That is why I join with Congressman Baca to say that hateful speech generates hateful acts. This is the beginning of a hate crime if we begin to talk in a hateful way. Immigration can be done comprehensively, border security, and comprehensive immigration reform. Let us tone it down. Let us be reasonable and respectful. I would like to yield the rest of my time to Mr. Green from Texas.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me close by simply thanking you and saying that, in addition, we want to make sure that we don't undermine the Voter Rights Act by fighting over the language provision that should be included. That is actually part of the history of the Voting Rights Act, and I am very proud of Barbara Jordan some years ago the Voter Rights Act to include language minorities. Mr. Speaker, hate crimes, hate acts, we need to recognize that this is what generates out of lack of understanding, and I believe Americans are better than this and understand the value of the comprehensive immigration reform border security without the attacking on young people who are innocent and become innocent victims of our hateful talk. We can do better and America can do better.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee, the ranking member, Mr. Olver, and the chairman of this committee for the hard work that has been done. This truly does go, very briefly, to the American Dream. Interestingly enough, it is a bipartisan dream. It is a commitment that we have made over the years, which is to ensure the opportunity for homeownership for all Americans. This is made possible by the authorizing legislation, the American Dream Downpayment Act, which was a combination of Members, both Republicans and Democrats. This amendment does a very simple act, and it is an act that we could consume and has a de minimis impact, except for those who are still trying to seek the American Dream. It allows them to do so until December 31, 2009. This amendment extends the availability of funding on the American Dream Downpayment Act for an additional 3 months. On December 16, 2003, the President signed the American Dream Downpayment Act, a program that provides grants to help home buyers with downpayment and closing costs. The Home Improvement Partnership Program is funded at $1.9 billion in FY 2007, an increase of $159 million, or 9 percent above FY 2006, and equal to the President's request. Since its inception, the HOME program has assisted more than 300,000 families to become homeowners, 55 percent of whom are minorities. More than two dozen organizations are working to create more than $1 trillion in mortgage financing for minority home buyers. As we look at the landscape of America, one natural disaster after another, we know that we are in a crisis on either homeownership or the rebuilding of homes. So, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important if we have a program that appears to be working that we give those extra added months in order to help Mr. and Mrs. Jones, Mr. and Mrs. Garcia, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, just Mr. and Mrs. America who are eligible for this program. I would say to you that because 55 percent are minorities, that means that 45 percent are all of America. This is a 100 percent program that responds to working Americans. The purpose of this program is to increase the homeownership rate, especially, as I indicated, among minority groups, but not limited to such. It gives the opportunity to hardworking Americans, single parents, single individuals, married individuals, and people who want to invest in their community. It allows communities that have lower rates of homeownership when compared to the national average to be engaged in the home-buying business. It provides them with lower closing costs by approximately $700 per loan in order to stimulate homeownership for all Americans. About 3 years ago, Mr. Chairman, I had a homeownership fair where 6,000 Houstonians showed up. Six thousand, looking for the opportunity. This amendment is a simple statement that we are committed to homeownership and allows for the homeownership to go forward until December 30, 2009. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 5576, which replaces ``September 30, 2009'' with ``December 31, 2009'' as the date where funds made available for the American Dream Down Payment Act are available. This amendment extends the availability of the funding under the American Dream Down Payment Act for an additional three months. On December 16, 2003, President George W. Bush signed the American Dream Downpayment Act, a program that provides grants to help home buyers with downpayments and closing costs. The HOME Investment Partnerships Program is funded at $1.92 billion in FY 2007, an amount increase of $159 million (9 percent) above FY 2006 and equal to the President's request. Since its inception, the HOME Program has assisted more than 300,000 families to become homeowners, 55 percent of which are minorities. More than two dozen organizations are working to create more than $1 trillion in mortgage financing for minority home buyers. The purpose of the program is to increase the home ownership rate, especially among minority groups, who have lower rates of home ownership when compared to the national average, and to lower closing costs by approximately $700 per loan in order to stimulate home ownership for all Americans. This amendment will help first-time homebuyers by allowing funds appropriated to be available through December 30, 2009, to coincide with typical lease calendars, and provide increased flexibility for purchasing. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. My position is that the enormity of the need warrants a waiver of the point of order, and I would ask the majority to waive the point of order so the elderly might be served in rental housing so the choice they make is not health care or housing. I ask for a ruling from the Chair in favor of my amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I offer my appreciation to the ranking member, Mr. Olver, and Mr. Knollenberg, and of course the chairman and the ranking member of the full committee. This is a difficult task, but as I stand here today, I argue that it is a difficult posture to be in, to be elderly in America and to be without housing. We have already heard the stories about the choices that our elderly citizens have to make, sometimes between food, prescription drugs and, of course, housing. In my own community in Houston as we are hosting thousands of Hurricane Katrina survivors, we have found the most vulnerable to be senior citizens, individuals who are without income or a future in terms of the work world and need to have some housing. This is a simple amendment. This amendment says all tenant-based assistance made available under this heading shall continue to remain available to all eligible elderly applicants. Who could be against this simple statement? I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to consider the vast numbers of the growing population of elderly, and let's try to do something about their plight. In the year 2000, the elderly made up 12.4 percent of the population. The total number of elderly increased 12 percent from 1990 to the U.S. Census in 2000. More than 7.4 million elderly households pay more than they can afford for their housing. The number of elderly rental households rose to 1.2 million between 1999 and 2001, an increase of 14 percent. This extension or this compliance with the idea of having elderly housing remain available for rental I think is a statement that responds to the changing demographics of America, the problems of low- income seniors facing multiyear housing assistance. Waiting lists are exacerbated by the shrinking supply of suitable, affordable housing as some owners convert existing units to market-rate housing. Ask the many cities across America and the rural areas how many thousands of individuals are on the Section 8 housing, if you will, and they will respond thousands. And many of them are senior citizens. Nearly 21 percent of elderly 65 and older reported not being able to afford moderately priced housing in the area in which they live. Of those individuals, 79 percent of those renting housing reported not being able to afford rent prices in their own areas. What can we do about it? We can simply acknowledge the fact that tenant-based housing should be available for the elderly. Thirty-four percent of older African American households and 41 percent of older Hispanic households rent their household, compared with only 19 percent of older white households. There is a population for rental assistance for the elderly, and particularly in view of the evacuation, the largest evacuation we can ever have imagined following Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma. This is an important amendment that I hope my colleagues would support. But more importantly, I hope my dear friend would yield to waiving the point of order so this amendment might be able to be passed by this body. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 5576 that emphasizes that all tenant-based assistance made available under this heading shall continue to remain available to all eligible elderly applicants. In the year 2000, the elderly made up 12.4 percent of the population. The total number of elderly increased 12 percent from 1990 (U.S. Census 2000). More than 7.4 million elderly households pay more than they can afford for their housing. The number of elderly rental households with worst-case housing needs rose to 1.2 million between 1999 and 2001, an increase of 14 percent. The problems of low income seniors facing multi-year housing assistance waiting lists is only exacerbated by the shrinking supply of suitable, affordable housing as some owners convert existing units to market-rate housing. Nearly 21 percent of elderly 65 and over reported not being able to afford moderately priced housing in the areas in which they live. Of those individuals, 79 percent of those renting housing reported not being able to afford rent prices in their areas. (U.S. Census 1995, Housing Affordability) Thirty-four percent of older African American households and 41 percent of older Hispanic households were renter households, compared with only 19 percent of older white households. (1995 American Housing Survey) Approximately 19 percent of elderly African American and 11 percent of older Hispanic households reported moderate or severe problems regarding the physical condition of their housing units. New tools are needed to help preserve these units and to provide the supportive services that are so necessary for an aging population. Housing for the Elderly and Housing for Persons with Disabilities are funded at the FY 2006 levels of $735 million and $237 million respectively. The President's budget cut Elderly Housing by $190 million (26 percent) and Housing for Persons with Disabilities by $118 million (50 percent). This amendment emphasizes the intent of the funding under this heading to assist the elderly, only and specifically the elderly, with rental housing. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Not having any other speakers, and you have no other speakers, let me again simply say that 55 percent of the individuals impacted by the American Dream program through the HOME monies are in fact minorities. Having suffered through the travesty of Katrina, having suffered through Wilma and Rita, we know many are in the process of rebuilding and buying homes. Why not give them the extra added opportunity of a mere 3 months to be able to do what is right for them so that the American Dream is not extinguished because we are selfish on the floor of the House. I am delighted to ask my colleagues in a bipartisan manner to support the Jackson-Lee amendment to invest in the American Dream for all Americans, and that is to have an opportunity to buy and live in your own home. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Do I have the opportunity to close, Mr. Chairman?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to the distinguished chairman that I would like to err on the side of hardworking, taxpaying Americans who have invested their taxes and look forward to a return back home to them. There are all kinds of complications, and I would suggest that the extra added time frame for this program to be extended would in fact be a plus for hardworking Americans seeking an opportunity for the American Dream. I frankly think the procedural, if you will, barrier can be remedied by this extension and my amendment. I would ask all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to invest in the American Dream by voting to extend this particular provision and this particular investment in allowing them to buy the one singular investment that all Americans should have an opportunity to have: young couples, retiring couples, working couples of all races, colors and creeds, and particularly the very positive impact it has on minority Americans. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Am I able to speak after the ruling of Chair on the point of order?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I have asked respectfully for the opposing side, for the Republicans, to acknowledge the plight of the elderly, and the percentage of them who are suffering without having the ability to have housing.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I have no further speakers, and I close simply, Mr. Speaker, by thanking the distinguished gentleman from Illinois who has represented the broadness of our view. We must protect our children, and I believe that this bill is on its way to its perfection so that our children will not be subjected to infractions in this legislation, but truly be protected. And I hope that any other legislative initiative that comes forward to protect our children will receive this bipartisan cooperation that we have achieved in the House Judiciary Committee. I ask my colleagues to vote for the legislation of Mr. Porter. I yield back my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure of yielding 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I have requests for time, and I would like to proceed. Mr. Speaker, let me, as well, thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and thank Ranking Member Conyers, as well as Mr. Coble and Ranking Member Scott for bringing forward a constructive answer to all of our concerns. Mr. Speaker, I don't take a back seat to anyone in terms of advocacy for children, and fighting against child predators that have harassed and, if you will, violently attacked our children across America. We should stand up for them. I hope that this House will eventually take up the DNA legislation that I have that has a separate, distinctive DNA bank for those who are child predators. We are grateful that in the subcommittee with Mr. Scott and Mr. Coble this bill has addressed many of the issues that look at this in a broader sense. So it is important when we talk about bills that we want to be as near perfect as we can get. And I believe that we have the political will and the good conscience of this House and the Senate that we will get there. The idea is to protect our children, and the idea as well is to recognize that the parameters of our Constitution will allow us to do that while addressing those concerns. So I am hoping that we will have a perfect bill because our children deserve so and, as well, that we will have a bipartisan effort to work on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say as I indicated, I applauded Mr. Porter for his vision on protecting our children and also for responding to many of the educational institutions around America who have asked for some sort of format, some sort of structure to help them be able to, if you will, navigate themselves around this massive criminal justice system that in fact has an impact on how children are cared for in our schools and day care centers and places of sports activities. But I do think as I support this legislation that Americans also understand that we want people to have an opportunity for rehabilitation, to engage in a productive life and to be able to provide for their families. Putting aside the sexual predators and those who are plagued by violent crimes and violent crimes against children, I would offer to say that we want to make sure as well that those who are perpetrators of nonviolent crimes or individuals charged with petty theft, but people who have been out of the system for decades have the opportunity for employment and rehabilitation. I hope as we make our way toward conference again that these considerations will be taken into account and we will review this so we can work with Mr. Porter and work with conferees and work with the Senate to make sure that we get constructive legislation to help us all. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, allow me first of all to say that in our work on the Committee on the Judiciary, and particularly the Subcommittee on Crime, there is no doubt that one of the most prevalent issues that we address is a way to protect our children, whether it is against sexual predators, whether it is against the heinous acts of individuals who not only sexually abuse our children but then ultimately kill them, and certainly we are aware of the far-reaching impact that the lack of structure and process has on our educational system, particularly individuals who are working in our schools, primary and secondary, and work with our children as it relates to sports activities. So I am certainly in support of H.R. 4894, and clearly I would argue that we have a better product. I do not want to be anywhere suggesting that we are not fighting for our children. I do want to offer the fact that, as I indicated, that we have a better product, that we can agree that the criminal background checks done on individuals working with children is something we all want, and certainly we want to be able to include those who pose a threat. But we do want to have a criminal background check system, of course, that has the elements of some order and constitutional protection. Might I just say to my colleagues that a version of the language that is in this bill already passed twice in H.R. 3132 and H.R. 4472, which really means in a bipartisan way we agree with this. So I thank the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) for reinforcing our agreement. I do hope as we talk about our particular issues that we would recognize that it is important to be able to put in the processes that would question whether all raw data is the kind of data that we should include for access by these institutional entities. I do believe as we move toward the Senate and have a conference on this bill, we will find common ground so that what we put forward will protect our children absolutely and as well be a system that will be readily accessible to our educational institutions and at the same time give them the information that they need to ensure that those who are apt to injure, harm our children, are weeded out of our educational system. We like the streamlined process. We like the fact that the Attorney General is, if you will, able to handle the fingerprints and data. But I know as we make our way toward conference we will have even a further opportunity to make this bill the kind of bill that provides the support and safety in the employment place of our educational institutions for all of our children. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.