Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think this is one of America's Achilles' heels, because it concerns the most catastrophic, tragic, natural disaster that we have faced in America. Although no one denies the horrific nature of 9/11, certainly we will be reminded through the centuries of Hurricane Katrina. So I bring this amendment simply to bring attention to the vast numbers of Katrina survivors and evacuees who will soon be left ineligible for any resources at all. My amendment specifically indicates that no funds can be used to terminate financial assistance for housing authorized by section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Let me share with you the words of one of our pastors in Houston, one of the cities that has felt the major impact of evacuees. We do consider them our neighbors, our brothers and sisters, and we are in no way burdened by their presence. But we think it is important for America to understand, as Pastor D.Z. Cofield said, ``This is not a sprint, my friends, it is a marathon,'' and it really is a test case for the United States for its security, for its response to natural disaster. We realize that we failed in the initial recovery. We failed in being prepared. We failed in having pre-deployment of resources and personnel. We only have to look at the stories of the Superdome; we only have to look at the stories of bodies floating in water to realize we failed. But now in the city of Houston and around America, there are some 12,000 who are still in need. The extent of the evacuees' needs is shown in a March survey of housing voucher recipients conducted for the city by Zogby International. It showed that more than half of the evacuees surveyed earned less than $15,000 a year. Most are women with school-aged children, and 58 percent want to remain in Houston. Only 15 percent have found jobs. Almost half have no health insurance. Separately, each of these things might be an obstacle when receiving settlers from another community, but en masse they pose stunning challenges for the host city, the Zagby report said. This falls, I am sure, in cities throughout America. And this simple amendment simply exposes the problem and asks FEMA to begin to work to solve the problem. Now let me first of all acknowledge that they are working on this problem. I do want to acknowledge the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security and the director of FEMA, the acting director, for their sensitivity to this issue. But I thought it was important for my colleagues to understand that there is a need, that FEMA does need the resources to extend this relief for those individuals who are still in a host city. And it is important for this legislation that oversees FEMA to understand that no funds should be utilized to hinder FEMA from protecting these evacuees. We are in the process, I hope, of a successful pathway to assisting them. We are in the process of establishing a task force that can look and each and every one of these who have been eligible before but may be ineligible now. I do not see how, in one of the most catastrophic disasters that we have ever had, that we should cut off the very lifeline of these remaining evacuees in the host city. Many of them may be senior citizens. Many of them may be single parents with children who are homebound. Many of them may be disabled or, at this point in time, unable in this market to find a job. This is the substance by which they survive for housing and for other support services that they might need. The only way that the social service system can address this is for them to have a place to live Otherwise, they fall upon the social service system in the host city to the extent that they become homeless. I know that our county and city officials have been doing everything that they can. I hope that this will urge FEMA to move more quickly and that we can work together to ensure that these evacuees are not left without any hope and any basis, if you will, of surviving. So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I certainly hope that the point of order would be withdrawn. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is intended to ensure that FEMA does not terminate the financial housing assistance received by Hurricane Katrina evacuees in Harris County prior to December 31, 2006. FEMA previously announced its intention to terminate such direct financial assistance effective June 30, 2006. In particular, this amendment limits the ability of the Department of Homeland Security to terminate financial assistance for housing authorized by section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174) to any Hurricane Katrina evacuee located in Harris County, Texas, who previously has been determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to be eligible to receive such assistance. Houston arranged for housing for approximately 34,000 households immediately following Hurricane Katrina. The overwhelming majority of these households were African American, retired or working poor, and from areas of New Orleans that were flooded and damaged. FEMA has decided that one-fourth of Houston's voucher households, representing 20,000 people, are ineligible for further assistance. FEMA should not punish the evacuees for its own administrative flubs: FEMA issues multiple validated FEMA identification numbers; FEMA encouraged households to split up in an effort to encourage use of available apartment units. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to listen because this is the Neighborhood Watch of homeland security, and every single Member has the Citizen Corps as established by the homeland security legislation a few years ago. The authorizing committee supports the Citizen Corps that is basically premised on securing the homeland in the neighborhoods. I simply want to come as close to the President's request as possible. The request the President made was $35 million. We have in this bill 0 amount for the Citizen Corps. We simply take a very, very small amount, Mr. Chairman, $3 million, to provide some comfort and relief to all of the community-based organizations that engage as part of the Citizen Corps for safety in the neighborhoods. It was a wonderful concept, and the concept was devised so everyone could be a stakeholder in the Nation's security. One of the few things that did work in the course of the 2005 hurricanes was the Citizen Corps. Members of the Citizen Corps helped train the tens of thousands of volunteers who showed up and asked for something to do. They are still working. I can recall as thousands upon thousands of evacuees began to enter into the city of Houston and the county of Harris, Mayor Bill White and Judge Robert Eckels, county government and city government relied upon the Citizens Corps established so all could be stakeholders. I am very proud that the National Volunteer Fire Council is supporting this legislation and asking colleagues to support it. We realize we have some very difficult times and some very difficult decisions to make, but I can assure you that the Citizen Corps implements five programs around the United States: community emergency response team; the medical reserve corps; the Neighborhood Watch program; the Volunteers in the Police Service and the Fire Corps. I can remember after 9/11 when we began to tell Americans watch for suspicious packages, watch for suspicious persons, be part of the security of the Nation. That is the concept of the Citizen Corps. This does not undermine the underpinnings of this bill. In fact, it enhances it. It reaffirms volunteerism and makes Americans a partner in their own homeland security. I know we cannot provide the $35 million that the President has asked for. I wish we could. This just gives an extra $3 million. That may fund one or two more National Volunteer Fire Councils, one or two more Citizen Corps. I can assure you when your communities hear about Citizen Corps, they will want to have it. Just a few weeks ago in our community, the Citizen Corps planned a city-wide preparedness effort. People from all walks of life, all neighborhoods, all economic levels worked together to provide security for their communities. We can do that all over the Nation. Members, if they just ask the question to their county government or city government, they will find out that Citizen Corps is alive and well. This money is their lifeline. This money keeps them going. This money provides them educational outreach. It provides the money for the Neighborhood Watch program, the Volunteers to the Police Service and the Fire Corps. I ask my colleagues to support this. I appreciate the work of the ranking member and the chairman. I would ask my colleagues to not forget the National Volunteer Fire Council and all of those volunteers that come under the Citizen Corps. Let us help them get to the next step and provide security for the United States. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. This amendment seeks to increase funding for the Homeland Security Citizens Corps by $3 million from $0 million to $3 million. The program has been widely regarded as effective and President Bush requested that it be funded in the amount of $35 million. For more information on the program, visit www.citizenscorps.gov. One of the few things that did work in the course of the 2005 hurricanes was the Citizen Corps. Members of the Citizen Corps helped organize and train the tens of thousands of volunteers who showed up and asked for something to do. The Harris County, Texas Citizen Corps Council implements five programs: the Community Emergency Response Team, the Medical Reserve Corps, the Neighborhood Watch Program, the Volunteers in Police Service, and the Fire Corps. The volunteers who participate in these programs help support our emergency responders year round and they provide a trained surge capacity in times of crisis. The Harris County Citizen Corps Council also conducts outreach to educate the general public about the hazards we face and the county's emergency operations plan, including evacuations and considerations for people with disabilities, language and cultural barriers, and economic challenges. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to increase the funding, as President Bush has requested, for the Citizen Corps in order to train our citizens to become better prepared for whatever the future holds.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am very cognizant of the very difficult choices of this subcommittee. We had difficult choices in the authorizing committee. But I would say to the distinguished gentleman, with all due respect, the President did not think that this allocation of $35 million which we were not able to give was redundant. Also the Homeland Security Department likewise continues to promote the Citizen Corps, particularly through the National Fire Council. The whole fabric and framework of America changed after Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. We saw the value of the Citizens Corps in the midst of the hurricane. I cannot tell you the vastness of the support that came to a city and a county like Houston and Harris County when thousands upon thousands of evacuees, and I might imagine that happened to New York and Dallas and Los Angeles, it was the Citizen Corps that did the heavy lifting. I would ask my colleagues with respect to the challenges of this particular appropriations to consider this amendment and consider those volunteers on the ground. Do not let the National Council of Fire Volunteers down. This is their source of funding. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank you. I thank you for acknowledging that, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the ranking member for acknowledging this important issue, and I look forward to working with you in this body. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to thank the ranking member, Ms. DeLauro, and the chairman, Mr. Bonilla. Frankly, under ordinary circumstances, in regular order, Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate to argue this amendment and to seek to overrule or to defend, if you will, the point of order. But I am offering this amendment to, in essence, give light to an unending problem to an aspect of the agricultural industry here in the United States. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that has been worked on by many Members of Congress. However, unlike as in the words ``silence is golden,'' the absence of silence of debate on this question is not golden and has really hurt African-American farmers, black farmers. They have been working a number of years to secure the enforcement of a settlement that was rendered some years ago, in 1999, under the Glickman administration, when Mr. Glickman was the Secretary of Agriculture when President Clinton was in office. This is a civil rights case stemming from years and years of being denied farm loans, with documented information regarding the many regions where black farmers were. Black farmers were, in essence, sort of the legacy of slavery to the extent that many of them gained their land through that period. Many of them farmed the land and were great contributors to American society in general, but certainly to the farm industry of America. When they began to ask for farm loans, as other farmers did, interestingly enough, the Department of Agriculture systematically and on racial grounds denied them loans, therefore causing a lot of foreclosures and the unnecessary losing by African Americans of their farmlands. I am grateful to past administrations, and even to those in this administration, who understand the plight of these farmers. Without the loans, many farmers faced foreclosures, as I said, and lost their farms. In 1920, African Americans owned one in seven farms. Today, it is one in 100, and I might argue it is even less than that. A large number of African Americans did not then and many do not today even know that the lawsuit exists. So the issue before us is the question of extending the statute of limitations so that no farmer is denied. And the language of my amendment says that no funds shall be utilized to deny any eligible farmers for this particular consent decree that comes under the Pigford v. Glickman consent order. I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, that this was a class action and that it was agreed to by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That is an important point. We have been trying to work on legislation that would waive or extend the statute of limitations, but it is important in the context of the agriculture appropriations bill to let it be known that there are farmers who weren't given the monies to survive and, therefore, are in need of the serious look of the Appropriations Committee to continue to press the Department of Agriculture to make good on the consent order that they agreed to. The discrimination in the USDA was so common during the period of 1980 to 1986 that the Glickman case determined that anyone bringing a claim with a valid showing should receive compensation. In fact, any nonwhite American farmer should receive compensation because the discrimination was so pervasive. So, in essence, this opportunity is to make a plea to the United States Congress not to forget these farmers and to take the language of the Glickman Department of Agriculture, which is in essence this Department of Agriculture, who found such blatant discrimination, such broad-based discrimination that the definition was anyone, anyone who could make their case was eligible, and my language speaks to any eligible person. We have a barrier of the statute of limitations and we have a barrier of no one listening. We have a barrier of no one shining light on this plight and a barrier, if you will, of not recognizing that America's small farmers, which African Americans are, are the backbone of our farming industry and really are the backbone of the importance of the farming community here in the United States. We are trying to help family farmers. We are insisting on family farmers surviving. We want to encourage them by the growth of the ethanol production and, therefore, we should try to encourage these African American farmers who were just randomly denied loans, without any criteria for the denial, just on the basis of race, to be able to make good on this important legislation and this consent decree. In essence, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is to say to my colleagues that ``none of the funds appropriated in this act may be used to deny compensation to eligible individuals filing claims to be satisfied out of the settlement fund approved by the court April 14, 1999.'' I look forward to yielding to the distinguished gentleman on the point of order.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. The gentleman is very kind. Before I start, may I ask for additional time from the distinguished gentlelady from Florida, 1\1/2\ minutes. I thank the distinguished gentlelady very much. Madam Speaker, let me thank Mr. Lantos for his extreme kindness to yield to, in essence, a non-member of this great committee this time. Let me acknowledge my good friend from Florida for her leadership, and also I might add my appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon for bringing his vast perspective to this debate. I believe this is what democracy is all about. Certainly I could not stand here tonight and not add my appreciation for Chairman Hyde who I believe has worked over the years to seek a level and a plateau and a place of, if you will, harmony and bipartisanship. Tonight is a very difficult time for many of us. And, in fact, I think we have had an enormously thoughtful debate. We find ourselves this evening, as I offer my sympathy to the family of Congressman Cantor for his loss, we find ourselves on the piercing horns of dilemma, and they are piercing outside. That is that we find ourselves fighting for peace between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, and we find ourselves fighting for the existence and recognition of the State of Israel and the acceptance by the world of a two-state position that has been authored and supported by so many, including the now ailing former Prime Minister Sharon. I was in Israel just a few months ago visiting Prime Minister Sharon at the Hadassah Hospital, listening to a variety of individuals pontificate about the pending election and having some small iota of hope that Hamas, if elected, would assume the realm of leadership and stand up and acknowledge we want two states, we reject terrorism, and we reject any idea that Israel should not exist. Unfortunately, this did not happen. This reminds me of the time that Dr. King led as he moved into the time when more groups began to circle and intervene in ``the movement'' as we called it; and he welcomed the youngsters and those who had provocative and different thoughts. He knew that the ultimate end was what they all cherished, and that is the elimination of the shackles of segregation and racism and the divide of this country that was then black and white. But Dr. King had to make a very important decision, whether or not this movement required his standing firm on denouncing violence. So he had to reject some of the groups who came to the circle of the movement. He had to stand for nonviolence. He had to stand for the movement being one that we could seek the plateau of freedom without violence. And so I stand here today because I want to at least express the fact that those of us who argue for the opportunities around the world, for the peace around the world, for the elimination of the shackles of the Sudanese people and who claim that we want that kind of fierce and absolute pressure on government, have to be able to understand this legislation. I want divestiture and sanctions in Sudan. And so, clearly, I have to understand that there are times when we must intervene in order to make the point so that freedom might live. I hope President Abbas will meet with the prime minister, the new prime minister of Israel. I hope that they will find a common ground and a way to promote peace. But at the same time, I think it is important that we make a firm stand to find in our hearts and our minds the ability to stand up to Hamas and ask them to reject violence but also to say these three words: Israel can exist. That is what we are asking for tonight. I guess I speak as one who has a great kinship and friendship with many Muslims around this Nation and this world. Particularly, I speak tonight to those Palestinian Americans who are frustrated and confused by legislation such as this. I beg of them to link arms with all of us and demand of the Hamas that they rid themselves of this violence so their children can learn, so the sick and the feeble can be taken care of. But I do thank the authors of this legislation for putting these exceptions in, and they can be read clearly that health and humanitarian needs can be taken care of and educational needs can be taken care of with the consultation of this Congress. This is a very difficult time. There are hard choices to make and I would argue that the Arab League has been, if you will, absent from the team. The Arab League has been absent from this process. So as I close, let me say that there is fault everywhere. We can blame anyone and everyone. But it is clear what has to be done. That is the denouncing of violence. I want to say to our friends here in America, Palestinian friends and others, you can be part of this solution. We are not here to undermine the children of Palestine or the women or the families or those who are sick, but we are here to heal the land and to cause an opportunity for peace so that two states can live along with each other. I cannot be a hypocrite tonight, and as I cry out for Sudan, I must cry out for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. I hope this legislation will begin the debate, and I hope the Arab League and others will join us in this fight for freedom. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support, and express my views, on H.R. 4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act. For the last few months, we have watched the Middle East transform once again, and every day, we have witnessed history in the making. Israel experienced the end of an era when the Honorable Ariel Sharon was disabled by a powerful stroke. Israel also resurrected its government into an entity focused on stability and the necessity of safety. The Palestinian Authority successfully elected a new government in the spirit of democracy. I had the opportunity this past January to visit Israel, to once again tread the soil of the Holy Land, and meet with state officials to discuss the ramifications of Mr. Sharon's illness, and prospects of peace in the Middle East. At the time, apprehension toward the upcoming Palestinian elections was tangible, and the Israeli elections were not too far in the future. All of Israel and the Middle East knew that this was a turning point. Now, however, we have a conundrum. Where we want to encourage and celebrate a democratic election, we are dismayed that the party elected has a history that disappoints hopes of peace and a mutually beneficial resolution in the near future. Until we can achieve a two-state solution with lasting peace, we must address the fact that the government now in power has not met the baseline requirements for returning to the discussion table. Over the last few months, we have seen the Palestinian people elect a government that promised more organization and resilient public administration, as well as less corruption and abuse of its citizens. However, the charter of Hamas remains committed to the destruction of the nation of Israel, and the supremacy of the Islamic faith around the world. The Palestinian Authority is struggling to deliver the stability it promised on the campaign trail. H.R. 4681 states that it shall be U.S. policy to promote the emergence of a democratic Palestinian governing authority that denounces and combats terrorism, upholds human rights for all people, and has agreed to recognize Israel as an independent Jewish state. The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 would freeze aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and nongovernmental agencies (NGOs) unless for educational needs and overridden by the President, operating in the West Bank and Gaza so long as Hamas, or any other terrorist group, is a part of the Palestinian government. The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act puts in place a stringent benchmark that must be met by the PA before America resumes aid. The aid will not be resumed until the President certifies that the PA is not controlled by and does not include terrorist groups and that the PA has demonstrated substantial progress towards a number of specified goals. I know we can have peace if people of good will--no matter what their faith help denounce violence and begin to work for two peaceful states. I hope that this bill will not be misinterpreted as stifling the Palestinian Authority or harming the Palestinian people. This bill has been carefully written to make a compelling statement against any government that would challenge the sovereignty of another nation, and yet preserve the international aid and support to a people in need of stability. We welcome Prime Minister Ehud Olmert this week to address a Joint Meeting of Congress. I hope that, while he is here, we may discuss actions that will serve to dissuade stakeholders from violence, and actions that will be a catalyst toward peace and stability in the Middle East. One event occurred this week that fills me with hope: Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Peres and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt, achieving the highest-level public talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in months. While the discussion focused on ideas for alleviating Palestinian humanitarian problems, both sides said it could lead to a first Olmert- Abbas summit. I am pleased that conversations between the governments continue, and I hope that we do, indeed, see such a summit in the coming months.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman, and reclaiming my time, I would just say that this is a frustration for many of us. There is no doubt that there are some of us here that did not support the actions initially as our troops were, if you will, directed to go into Iraq, but at the same time, we recognize the responsibility that this Congress and this Nation has. What frustrates many of us is that my good friends on the other side of the aisle are attempting to make a point. That is all I have heard in their debate, to make a point about the budget and about the appropriations, rather than acknowledging the fact that this is a request by their President of the United States; that it, in fact, strips soldiers who are either on the front lines or distributed around the Nation from the actual needs, job training, barriers, concrete fixtures that they need, physical facilities that they need to carry on the Nation's business of defense. Why we would utilize this particular section to make a point and strip our soldiers of the necessities of their business one week before Memorial Day baffles me, as does the question of if there is a need to fix this, why could this not have been an internal fix, either with the House and the subcommittee or the President of the United States of America. Because what my friends are doing is, frankly, making scapegoats out of innocent military personnel who are in need of this kind of equipment. Any of us who have traveled to facilities anywhere in the Nation or around the world know that we have, in some instances, facilities that are in dire need of repair or in dire need of replacement. Striking this point of order, this challenge, goes right to the heart of this equipment. And I think it is important for the American people to understand. This is stripping away bricks and mortar that soldiers, husbands, wives, sons and daughters of the American people are in need of. And I would simply suggest that while we certainly agree on the war on terror, whether we agree or disagree on any war going on at this point, we cannot disagree on the resources necessary for these soldiers. So I would ask my colleagues to remind themselves of why we are here today.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy as well to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman Walsh and Ranking Member Edwards for their hard work on this hard task on behalf of the Nation's soldiers. My task today is one of the saddest aspects of being part of the United States military, and that is when our soldiers fall, when they lose their lives in the service of this country on the battlefields around the world. I remind my colleagues of a very stoic but very brave situation that occurred when President Reagan left the White House in Washington, D.C. and went to Dover Air Force Base to welcome home the fallen soldiers who had died in Lebanon. All the Nation was able to mourn and all the Nation poured their heart out on behalf of those families and those fallen soldiers. I was then quite shocked to realize that there is now an advisory that directs this government not to honor our soldiers when they come, having fallen in battle, back to the soil of the United States of America. Might I share with you the language. ``There will be no arrival ceremonies for or media coverage of deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Ramstein AB or Dover Air Force Base, to include interim stops.'' What a shocking statement to make to the Nation, that when our soldiers fall in battle or when they lose their lives as members of the United States military, there is a blanket order, an executive order, an order of this administration, not to pay honor and tribute to them. Mr. Chairman, I am not speaking of disrespecting family members who desire no such formal ceremonies. What I am suggesting is it should be an option and that there should be no blanket barrier that would, in fact, stop the honoring of these soldiers. I remind you of the words of Abe Lincoln, who said ``Family has made the costly sacrifice on the alter of freedom.'' We owe them the respect of this honor, and a grateful Nation should be permitted to show its gratitude. But with this blanket order that suggests that there can be no public ceremony, I believe we denigrate, we deny the opportunity for honor. My colleagues will say that there are individual ceremonies and funerals and memorials. And they may be right. But I ask you as Americans and colleagues, how many times have we been able to mourn as a nation the soldiers who are in the war on terror, fighting in places around the world? In these recent years, we have seen none. We have not honored any publicly. Yes, one week from now will be Memorial Day, but yet we are denied the right to be able to show our gratitude. My amendment is to comfort the widow and the orphans. My amendment is on behalf of Americans. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that in reading this language, I struggled with the reason and the premise. I know that my good friend, Chairman Walsh, is going to suggest that there is a point of order and it is not germane. What I would say to him is that because of its importance, I ask you to waive the point of order, because our families and our Nation is crying out to be able to honor these fallen soldiers. Why can't we join together as patriots, respecting and recognizing the young lives that have been sacrificed, by the Reservists, the National Guard and all the service branches on behalf of this Nation? Why would you have this kind of prohibition with no basis, no premise, particularly when we saw flag-draped coffins being utilized after the tragedy of 9/11? Why would you not allow us as Americans to embrace the widows and orphans and be able to say to them, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the point of order be waived and I ask that my colleagues support this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I would have hoped to be able to rise today to support a bill that strengthened our existing law in caring for and protecting our environment. Unfortunately, this is not so. When the Forests Emergency Recovery and Research Act was introduced, I did not consider it perfect, but I felt that the intent was good. I had faith that as the bill moved through committees, any weaknesses or inconsistencies would be amended, and that ultimately we would have on the floor a bill that I would want to support. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case. The bill purports to provide for emergency recovery projects to help lands heal from natural disasters such as floods and fires, when in fact it imposes unnecessary exemptions from provisions in the Clean Water Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act. New research and peer-reviewed science is emerging that verifies that post-disturbance or post-fire logging destroys wildlife habitat, pollutes watersheds, and delays a forest's ability to regenerate itself. In fact, what some term ``salvage logging'' may even increase the risk of fire. These studies have indicated that ecosystems have an amazing ability to recover quickly from fires; in fact, fires are needed for regeneration and re-growth. Forests are, in fact, much like the legendary Phoenix, experiencing a majestic rebirth from ashes periodically. Dead or damaged trees help to insulate ground-level growth and absorb moisture, preventing fire. These ``snags'' also serve as protective homes for multitudes of wildlife before they decompose and return sustenance to the soil. At stake here, however, is writing into law land management practices that are quickly proving themselves not only out of date, but detrimental to the environment. We must remember that fire clean-up and logging profit is not the only goal--our main goal should be to preserve these forests for posterity. Therefore I can not support this bill in its current form, and I encourage my colleagues to vote against an act that attempts to undermine existing environmental protections and damage delicate ecological balance.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

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

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman. You are very kind. Mr. Chairman, I live in an area that is urban, but yet rural, and I ask in this amendment that no funds be used to eliminate or restrict programs that are for reforestation of urban areas. If I might, Mr. Chairman, just indicate to you, the surveys indicate that some urban forests are in serious danger. In the past 30 years alone, we have lost 30 percent of all of our urban trees, a loss of over 600 million trees. Eighty percent of the American population live in dense quarters of a city. This amendment simply emphasizes the importance of urban reforestation, and allows me to salute the City of Houston Parks Department, the Pleasantville community that invested in the reforestation of their neighborhood, and it also provides the umbrella of trees that cleans the air, clears the air of toxic entities, and provides the quality of life that all of us would like. So I appreciate the opportunity to present this amendment to reemphasize the importance in the Interior Department to as well affirm the value of reforestation. I ask my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that emphasizes the importance of urban forests, and preserves our ability to return urban areas to healthy and safe living environments for our children. Surveys indicate that some urban forests are in serious danger. In the past 3 years alone, we have lost 30 percent of all our urban trees--a loss of over 600 million trees. Eight percent of the American population lives in the dense quarters of a city. Reforestation programs return a tool of nature to a concrete area that can help to remove air pollution, filter out chemicals and agricultural waste in water, and save communities millions of dollars in storm water management costs. I have certainly seen neighborhoods in Houston benefit from urban reforestation. In addition, havens of green in the middle of a city can have beneficial effects on a community's health, both physical and psychological, as well as increase property value of surrounding real estate. Reforestation of cities is an innovative way of combating urban sprawl and/or deterioration. Commitment to enhancing our environment involves both the protection of existing natural resources and active support for restoration and improvement projects. In 1999, American Forests, a conservation group, estimated that the tree cover lost in the greater Washington metropolitan area from 1973 to 1997 resulted in an additional 540 million cubic feet of storm water runoff annually, which would have taken more than $1 billion in storm water control facilities to manage. Trees breathe in carbon dioxide, and produce oxygen. People breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. A typical person consumes about 38 lbs of oxygen per year. A healthy tree, say a 32 ft tall ash tree, can produce about 260 lb of oxygen annually. Two trees supply the oxygen needs of a person for a year! Trees help reduce pollution by capturing particulates like dust and pollen with their leaves. A mature tree absorbs from 120 to 240 lbs of the small particles and gases of air pollution. They help combat the effects of ``greenhouse'' gases, the increased carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels that is causing our atmosphere to ``heat up''. Trees help cool down the overall city environment by shading asphalt, concrete and metal surfaces. Buildings and paving in city centers create a heat-island effect. A mature tree canopy reduces air temperatures by about 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit. A 25-foot tree reduces annual heating and cooling cost of a typical residence by 8 to 12 percent, producing an average $10 savings per American household. Proper tree plantings around buildings can slow winter winds and reduce annual energy use for home heating by 4-22 percent. Trees play a vital role in making our cities more sustainable and liveable, and this amendment simply provides for continued support to programs that reforest our urban areas. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these efforts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would be delighted to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina. I would like to be able to explain the amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for their kindness and understanding of the importance of this amendment and allowing me to present this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman very much. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, the ranking member of the full committee, and the chairman of the full committee. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, this reemphasizes the importance of the Smithsonian, but what it says is that no funds shall be used to eliminate the outreach programs of the Smithsonian. The reason why I offer this is simply a quote from James Baldwin that says ``the great force of history comes from the fact that we carry it within us, and that history is literally present in all that we do.'' The outreach programs for the Smithsonian will help cities beyond the Beltway to establish culturally grounded museums that present the history of America. The City of Houston is attempting to do an African American History Museum, and it will be the importance of the Smithsonian outreach program that provides the thousands of communities that serve millions of Americans and hundreds of institutions in all 50 States through loan objects, traveling exhibitions and sharing of educational resources via publications, lectures and presentations, training programs and Web sites. I know that we are going to be able to establish that museum in the City of Houston. It will be through reaffirming the value of the outreach programs of the Smithsonian, and we ask that no funds be utilized to stop that outreach program. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my amendment that encourages support of the Smithsonian Institution's outreach programs. It is of the utmost importance that none of the funds made available in this Act be used to limit outreach programs administered by the Smithsonian Institution. The Smithsonian's outreach programs bring Smithsonian scholars in art, history and science out of ``the nation's attic'' and into their own backyard. Each year, millions of Americans visit the Smithsonian in Washington, D.C. But in order to fulfill the Smithsonian's mission, ``the increase and diffusion of knowledge'', the Smithsonian seeks to serve an even greater audience by bringing the Smithsonian to enclaves of communities who otherwise would be deprived of the vast amount of cultural history offered by the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian's outreach programs serve millions of Americans, thousands of communities, and hundreds of institutions in all 50 states, through loans of objects, traveling exhibitions, and sharing of educational resources via publications, lectures and presentations, training programs, and websites. Smithsonian outreach programs work in close cooperation with Smithsonian museums and research centers, as well as with 144 affiliate institutions and others across the nation. The Smithsonian's outreach activities support community-based cultural and educational organizations around the country; ensure a vital, recurring, and high-impact Smithsonian presence in all 50 states through the provision of traveling exhibitions and a network of affiliations; increase connections between the Institution and targeted audiences (African American, Asian American, Latino, Native American, and new American); provide kindergarten through college-age museum education and outreach opportunities; enhance K-12 science education programs; facilitate the Smithsonian's scholarly interactions with students and scholars at universities, museums, and other research institutions; and publish and disseminate results related to the research and collections strengths of the Institution. One example of a large and successful outreach program is the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service (SITES). SITES will be the public exhibitions' face of the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture, as the planning for that new Museum gets under way. Providing national access to projects that will introduce the American public to the Museum's mission, SITES in FY 2007 will tour such stirring exhibitions as ``381 Days: The Montgomery Bus Boycott Story''. The mission of Smithsonian Affiliations is to build a strong national network of museums and educational organizations in order to establish active and engaging relationships with communities throughout the country. There are currently 138 affiliates located in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Panama. By working with museums of diverse subject areas and scholarly disciplines, both emerging and well- established, Smithsonian Affiliations is building partnerships through which audiences and visitors everywhere will be able to share in the great wealth of the Smithsonian while building capacity and expertise in local communities. The Smithsonian also offers access to its resources to underserved audiences in urban locales and to individuals with disabilities. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and support the Smithsonian's high quality education and its ability to share our wealth of knowledge to every American. Recently I was asked if museums that explore the African American experience are still valuable as they once were in this diverse and more integrated America. While I responded quickly, I realized later that the question deserved more thought. The notion that African American history has limited meaning should be a concern for all Americans. We would be better served if we remember the words that James Baldwin wrote in his powerful novel, The Fire Next Time: ``. . . history does not refer merely or even principally to the past. On the contrary, the great force of history comes from the fact that we carry it within us, are unconsciously controlled by it in many ways, and that history is literally present in all that we do.'' Let me cite four reasons why the interpretation and preservation of African American history and culture are so important and relevant for an America still struggling with the legacy and impact of race. (1) The Danger of Forgetting: You can tell a great deal about a country or a people by what they deem important enough to remember, what they build monuments to celebrate; and what graces the walls of their museums. Throughout Scandinavia there are monuments and museums that cherish the Vikings as a proud symbol of Nordic curiosity, exploration, and freedom. In Scotland, much is made of the heroic struggles of William Wallace (whom we know as Mel Gibson) to throw off the yoke of British domination. Until recently, South Africa was dominated by monuments and memories of the Vortrekker, while the United States traditionally revels in Civil War battles or founding fathers, with an occasional president thrown into the mix. Yet I would argue that we learn even more about a country by what it chooses to forget. This desire to omit--to forget disappointments, moments of evil, and great missteps--is both natural and instructive. It is often the essence of African American culture that is forgotten or downplayed. And yet, it is also the African American experience that is a clarion call to remember. A good example of this nexus of race and memory is one of the last great unmentionables of public discourse about American history--the story of slavery. For nearly 250 years, slavery not only existed but it was one of the most dominate forces in American life. Political clout and economic fortune depended upon the labor of slaves. Almost every aspect of American life--from business to religion, from culture to commerce, from foreign policy to western expansion was informed and shaped by the experience of slavery. American slavery was so dominant globally that 90 percent of the world's cotton was produced in the American South. By 1860 the monetary value of slaves outweighed all the money invested in this country's railroads, banking, and industry combined. And the most devastating war in American history was fought over the issue of slavery. And yet few institutions address this history for a non- scholarly audience. And there are even fewer opportunities to discuss--candidly and openly--the impact, legacy, and contemporary meaning of slavery. I remember a small survey from the early 1990s that assessed the public's knowledge about slavery. The results were fascinating: 81 percent of white respondents felt that slavery was a history that had little to do with them; 73 percent felt that slavery was an important story but that its real relevance was only to African Americans. Even more troubling was the fact that the majority of African Americans surveyed expressed either little interest or some level of embarrassment about slavery. There is a great need to help Americans understand that the history of slavery matters because so much of our complex and troubling struggle to find racial equality has been shaped by slavery. And until we use the past to better understand the contemporary resonance of slavery, we will never get to the heart of one of the central dilemmas in American life--race relations. But it is also important for those who preserve and interpret African American life to help combat the notion of embarrassment. I am not ashamed of my slave ancestors, I am in awe of their ability--in spite of the cruelties of slavery--to maintain their culture, their sense of family, their humor and their humanity. I wish more people knew the words of William Prescott, a former slave who when asked about slavery by a WPA interviewer in the 1930s said, ``They will remember that we were sold but not that we were strong; they will remember that we were bought but not that we were brave.'' (2) The power of inspiration: There is a great need and opportunity to draw inspiration, sustenance, and guidance for African American culture. And from this inspiration, people can find tools and paths to help them live their lives. The importance of inspiration was brought home to me on a trip a few years ago. In 1997, I was lecturing in South Africa. One day I found myself in the small city of Pietermaritaburgr, which is located in Durban in Kwa Zulu Natal. This city has a significant Indian population and it was the site of Mahatma Gandhi's first brush with the racism of South Africa in 1903. While I was there, Nelson Mandela came to this city that was the ancestral homeland of his political and tribal rivals, the Zulus. He was to receive ``the freedom of the city.'' I was privileged to sit on the podium as Mandela gave his speech. As is his custom, he spoke in several languages--from Xhosa to Zulu to N'debele--about his struggles against apartheid. And then in English he spoke about his 27 years in the prison on Robben Island. He said one of the things that gave him strength and substance was the history of the struggle for racial equality in America. He spoke passionately and eloquently of how American abolitionists such as Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass inspired him and helped him to believe that freedom and racial transformation were possible in South Africa. Mandel's words helped me to remember the power of African American culture. We hold such important moments within our collective institutions. Who could not be inspired by the oratory, the commitment to racial justice, or the ultimate sacrifice of Dr. King? Who is not moved by the beauty of the work of Betty Saar, the richness of the words of Langston Hughes or the quiet bravery of Rosa Parks and John Lewis? Or who is not moved by the family who came north during the Great Migration or the person who struggled and risked death to keep his name on the voter registration list during the 1960s? It is crucial to remember that we are all made better by embracing the inspirational stories and lessons of African American culture. (3) The power of illumination: Far too often, many view the experiences of the African American community as an interesting and occasionally exotic ancillary story that has limited impact on most Americans. Yet the story of how race, how African American culture has shaped and continues to re- shape American life, is less understood than it should be. It is important that we help all to grapple with the centrality of race in the construction of American identity. As American continues its internal debates about who we are as a nation and what our core values are, where better to look than through the lens of African American history and culture. If one wants to understand the notion of American resilience, optimism, or spirituality, where better than the black experience. If one wants to explore the limits of the American dream, where better than by examining the Gordian knot of race relations. If one want to understand the impact and tensions that accompany the changing demographics of our cities, where better than the literature and music of the African American community. African American culture has the power and the complexity needed to illuminate all the dark corners of American life, and the power to illuminate all the possibility and ambiguities of American life. One of the challenges before us, whether we write, preserve, exhibit history or consume culture, is to do a better job of centralizing race. (4) The Mirror: A final reason why African American history and culture are still so vital, so relevant, and so important is because the black past is a wonderful but unforgiving mirror that reminds us of America's ideals and promises. It is a mirror that makes those who are often invisible, more visible, and it gives voice to many who are often overlooked. It is a mirror that challenges us to be better and to work to make our community and country better. But it is also a mirror that allows us to see our commonalities. It is a mirror that allows us to celebrate and to revel but also demands that we all struggle, that we all continue to ``fight the good fight.'' The struggle to create a national monument to black life goes back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This desire for recognition, acceptance, and cultural acknowledgement was thwarted until the recent legislative success engineered by Congressman John Lewis and Senator Sam Brownback. Legislation was passed by Congress in 2003 and signed by the President. Now at last the National Museum of African American History and Culture exists. It is not yet what it will be one day--a site has yet to be chosen from the four now under consideration--but that begs the question, What is NMAAHC? It is a museum that will celebrate and honor African American history and culture by reveling in and revealing the richness, the lessons, the ambiguities, the challenges and the beauty of African American culture. And through that exploration, the many publics will find meaning, relevance, and understanding. When I imagine the museum I see interactive exhibitions on the history and legacy of slavery, on the Cultural Renaissance of the 1920s, on the Civil Rights movement. But I also see the opportunity to explore cultural expressions like dance, performance, and of course, art. But while the museum must explore the large stories, it must also provide glimpses into more intimate moments of the African American story. The museum must also use this culture as a lens for all to better understand what it means to be an American, so that all who visit, interact with its online activities, and experience its national programming will see how America was and will always be shaped by this culture. The museum must be a place of collaboration and education-- especially with the African American museum field. I see this museum as a collaborator, not a competitor. And I see that collaboration beginning immediately. I believe that this museum must begin strategic program and collaborations right away. I want to work with many of our African American museums to develop lectures and performances that we can co- sponsor in their communities. I would also like to work together to craft a national campaign to ``save our treasures'' so that sister institutions can continue to collect the patrimony that is quickly vanishing. And I would like to find ways that this national museum in Washington can also highlight the work and increase the visibility of museums in communities across the country. It may be as simple as suggesting that as visitors explore an exhibition on migration here at the Smithsonian, they are encouraged to visit the DuSable museum in Chicago, or the African American museum in Los Angeles to get a deeper look at this history, or letting visitors know about related exhibits at museums of every kind--art, history, science, living collections, children's museums--in communities everywhere. There are many possibilities to explore from collaborating to help train future generations of African American museum professionals to working through and with the Institute of Museum and Library Services to help ensure the sustainability of the African American institutions. If we do the job right, the National Museum of African American History and Culture will be a place of meaning, of reflection, of laughter, of learning, and of hope. A beacon that reminds us of what we were, what challenges still remain, and points us toward what we can become. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the problems that we have is not explaining to the American people the amount of pain that this Republican budget casts on Americans. So let me just tell you the truth this evening. When the Democrats were in, when we passed the 1997 budget resolution, we developed a $5.6 trillion surplus. I think that is easy enough to understand. But right now, today, we have seen an arrow sink us down into an $8.8 trillion deficit and sliding on the slippery slope of this huge deficit that breaks the backs of working Americans. In fact, right now, today, when they vote, they will create a $3.2 trillion, if you will, deficit that will break the backs of working Americans. What that does is, of course, is to reenforce the fact that the tax cut that you are giving gives only to the richest of America, the 1 percent, but, in fact, even though Americans understand about mutual sacrifice of which they would rather have investment in education and health care and homeland security, your tax cut is going to cost $3 trillion, which is going to add to the trillions of dollars of deficit that we already have. When we talk about priorities, what that means is that we are cutting $6 billion from homeland security, the very debate that we are having today, $6 billion we are cutting over a 5-year period in homeland security. What does that mean? It means we have no funding for border security. It means we have no funding to ensure that the homeland is safe with intelligence resources and collaboration. It also means that our military has no armored jackets. It means that our veterans hospitals are cut for $6 billion. But, most importantly, it cuts the children of America because it is the largest cut in education in 23 years. That is what this trillion-dollar deficit budget makes. That is what the Republican budget does. It cuts priorities, and that is what the Democrats are saying. Our priorities are different. We want to invest in America. We do not want to build the deficit. We do not want to build $3 trillion in tax cuts that do not go to the average working American. We want that single mother, we want that family of 4, we want that family of 10, we want that young person looking for an opportunity to have the investment of capital to ensure that America is great. Vote for the Democratic substitute. That is what makes America great, and that is what we would like to do for America. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to add my voice of opposition to the Republican Budget Resolution. The budget of the United States is more than a financial document and accounting device. Rather it is the numerical expression of the obligations free people voluntarily assume to help others, to serve the common good, and to form a more perfect union. But it is more than that. A budget is a reflection of our national values and a scorecard by which we can judge whether we are keeping faith with what we profess to believe. The budget resolution brought to the floor today by the Republican leadership does not reflect the best of American values. This budget breaks faith with what we know to be right. Let me count the ways: This budget undermines the federal programs that bolster the economy and welfare of our citizens. The President's budget cuts $6.3 billion in Social Security benefits over ten years by eliminating the survivor benefits safety net for women and children. This benefit can make the difference between subsistence and destitution, and it is heart breaking that Congress could even consider pocketing funds rightly earned and needed by or constituents and their families. The President's budget slashes Medicare by $36 billion over five years and $105 billion over 10 years and includes gross Medicaid cuts, including both legislative and regulatory cuts, of $17 billion over five years and $42 billion over 10 years, on top of the deep Medicaid cuts that Congress enacted in 2005. The Republican 2007 budget resolution cuts spending on education by 29% and freezes Head Start funding at this year's level, guaranteeing that 19,000 children will have to be cut from Head Start next year. Even the President's own No Child Left Behind program is funded at $15.4 billion below the authorized level. Cuts are also in store for environmental protection projects (by 4%), community block grants ($736 million), and community development programs ($4.3 billion below the amount needed to maintain current services). Even the budget for Homeland Security is 24.9% lower than the amount enacted in FY2006. What I have just described is a systematic asphyxiation of funding for vital elements that make up the fabric of our society--education, healthcare, social security, housing, and homeland security. All of us agree on the American future we want for our children and generations yet unborn. An America that is highly educated, confident, capable, globally competitive, strong, and sage. Whether we achieve this goal depends upon what we do here today and now. This budget will not make America smarter, stronger, safer, more competitive, or proud. We can do much better. We must do better if we are to be true to the best of ourselves and to be consistent with our fundamental values. I urge all members of the House to reject this budget resolution. I further urge my colleagues to support the Democratic Substitute Budget (the Spratt Resolution) and to support the CBC amendment to the Budget resolution.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank Chairman Watt, and, of course, let me thank Congressman Scott for his excellent work, and all of the Members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Mr. Chairman, I have not heard the theme of priorities being addressed on the floor of the House today. That is what the CBC budget represents. I would like to be standing here for working Americans, middle-class Americans. With the CBC budget, we save $10.5 billion more in interest. That money goes into the pockets of working Americans. We cut the trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars of deficit, and we are able then to cut, if you will, the kinds of insidious, insidious, eliminate cuts on the budget that hurt the people of America. I like the CBC budget because, in fact, it provides the opportunity to eliminate the $6 billion cuts that you make on veterans health care, or the $6 billion cuts that you make over 5 years on homeland security. Mr. Chairman, it restores the moneys to Head Start. It restores the money to Pell Grants. It restores the money to provide better health care for Americans. And, yes, it provides $10.5 billion of interest back in the pockets of Americans. Vote for the CBC budget. It balances the budget, but most importantly it stands for working Americans.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I took the opportunity to wish all of our mothers a very happy Mother's Day. Might I include my colleagues and their relatives, the staff of this House and this Congress, because this is an opportunity for us to simply say thank you, thank you to the many mothers who work every single day, whether in the home or outside the home. Whether they are your mom because they are related, or because they have just simply given you a greater opportunity in life, they deserve a thank you. Might I also offer my appreciation to the moms who are on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan and serving in the United States military. This is an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to kind of recount where we are in this Congress and to ensure that we really are working on the kind of legislative agenda that really helps our families. I guess I would argue somewhat with the statement that we have worked as hard as we should have worked. For example, the tax reconciliation bill gives most of the benefit to the richest of Americans. If you make a certain amount, if you are a hard-working single mom, you might even get the minimal $9 tax break. I know we can do better. Then let me say as we look to the United States military, we should remember that they are on the front lines so that we might be free. I am very proud today that, almost unanimously, this Congress passed by 415-9 an amendment that I offered to the defense authorization bill that will say happy Mother's Day to all the Reserve and National Guard families, because the amendment provides a clarifying feature, and that feature is that we will take into consideration the number of deployments one has had before further utilization of that particular soldier is enacted. We will take into consideration how many deployments there have been. I have heard from Reserve families all around the Nation, and particularly in my district, that they have been redeployed one time, two times, three times. Yes, they are patriotic; but it is necessary to be considerate of the families, of the disruption in their income, and, of course, the children. So I hope as this defense authorization bill makes its way to conference, that this provision that considers the number of times soldiers have been deployed in order to make the determination whether to deploy again will help our families stay together. Of course, we know as well that pending is a deadline for the enrollment in Medicare part D. I have said to my colleagues that they know that I did not support the legislation that created a ``donut hole,'' where seniors would have a certain coverage, and then all of a sudden mothers and fathers and others would drop into a donut hole. But May 15 is the deadline. We will hold a massive citywide Medicare enrollment day in the city of Houston in the Communication Workers Hall on Jefferson. We are asking all of the citywide groups and organizations and adult children and others to bring their seniors to this place, because we will have almost an all-day registration. Eleven computers will be there for you starting at 11 a.m., and we will keep it open as long as necessary so that we can enroll those low-income seniors, some 55 percent who do not know that May 15 is the deadline. To those of you who may be listening, let's make Mother's Day just a little bit sweeter and ask that senior citizen whether or not they have been enrolled over 65 in Medicare part D. Remember, if it is not extended by the President, and I am going to ask the President by letter today to extend it by executive order, if it is not extended, you will have a lifetime penalty of 1 percent, 1 percent, which is a lot of money, for your lifetime, if you do not enroll by May 15, 2006. I hope, as I started out, that we will wish a happy Mother's Day to America's mothers and others around the world; and I hope that we will not only give them wishes, but we will also give them action. I believe the amendment that has clarified when you go back into duty based upon a consideration of how many times you have gone is a gift to our mothers and the families of Reservists all over America. But we can give a further gift by making the kinds of tax laws that benefit hard- working Americans and increasing the minimum wage. Then finally we can do something that is important, cease the divisive debate on immigration and recognize that immigration is a part of America's fabric. We have a system of laws which we can follow. Amnesty is not the question here, because we are not talking about amnesty. We are talking about earned access to legalization, where those who are undocumented would get online and be able to begin to gain access to legalization. The same individuals who are on the front lines of Iraq who are not citizens, their families would have the opportunity to be documented. We can also provide job training from the fees that immigrants will pay to earn access to legalization. Mr. Speaker, I simply say, we have it in our power to make Mother's Day every day and make mothers happy by having the legislative agenda that gives a better quality of life for all Americans. Again, happy Mother's Day to all the mothers.