Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity just a few days before Mother's Day to wish America's mothers a very happy Mother's Day. We realize that mothers play so many different roles in our Nation. They are our soldiers, our factory workers, lawyers and doctor and office workers. They are also the workers that make America work; and, of course, our mothers come in all shapes, sizes, religions and of course with enormous diversity. I wish for them a great and wonderful Mother's Day, and I hope as we plan our future in this Congress we realize that working women or mothers that stay at home care about their children, and that the work we will do will reflect on the goodness of our mothers, whether they are our extended mothers, mothers related to us by blood relationship, or mothers who have simply nourished us. And might I simply pay tribute to my own late aunt, Valrie Bennett, and my own mother, Ivalita Jackson. For this reason, I think the reasons that mothers are always mothers, it is important to wish them a very happy Mother's Day. To the mothers of the Nation, happy Mother's Day.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to yield back some of that time to the distinguished proponent of this amendment. I thank her for her leadership, and the leadership of Ms. Harman and Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say that this is a question certainly of the flag and the Declaration of Independence and the rights of all Americans. But what it says is that the men and women of the United States military have equality, the equal rights to good health care and health procedures all over the world, wherever they serve. This is a good amendment. I associate myself with this amendment, and I ask that you vote for the men and women of the United States military and allow this amendment by Mrs. Davis, Ms. Harman, Ms. Sanchez, to support the women of the United States military to have equal access to good health care and to be able to secure appropriate procedures regarding their female surgical needs at overseer military facilities.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and ranking member of a committee that really protects the lives of our soldiers on the front line and their families. Mr. Chairman, I hope today that my colleagues will join me in a bipartisan effort to give a gift to our soldiers' families. I understand the gravity of this bill, both in the consequences that these provisions will have on our ability to protect and defend ourselves at home and abroad as well as the debate and consideration of which our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee engage to do this good job on behalf of the men and women of the Armed Forces. For this particular reason, I would like to call attention to a clarification that is needed when providing for fair treatment of members in the Selected Reserve and Individual Ready Reserve. Members of the Individual Ready Reserve are former enlisted soldiers and officers who have some military service obligation remaining but who choose not to fulfill it in the Guard or Reserve. Unlike members of the National Guard or Reserve, Individual Reserves do not perform regularly scheduled training and receive no pay unless they are called up.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her kind support. Might I just say that in joining in a bipartisan manner, I am pleased that this provision recognizes and takes into account the fact that a Reservist and a National Guard member needs the support and love of his or her family, or that the needs of a family and a home are highly valued by our military and our country. The inclusion of this passage and this language in the bill affirms and asserts the fact that we are a Nation of morals and honorable decision makers. The length and nature of previous service also should have a large part in the consideration of recalling a Reservist back to duty. The bill specifies that this provision is to share any exposure to harmful materials in order to stay within the reasonable limits of national security and military standards. Therefore, the frequency of assignment is also an important question, and the fact that we are clarifying it today and instilling and including that in the bill is going to give Reservists and National Guard families a great deal of celebration. Let me tell you a very pointed story. One constituent from Houston who was born in Texas, has lived his whole life in Texas, called because he was confused and concerned, not because he did not love his country, not because he did not enjoy serving, but he wanted to try and understand the fact that he was redeployed three times in a 4-year period, a man who has a family, had a job, and of course we know it was mentally and emotionally draining and of course heart-breaking to leave his family. Therefore, this amendment will help the many Reservists and families and the National Guard families all over America. Serving your country is noble, honorable and generates pride in one's self and one's country. Re-serving your country is no less noble. That is the constituency we serve today. Yet it can damage morale, particularly if the individual is not career military, if we do not take into consideration the frequency of their service. I thank my colleagues, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment on behalf of the military families all over America, Re- reservists and National Guard who will benefit from understanding their plight and their situation. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity today to offer an amendment to the National Defense Reauthorization Act that clarifies the factors that must be taken into consideration when recalling a reservist to service to include the frequency of assignment over the duration of a reservist's career. I understand the gravity of this bill, both in the consequences that these provisions will have on our ability to protect and defend ourselves at home and abroad, as well as the debate and consideration in which our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee engaged. For this particular reason, I would like to call attention to a clarification that is needed when providing for fair treatment of members in the Selected Reserve and Individual Ready Reserve. Members of the Individual Ready Reserve are former enlisted soldiers and officers who have some military service obligation remaining but who chose not to fulfill it in the Guard or Reserve. Unlike members of the National Guard and Reserve, individual reservists do not perform regularly scheduled training and receive no pay unless they are called up. Forty percent of American troops in Iraq are from National Guard and Reserve units. For many, the financial sacrifices are great. Many lose the salaries they were earning in the private sector, and their families are struggling to pay bills. 57 percent of National Guard members and reservists have cited too many activations and/or deployments as a reason to leave the military, and 66 percent of Guard members and reservists express that they are likely to continue in the Guard or Reserve. In the case where it is necessary for these reserves to be recalled to duty without their consent, the bill currently provides for appropriate consideration to be given to the length and nature of previous service, family responsibilities, and employment necessary to maintain the national health, safety, or interest. I am pleased that this provision recognizes and takes into account the fact that a reservist needs the support and love of his or her family, or that the needs of a family and a home are highly valued by our military. The inclusion of this passage in the bill affirms and asserts the fact that we are a nation of moral and honorable decision- makers. The length and nature of previous service also should have a large part in the consideration of recalling a reservist back to duty. The bill specifies that this provision is to share any exposure to harmful materials in order to stay within the reasonable limits of national security and military standards. Related to this, however, is the fact that the frequency of assignment must also be taken into consideration. As we have seen, our reservists are brave citizens and soldiers who have willingly traveled to the other side of the world to defend their homeland. If these were career military we were talking about, I do not think that frequency should necessarily be considered. However, we must take the occurrence, and not just the length of time, of previous service into account when recalling reservists. One tour of four years is substantially different than four tours of one year. I am not making a qualitative or quantitative judgment, or that one reservist should be preferred over another. One constituent from Houston, who was born in Texas and has lived his whole life in Texas, called because he was confused and concerned that the 4 years he served over a 6 year time span would not be recognized by the military as he thought it should be. His three separate deployments were mentally and emotionally heartbreaking, and I heard his point clearly: His situation should be considered as dissimilar to an individual who had been deployed once and served 4 non-interrupted years. The number of times an individual has been deployed must be included when recalling a reservist to duty, just as are family responsibilities, previous length and nature of service, and employment consequences. Serving your country is noble, honorable, and generates pride in oneself and one's country. Re-serving your country is no less noble, yet can damage morale, particularly if the individual is not career military. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. This is a bipartisan amendment that is supported by Members on both sides. In order to give our Reservist families a moment of celebration, I would like the yeas and nays so that they can see the vote on the floor in support of Reservists and National Guard families.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the need for hydrogen energy is vital in a time when our dependence on foreign oil is placing a heavy burden on our economy. H.R. 5143, the H-Prize Act of 2006 will establish a prize competition to encourage the development of breakthrough technologies that would make hydrogen a practical alternative to foreign oil in our transportation sector. Hydrogen holds out the promise of being a non-polluting fuel since water vapor is the only byproduct of consuming it. Currently, much research is needed in order for hydrogen to be stored, economically distributed, and used efficiently in cars. In order to facilitate this research, prize programs such as this one encourage more work to be done on the matter without putting much money up front. Thus, monetary awards offered for hydrogen production, storage distribution and utilization creation of a working hydrogen vehicle prototype research are essential to promote research in these areas. Private entities invest far more in research to win a prize than the government pays out in the prize reward. However, making this contest open to all people, especially minorities, women and disadvantaged enterprises, can help contribute significantly to these efforts. Hydrogen technology seems ideal for a prize contest as long as it is advertised to a diverse segment of the population which includes minorities, women, small and disadvantaged businesses. Since, hydrogen technologies hold the promise of enormous reward, it is wise to encourage all to compete and provide them tools that assist in this area. At the end of the day, the Hydrogen Prize Act will help promote innovative results from a diverse community that will reduce technical and others barriers to the advancement of hydrogen technologies and the betterment of America.

Mrs. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Mrs. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove myself as a cosponsor from H.R. 4200.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side are confused. First of all, they know that most of the seniors that they speak of have been automatically enrolled through Medicaid. But they also know that only 55 percent know that the deadline is May 15 and only 53 percent know the lifetime penalty. Mr. Speaker, I have tried to make lemonade out of lemons. For the last 2 months, I have had those enrollment meetings, and in those meetings I have found the confusion and as well the 1-800 number does not work. Mr. Speaker, I will have a meeting on May 15, the morning of May 15. I will open up the opportunity for seniors to enroll on the spot. But the contractor that has been hired by HHS only has three computers for my constituents to use, drawing on the City of Houston. So what I say is do not waste time on this resolution that I do support, extend the deadline and end the penalty, and do not pressure senior citizens with frail health conditions. Do not pressure low income seniors. This is not the opportunity to pressure seniors. This is an opportunity to provide for the Medicare prescription of all seniors eligible to enroll. Mr. Speaker, I would ask, extend the deadline past May 15 and end the lifetime penalty for our seniors. They deserve our respect and appreciation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. We will work together. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment to protect the neighborhoods that surround our ports. Port security and secure neighborhoods. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support an amendment I am offering that includes communities in disaster preparedness by providing for an annual community update to the Homeland Security Training program described in this bill. The Port Security Training Program is designed for the purpose of enhancing the capabilities of each of the Nation's commercial seaports to prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate against, and recover from threatened or actual acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies. The amendment I offer today extends this training program to include communities and neighborhoods in proximity of the seaports by educating, training, and involving populations of at-risk neighborhoods around ports, including training on an annual basis to learn what to watch for. Many communities across the country also have a ``Neighborhood Watch'' program that teaches citizens to watch for suspicious activity or other signs of danger. This amendment provides for a similar ``citizens corps'' preparation in anticipation of a national security threat. The intent is to mimic the Citizen Corps initiative begun by the White House and the Department of Homeland Security in 2002. It is a moral, public safety and public health imperative that we assist the public to prepare for disasters in order to help facilitate response and relief. The point is to be prepared. Local responders are not the only ones who can help in a time of need. While 44 percent of Americans say their neighborhood has a plan to help reduce crime, only 13 percent report having a neighborhood plan for disasters. Nearly two thirds of respondents, 63 percent, believe it is important for neighborhoods to have a way to work together on emergency preparedness. The Port of Houston is a 25-mile-long complex of public and private facilities located just a few hours' sailing time from the Gulf of Mexico. The port is ranked first in the United States in foreign waterborne commerce, second in total tonnage, and sixth in the world. The Port of Houston is made up of the port authority and the 150-plus private industrial companies along the ship channel. All together, the port authority and its neighbors along the Houston Ship Channel are a large and vibrant component to the regional economy. About 200 million tons of cargo moved through the Port of Houston in 2005. A total of 7,057 vessel calls were recorded at the Port of Houston during the year 2003. Economic studies reveal that ship channel-related businesses support more than 287,000 direct and indirect jobs throughout Texas while generating nearly $11 billion in economic impact. Additionally, more than $649 million in state and local tax revenues are generated by business activities related to the port. Approximately 87,000 jobs are connected with the Port of Houston itself, and over 80 percent of those people live in the Houston metropolitan area. Centrally located on the gulf coast, Houston is a strategic gateway for cargo originating in or destined for the U.S. West and Midwest. Houston lies within close reach of one of the nation's largest concentrations of consumers. More than 17 million people live within 300 miles of the city, and approximately 60 million live within 700 miles. The danger is very real that we may be escorting a weapon of mass destruction to its target. For every mile along the Houston Ship Channel that dangerous cargo passes, an additional 2000 people are at risk. Clearly, once the cargo reaches the city, the risk is greatest. In 2002, the Department of Homeland Security established the Citizens Corps initiative, and in 2004, over 1,000 communities around the country, encompassing 40 percent of the U.S. population, had established Citizen Corps Councils to help inform and train citizens in emergency preparedness and to coordinate and expand opportunities for citizen volunteers to participate in homeland security efforts and make our communities safer. Fifty-two States and territories have formed state level Citizen Corps Councils to support local efforts. Maybe before the next disaster, our citizens can be aware and trained to react effectively and timely, and perform as local responders themselves. Support this amendment, and include the neighborhood in disaster preparedness.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Reichert. Let me just say we want a seamless connection on security and port security, working with local law enforcement, working with the neighborhoods around the poverty and working with port security. I look forward to working with you to ensure that it is collaborative and that the resources are spent in a balanced way for the port personnel but also in very effective outreach methods that I have seen utilized around the country with effective neighborhood and citizens corps, local first responders, as you have served for a number of years, and, of course, port security. I ask my colleagues to support it.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the distinguished ranking member.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, allow me to offer my appreciation to the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member of the full committee and Ms. Sanchez, Ms. Harman and Mr. Lungren of California for the work that they have done on this legislation. My good friend, Mr. Reichert from Washington, let me thank you very much as we have had an opportunity to work together. This bill is about port security. In securing the ports, the reason is to prevent a horrific tragedy from occurring similar to the tragedy of 9/11. We have come to understand that through containers, or ships that are carrying containers, weapons of mass destruction, nuclear materials, can be inserted into these particular items coming into our ports and a horrific act of terror can occur, killing thousands. Mr. Chairman, this chart shows an example of the Nation's ports, a port that is surrounded by population, thriving neighborhoods, neighborhoods which understand that they are surrounding a local asset and a national asset. But they, too, deserve security and deserve protection. My amendment today, which I urge my colleagues to support, includes communities in disaster preparedness by providing for an annual update to the Homeland Security Training Program described in this bill. The Port Security Training Program is designed for the purpose of enhancing the capabilities of each of the Nation's commercial seaports to prevent, prepare for, respond to, mitigate against and recover from threatened or actual acts of terrorism, natural disasters and other emergencies. What I would say to you is, having visited a number of ports, including the port in Washington, I am aware of its treasure to the community and to the Nation, but I am also aware that it looks just like this, populations surrounding our ports. So a danger to ports and port security is a danger to our neighborhoods. The amendment I offered today extends this training program to include communities and neighborhoods in proximity to the seaports by educating, training and involving populations at risk, neighborhoods around the ports, including training on an annual basis, and, of course, collaboration with our local authorities. This is to include our neighborhoods in somewhat of a neighborhood watch concept, continuing the idea of the citizen corps. It is a moral public safety and public health imperative that we assist the public to prepare for disasters in order to help facilitate response and relief. The point is to be prepared. Local responders are not the only ones who can help in time of need. They need help, and we are here to help with them in the idea of collaborating with the port and our local first responders. While 44 percent of Americans say their neighborhood has a plan to help reduce crime, only 13 percent report that they have a neighborhood plan for disasters. Nearly two-thirds of respondents, 63 percent, believe it is important for neighborhoods to have a way to work together on emergency preparedness. The Port of Houston, for example, is a 25-mile-long complex of public and private facilities located just a few hours sailing time from the Gulf of Mexico. The port is ranked first in the United States in foreign waterborne commerce and second in total tonnage and sixth in the world. The Port of Houston is made up of the Port Authority and the 150-plus private industrial companies along the ship channel. Altogether, the Port Authority and its neighbors along the ship channel are a large, vibrant community. I say that, because of this vibrant community, there is a great need, if you will, to provide this nexus in this bill to ensure this kind of safety plan. I ask my colleagues to look and see this as a port in your neighborhood and to join me in supporting the Jackson-Lee amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me just reflect on what we owe the men and women on the frontlines of Afghanistan and Iraq. I think we owe them the best equipment, the best leadership, and the best minds. So I was disturbed as I read the article in the USA Today that indicated that more soldiers were being killed in the utilization of Humvees in 2005 and 2006 than had been in the years past in the war in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, it is important and imperative that an immediate reaction be given and an action be taken by the Department of Defense to help save the lives of our young men and women on the frontlines, the reinforcement of Humvees, new technology in body armor, new technology in head gear. Our children are dying. They are without the proper body armor and Humvees, and that is insufficient for a country of this size. Finally, it is imperative that a full accounting be given about the dollars that have been spent in Iraq as to what they have been spent for, why they have been spent, and, of course, an accounting that shows that no corruption has taken place.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida for his leadership. In this debate, I have listened to the encouragement and the entreaties to be bipartisan, and let me say that I accept that call. In fact, I believe that we have made a step toward national security, but I am, like my good friend from Florida and a number of other of my colleagues, somewhat frustrated and distraught that, based upon the recent reflection of the former Inspector General of the U.S. Homeland Security Department; I want to remind my colleague that the IG's office is an independent office that is not to be tainted by any partisan politics. They indict in a bipartisan way. They criticize without partisanship. They call a spade a spade. They suggest what can be fixed, and they try to create an atmosphere in which we can improve the conditions in which that department operates. The Inspector General of the U.S. Homeland Security Department has said that the container security initiative is a complete failure; it does not work. I think the American people need to know that. So the frustration is that we were bipartisan in the committee, and I know our good friends know that by supporting the gentlewoman from Florida's amendment, but we could not get the Nadler-Markey amendment that a number of us are cosponsors on. I am an original cosponsor of that amendment. The issue that Mr. Markey and Mr. Nadler have raised on a continuous basis, but more importantly, forget about Members who may be described as having some partisanship, if you will, underlying the backdrop, but the Inspector General is saying that we are near the precipice of another horrible incident, and that incident could include a tanker full of weapons of mass destruction or a container full, which is what the Nadler-Markey amendment suggests, 100 percent scrutiny and clearing of the containers coming to our ports. Let me just conclude by saying, let us see if we can find a way, vote for the motion to recommit, but let me just say that, in addition, I am grateful for an amendment that talks about including the congested neighborhoods near ports in the disaster training, but I am disappointed that an amendment that focuses on providing opportunity for minority, women-owned and small businesses in doing this disaster fix-up was eliminated. Let us hope we can make a better bill, and let us hope we do that as we move this bill forward. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on the significant step forward toward national security and safety for our seaports that this bill represents. I am proud of my colleagues who have crafted this bill to be inclusive of many issues that Members of the Committee on Homeland Security and other Members of the Congress have expressed over the last few years, and more intensely over the last few months. However, I remain distraught and angered by the fact that the rule under which we consider this bill today prevents a true democratic debate to take place, and limits participation in crafting this bill to be relevant both to all stakeholders and all Americans. There are 15 amendments accepted in order, and I am thankful that one of my amendments has been included in this list, including neighborhoods in at-risk areas surrounding a seaport. However, this list should not be so exclusive. I find it hard to believe that the other 19 amendments were baseless enough to warrant exclusion from floor consideration. I find it appalling that among the amendments declined was an amendment to preserve consideration of women- and minority-owned businesses in the Homeland Security grant program and an amendment that removes the restriction on the use of funds received through the Port Security Grant Program to pay for the salaries, benefits, overtime compensation, and other costs of additional security personnel for State and local agencies for activities required by the Area Maritime Transportation Security Plan. Lastly, I am frustrated by the decision by the Rules committee to not allow debate on an amendment by Mr. Markey and Mr. Nadler that requires immediate attention and consideration. Their amendment requires 100 percent of packages entering our Nation's ports to be scanned. We need to make sure the contents of a package are indeed what the paperwork says they are. While I support the Markey Amendment goal of 100 percent inspection of containers, I think it is also important for us to consider and pursue innovative technology and supplemental data gathering mechanisms to ensure that we are as informed as possible about the packages entering our country. Nonetheless, this amendment was an opportunity to bring a crucial debate off the TV networks and out of the newspapers and onto the floor of the House of Representatives. I am disappointed that the Rules committee shut down this debate. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule which unfairly limits the involvement of fellow Members of Congress in protecting our seaports and preserving our homeland security.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California, and I thank her for service on the Ethics Committee. I, too, believe that this is an amendment that certainly moves us forward, but it is not the panacea. And I rise because I now understand that this is clearly a partisan bill because this is not a bill to really do anything. It is a bill to bash and to look like you are doing something. I did not offer the Jackson-Lee amendment because I realized that, rather than doing real lobbying reform, the other side wants to bash innocent spouses and children. That is what they want to do. They wanted to make light of an amendment that I was offering to ensure the clarity of the fact that if you had no inside knowledge or benefit to the fact that your spouse or anyone else was involved in culpable behavior, that you, as an innocent spouse, and an innocent child, should not be, of course, the, if you will, the victim of that criminal behavior. On the other hand, in the Judiciary Committee, when we had the right kind of amendment, Mr. Van Hollen offered an amendment that would require additional quarterly disclosures by lobbyists, including disclosures of the names of Federal candidates and office holders, their leadership PACs or political committees for whom fundraising events are hosted by lobbyists, and information regarding payment for events honoring Members. Guess what? That was eliminated from the final bill, even though it was passed successfully in the Judiciary Committee. So this is not a serious attempt for lobbying reform. It is an attempt to eliminate amendments of Democrats. Bring one on the floor so that you can bash it, rather than looking seriously at the language that the Jackson-Lee amendment had, which was to clarify to make sure that we get those who are the true culprits. If the spouse and the child is involved in the bad behavior, then eliminate all their benefits. If they are not, then you should protect them so that they are not the victims of this bad behavior. But I see, Mr. Chairman, you are not interested in serious lobbying reform. All you are interested in doing is bashing other Members, bashing spouses, bashing children and representing that this is a bipartisan bill. It is not a bipartisan bill. You have eliminated all the amendments, and it is not a bipartisan bill. I hope that we will be able to get on track and find our way in the real manner of collaborative work so that when Members try to go to the other side and speak intelligently about an amendment, they won't get the back hand of someone who thinks that they can just ``diss'' you just because you are on the minority. We need to be working on this issue in a bipartisan manner. And I welcome some of the very progressive amendments. And I when I say progressive, don't think I am labeling you, but the very smart amendments that add more requirements. And I think the idea of training certainly moves us forward. But as the gentlewoman from California said, we have left out an enormous amount of real reasonable response to this question. So I hope that in the final analysis that we will go back to the drawing board and be able to assess, if you will, the importance of real collaboration. I will just simply say that this idea of using innocent spouses and children, opposing a proposed amendment, which I did not offer because I understood that this was going to be a scapegoat that would cause people not to see the true issue, which is to clarify those who had nothing to do with the bad behavior. And to the American public and my colleagues, I think we can understand the concept in America of due process and innocent until proven guilty. Let us get to the bottom line of making sure that our house is in order, but when it comes to those innocent individuals, let us make sure that we have clear language to protect innocent children and spouses who are determined to be without fault. The Office of Personnel Management is a regulatory agency, not a lawmaking body, as the Congress is; and I thought it was important for my amendment to have been offered and accepted to clarify the protection of families. But the majority was opposing it because they wanted sound bites not real enforceable legislation. It was not offered because I did not want political play to get in the place of serious legislation. With that, Mr. Castle, let me say you have something that is a good idea, but we could clearly do more; and I ask my colleagues to vote against this false representation of lobbying reform, H.R. 4975. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to explain my amendment. The need for the amendment I offer is not obvious at first glance but the harm it corrects would be apparent to all Members as soon as they have a chance to think about it. I share the discomfort that comes with writing laws that govern ourselves, rather than laws that govern the Nation. However, we are legislators just as much as we are politicians. We must rise to the occasion, excel beyond expectations, and sensibly construct guidelines that will secure our honesty and accountability . What will Americans read in the newspaper tomorrow, or see on the news this evening? We do not want to appear like a classroom of children turning out their pockets when we accuse each other of stealing candy. We want to stand together as a legislature and raise our own standard of conduct and value of ethics proudly, in a bipartisan manner, as colleagues. Until this week, this lobbying reform bill was succeeding. Differences of opinion were discussed openly, language and subject matter was debated publicly, and compromises were made with the larger goal of improving and correcting the involvement of interest groups in legislative work. However, without an open rule, it is difficult to continue asserting that this is a bipartisan effort, and it is impossible to say that this is a transparent process. If we are struggling to make lobbying more accountable and transparent, how can we create these laws in an unaccountable and nontransparent manner? The hypocrisy is as obvious as it is embarrassing. I am pleased that the Rules Committee was open to consideration of each amendment, and I thank Chairman Dreier and every Rules committee member for the opportunity to offer my amendment preserving the rights of spouses and children to benefit from pensions without bearing the burden of disproving guilt by association. However, I am disturbed by the abruptness and the brevity with which privately funded travel was discarded in the committee print of the bill. Although the Lungren/Miller amendment that will be in order today is better, I believe that stifling any Member's opportunity to grow and learn is myopic, and I believe that many of these trips are crucially educational. We, as Members of Congress, have a duty to act as witnesses for human rights considerations, for foreign policy interests, and for domestic troubles. Travel can be vital continuing education. We must put ethical guidelines in place, but not without thinking them through thoroughly. We all understand and agree that major changes must take place in lobbying reform. We must concentrate on what is most responsible, most practical, and most cogent. Overall, I am disappointed in this bill, and disappointed that there are those among us who would sabotage the legislative process--such as subcommittee and committee hearings and markups and floor debates--in order to achieve their own ends. We need lobbying reform because we need to return the policy discussion to the American people, and take it out of the hands and pockets of over-privileged insiders and favor- traders. We have a long history of lobbying reform, dating back to the passionate debates of the Federalist Papers. Interest groups, or ``factions,'' to use the contemporary term, provided both an immeasurable value to democracy, and yet interest groups also bring the threat of undue influence. According to Madison: Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an ailment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency. (Federalist Paper #10) I am inclined to agree. I urge my colleagues to allow the debate today to assist in building lobbying reform that will withstand criticism many years from now, and that we may look upon as noble, fair, and correct. Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. But let me say to the distinguished gentleman, I did not have time to yield; and I thank you for your graciousness. But I think if we had had the gracious discussion that you offered now on the floor of the House previously where we could have discussed the idea of a full debate on this matter, there might have been a different response by myself the proponent of the amendment to protect innocent spouses and children shown to be without fault in any manner of corruption. I think we are all committed, as you have said, to the idea of getting the ones who are guilty, but the innocent we should protect.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to pay my respects, and ask my colleagues to join me, in observing Holocaust Remembrance Week. This morning the Congress, in a bipartisan manner, gathered in the Capitol Rotunda, to remember a period of history that will resonate forever, and which we must never again see occur. We grieve for the loss of life, and the dismissal of humanity. Around 280,000 Holocaust survivors live in Israel, constituting 40 percent of the population over age 60. It may seem like time progresses, but the Holocaust remains present and an ongoing warning. After over 60 years, the Holocaust is still a presence, and there are living memorials all over the world dedicated to the memory of those who so cruelly lost their freedom and their lives and to the continuing education to conquer prejudice, hatred and injustice. I am reminded of the time I spent with the Holocaust Museum and a Holocaust Museum family in Houston, Texas. Just recently we commemorated the bringing over of one of those heinous and horrific rail cars that took the Jews in Germany to their death. It is there in Houston for remembrance and an understanding that we should never, never allow that horrific act to occur again. On April 25, the bustling society of Israel observed 2 minutes of silence while sirens sounded to remember the Holocaust. Traffic paused, individuals stood still on sidewalks, the background then of a robust society waned, and the haunting echo of the sirens cried out for relief and justice and acknowledgment. Hundreds of people participated in the March of the Living at the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp in Poland. Triumphantly walking through the infamous gate that still has an ominous dominance over the camp: Arbeit Macht Frei, Work Will Make You Free. Memorial services around the country at synagogues, schools, churches, community centers and workplaces read aloud the names of children who perished or reflected on the legacy of uprooted families or the meaning of a cultural identity after genocide. As we walked through the Holocaust Museum in Israel, we were again reminded of the millions of children that died. The Holocaust's magnitude of destruction numbered more than 12 million deaths, including 6 million Jews and 1.5 million children, more than two-thirds of European Jewry, and the ramifications of racism, prejudice and stereotyping on a society. We must never, never sit idly by while another country or people are suffering. We must never have patience or tolerance or apathy for others who will commit crimes against humanity. A haunting quote in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum refers to the story of Cain and Abel. The Lord said, ``What have you done? Listen. Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.'' The Holocaust forces society and our prosperity to face uncomfortable questions such as the responsibilities of citizenship and the consequences of indifference and inaction and the importance of education and awareness. The victims of oppression and genocide, whether in Germany, whether dealing with the Armenian people or the people of Sudan, are heard when the world demands justice and accountability. We must speak for them, those who cannot speak for themselves. The Holocaust is a testament to the fragility of democracy. We must reaffirm the fight against prejudice and intolerance in any form all over the world, no matter what your religious background or ethnic background. It is time for the world to link arms against intolerance and genocide and fight for justice and accountability. It fills me with grief to know that the leaders of nations can destroy their own, and yet I hope that we can strengthen the means by which we continue to pursue justice. Hope springs eternal, and I hope for us it is of real meaning as we fight for justice and equality and the elimination of genocide. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to pay my respects, and ask my colleagues to join me in observing Holocaust Remembrance Week. This morning, the Congress gathered in the Capitol Rotunda to remember a period of history that will resonate forever, and which we must never again let occur. We grieve for the loss of life and the dismissal of humanity. Around 280,000 Holocaust survivors live in Israel, constituting 40 percent of the population over age 60. It may seem like time progresses, but the Holocaust remains present, and an ongoing warning. After over 60 years, the Holocaust is still a presence, and there are living memorials all over the world dedicated to the memory of those who so cruelly lost their freedom and their lives, and to the continuing education to conquer prejudice, hatred, and injustice. On April 25th, the bustling society of Israel observed two minutes of silence while sirens sounded to remember the Holocaust. Traffic paused, individuals stood still on sidewalks, the background din of a robust society waned and the haunting echo of the sirens cried. Hundreds of people participated in the March of the Living at the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp in Poland, triumphantly walking through the infamous gate that still has an ominous dominance over the camp: Albeit Macht Frei (Albeet Mahkt Fray), Work Will Make You Free. Memorial services around the country, at synagogues, schools, churches, community centers, and workplaces, read aloud the names of children who perished, or reflected on the legacy of uprooted families, or the meaning of a cultural identity after a genocide. The Holocaust's magnitude of destruction numbered more than 12 million deaths, including 6 million Jews and 1.5 million children (more than 2/3 of European Jewry), and the ramifications of prejudice, racism and stereotyping on a society. We must never, NEVER, sit idly by while another country or people is suffering. We must never have patience, or tolerance, or apathy, for others who would commit crimes against humanity. A haunting quote in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum refers to the story of Cain and Abel: ``The Lord said, ``What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground (Genesis 4:11). The Holocaust forces society and our posterity to face uncomfortable questions such as the responsibilities of citizenship and the consequences of indifference and inaction, and the importance of education and awareness. The victims of oppression and genocide--whether in Germany, whether dealing with the Armenian people or the people of Sudan--are heard when the world demands justice and accountability. The Holocaust is a testament to the fragility of democracy. We must reaffirm the fight against prejudice and intolerance in any form. It fills me with grief to know that the leaders of nations can destroy their own--and yet I hope that we can continue to strengthen the means by which we can pursue justice.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House and speak out of order.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise with great pleasure and enthusiasm as one of the supporters of this legislation, Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006, H.R. 4709; and I am pleased to acknowledge Mr. Lamar Smith and John Conyers as the original sponsors of this legislation. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I add my applause to legislation that makes several important and noteworthy changes to current law. First and foremost, it establishes a new criminal offense against anyone who knowingly and intentionally obtains or attempts to obtain the confidential phone records of a third party through any one of the bill's several enumerated schemes or devices to defraud. Penalties for violating this prohibition include a fine or a term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years, or both. Second, the bill establishes a new set of criminal penalties for anyone who knowingly and intentionally sells or purchases the confidential phone records of a third party without proper authorization or knowing that such records were obtained through fraud. Violators of either of these two provisions are subjected to a maximum term of imprisonment of up to 5 years. Finally, in an effort to offer increased protection to the likely victims of such activities, this legislation includes a series of enhanced criminal penalties against any individual who engages in any one of the aforementioned crimes knowing that such information was sought in furtherance of or with the intent to commit any one of the bill's dozen or so enumerated offenses. Individuals specifically protected under this provision include potential victims of domestic- violence-related offenses, jurors, criminal witnesses, confidential informants, and law enforcement officers. Recent investigations undertaken by State and Federal law enforcement officials have demonstrated the ease with which an individual can obtain the confidential calling records of a third party. By simply contacting one of the many on-line data brokers that currently exist, the private records of anyone sitting in this room could be filtered into the public domain within a matter of minutes. And if put into the wrong hands, such information could be used to commit countless crimes of violence, including acts of domestic violence, retaliatory acts against law enforcement officers, or acts aimed at undermining our current criminal justice system. Madam Speaker, I think it is important to note that as we fight the crime of identity theft, this new and innovative legislation puts a dagger in some aspects of that. For example, the records of high- ranking officials dealing with government business could be secured, whether it is local, State or Federal, and put various actions of the government in jeopardy. And, yes, a law enforcement officer that may be undercover, those records can be secured and immediately put that law enforcement officer in great jeopardy of his or her life. And, finally, for those of us who are parents, we understand what it means to be able to communicate with a young person through a cell phone. Just imagine a stalker or a child predator securing those records of your teenage son or daughter. What a horrific thought to think. And so it is important that this legislation be passed for the protection of Americans all over this country and as well for the integrity of our technology system. The bill before us seeks to stop these potential abuses from becoming a reality, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile measure. I am pleased to acknowledge Lamar Smith and John Conyers as the original sponsors of this bill. This legislation makes several important and noteworthy changes to current law. First and foremost, it establishes a new criminal offense against anyone who knowingly and intentionally obtains, or attempts to obtain, the confidential phone records of a third party through any one of the bill's several enumerated schemes or devices to defraud. Penalties for violating this prohibition include a fine or a term of imprisonment of not more than 20 years, or both. Second, the bill establishes a new set of criminal penalties for anyone who knowingly and intentionally sells or purchases the confidential phone records of a third party, without proper authorization or knowing that such records were obtained through fraud. Violators of either of these two provisions are subjected to a maximum term of imprisonment of up to 5 years. Finally, in an effort to offer increased protection to the likely victims of such activities, the legislation includes a series of enhanced criminal penalties against any individual who engages in any one of the aforementioned crimes knowing that such information was sought in furtherance of, or with the intent to commit any one of the bill's dozen or so enumerated offenses. Individuals specifically protected under this provision include potential victims of domestic- violence related offenses, jurors, criminal witnesses, confidential informants and law enforcement officers. Recent investigations that have been undertaken by State and Federal law enforcement officials have demonstrated the ease with which an individual can obtain the confidential calling records of a third party. By simply contacting one of the many online data brokers that currently exist, the private records of anyone sitting in this room could be filtered into the public domain within a matter of minutes. And, if put into the wrong hands, such information could be used to commit countless crimes of violence, including acts of domestic violence, retaliatory attacks against law enforcement officers, or acts aimed at undermining our current criminal justice system. The bill before us seeks to stop these potential abuses from becoming a reality. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this worthwhile measure. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

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