Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as co-chair of the Pakistan Caucus, it saddens me to see the loss of life that has occurred and the violence that is raging throughout the Muslim world and as well in Pakistan. It would seem appropriate that the Danish Government and the Prime Minister would spend less time pointing a finger at fundamentalist Islamic activities and groups and really speak to the hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world who are peace-loving and believing in humankind and, of course, the world humanity. It is appropriate to admit mistakes; it is appropriate to announce the fact that I am appealing to the Muslims who believe in peace and harmony in the words of the Koran. It would be appropriate to say that we made a mistake in degrading the religion, that we do have a respect for diversity and religion. It would not be to undermine the fact of the first amendment, to be able to acknowledge that a mistake has been made. It would be the same way of acknowledging if the degradation of other religions were to occur and many voices would rise. Why not admit that the cartoons were degrading of a religion. It did not show the appreciation of religion and, in fact, we can all do better. We have a respect for each other's differences, and we join together in harmony and world peace. I would ask the Danish Government to stop hiding behind the first amendment or at least the premise of free speech and deal with the question of religious diversity and appreciation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have values in this country. We believe in the First Amendment that appreciates and celebrates freedom of the press and freedom of speech and freedom of religion and freedom of association. But it is important to note that with all of the trauma that we are experiencing around the world there should be something called religious appreciation. I do understand that the Danish Government believes that the First Amendment is prime and a priority, but I also believe there is something for the government to say to the Muslim world, and that is that we do not condemn a religion that we do not understand and that we do have religious tolerance and religious appreciation. I call for tolerance and peace. I ask those who have expressed themselves in violence to find other ways of expressing their opposition to the characterization of their religion through cartoons. I, too, find it to be an outrage, and I offer a sense of sympathy and appreciation for the dignity of the Muslim religion, of Islam. Because Islam is not terrorism, as the President of the United States has said. So I hope that we will find a way and the Danish Government will find a way to not stand only on the principles of freedom of press, but that they will stand on the principle of religious tolerance, religious appreciation and respect. As we respect all faiths of this Nation, we should likewise respect the faiths of the many peoples of the world.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have before us a very important piece of legislation, H.R. 4297, the ``Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act.'' It is very important to understand this piece of legislation within the big picture the Republicans are painting here. Just last week, the Republicans passed a bill called ``The Deficit Reduction Act.'' This was a spending cut bill that slashed funding to many vital programs my constituents depend on, including Medicaid, Medicare, student loans, food stamps, and child support programs. The Republicans lectured us on the need to make sacrifices to control the national debt. By passing the spending cut bill, the Republicans actually asked the poor, the downtrodden, the disabled and the young to sacrifice on behalf of the rest of the country. Now we are faced with the Tax Reconciliation Act, which will add billions, if not trillions, to the deficit over the next 10 years. One source estimates that if all of President Bush's expiring tax cuts are extended, including the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) relief, it will cost this country $3.3 Trillion over the next 10 years. Last year, both the House and the Senate passed our respective versions of the Tax Reconciliation Bill. The major difference between the two bills involves AMT and the low rate on dividends and capital gains. The Senate version extends the temporary AMT relief for one year, while the House bill extends the 15 percent tax rate for dividends and capital gains for 2 years. Capital Gains and Dividends The House bill contains language that will further extend the contentious capital gains and dividends tax cuts. We shouldn't even have to debate this right now, because these tax cuts don't expire until 2008. If passed, the capital gains and dividends tax cuts will cost almost $51 billion over the next 10 years. These tax cuts will be enjoyed by the ultra wealthy, with those earning more than $1 million a year saving an average of $32,000 in taxes. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Over half--54 percent--of all capital gains and dividend income flows to the 0.2 percent of households with annual incomes over $1 million. More than three-quarters--78 percent--of this income goes to those households with income over $200,000, which account for about 3 percent of all households. In contrast, only 11 percent of capital gains and dividend income goes to the 86 percent of households with incomes of less than $100,000. Only 4 percent of this income flows to the 64 percent of households that have income of less than $50,000. Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) Relief If the Senate AMT provision is not adopted, over 17 million middle class Americans will face a tax increase next year from the Alternative Minimum Tax, the AMT. The AMT was enacted over 35 years ago to ensure that the richest Americans would pay their fair share of income tax. Unfortunately, when the AMT was enacted, Congress neglected to index the tax rates to inflation. The AMT has now begun to add an extra burden to middle class taxpayers at an alarming rate. I urge the conferees to recognize the need for continued AMT relief and include that language in the conference report. Katrina Tax Relief In the House bill, unbelievably, there are no tax benefits for areas affected by last year's devastating hurricanes; Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. The Senate version of this bill contains language similar to language Congress already passed, providing a few billion dollars over the next 2 years. The economy of the gulf coast has been set back decades, and it is going to take years to rebuild. Congress should provide even more supportive tax laws for the region so that both businesses and individuals can get themselves back on their feet. I again urge the conferees to include language further providing tax relief to the areas affected by last year's hurricanes. Misguided Priorities Last month, Republicans in Congress couldn't find the money to spare the elderly from Medicaid cuts, to spare the students from loan increases, or to spare our children from child care cuts. They can't seem to find the money to properly rebuild the gulf coast or get New Orleans back on its feet. They are having trouble finding this money because they are choosing to extend the dividend and capital gains tax cuts for the richest in our country. As such, they are making the choice to pass the burden of paying for these tax cuts on to our children in the form of a huge deficit. This is NOT how we take care of our own in Texas, and this is not how we do things in the United States. The Republicans are launching an unabashed attack on the American way by ignoring the neediest in our country to give tax cuts to the richest. Democratic Substitute At the time of the last vote, the Democrats offered an amendment in the form of the substitute that is much more fiscally responsible and equitable. The Democratic Substitute extended for one year all temporary tax provisions that expire at the end of this year, similar to the Majority's bill. The major difference, however, is that the Democratic substitute addresses the problem of the AMT by eliminating all liabilities for middle class individuals. Further, this $45 billion provision would be fully offset by rolling back a portion of the tax cuts that would otherwise go to those with annual incomes of over $1 million for joint returns and $500,000 for other returns. I again urge the conferees to seek fiscally responsible options and point out that there are other options to alleviate tax burden on the middle and lower class without lining the pockets of the ultra-wealthy. Conclusion Mr. Speaker, the priorities in the Republican bill are misguided. Congress should not be providing additional tax breaks for the rich less than a month after enacting huge spending cuts aimed at the most vulnerable. In the end, this tax bill will either exacerbate our already large Federal deficits, or will force even deeper cuts in critically important domestic programs. I am strongly opposed to this legislation in its current form, and I implore the conferees to seek more fiscally responsible options.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 389, supporting the goals and ideals of the Year of the Museum. Museums are one of the most important educational tools that our society has to offer. Museums can teach us about history, art, science, literature, and any number of other subjects. From the great Smithsonian museums of Washington, DC, to the Houston Children's Museum or the Houston Fire Museum, these institutions enrich our society by enhancing our knowledge about the world in a way that is more personal and more affecting than one can find in a book. The Year of the Museum will help to reinforce to all Americans how important museums are to our culture. It will introduce people to museums they did not even know existed, and hopefully, it will encourage people to go back to a museum they have not visited in many years. Education can be the silver bullet in our society. Study after study has proven that the more education a person has, the less likely that person is to lead a life of crime, or do drugs, or go on welfare. Museums will help to improve the educational system in this country by increasing our knowledge of our world and of our culture. There are more than 30 museums in the city of Houston, and I would encourage my fellow Houstonians to go and visit all of them. Mr. Speaker, the Year of the Museum is long overdue, and I appreciate the Distinguished Lady from New York for introducing this excellent piece of legislation. I strongly support H. Res. 389, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the proposed bill, H. Res. 660, ``Supporting the goals and ideals of National Mentoring Month.'' In 2002, January was deemed National Mentoring Month to recognize the importance that mentoring has on our Nation's youth. The demand for mentors stems from the growing need of our Nation's youth to have positive role models in their life that can provide them with the critical support and guidance necessary for them to succeed. Without external support they are less likely to graduate from high school, and more likely to engage in criminal behavior. In contrast, youth matched in mentoring programs are 46 percent less likely to use illegal drugs and 37 percent less likely to skip a day of class. Additionally, youth in mentoring programs show increased self-esteem, self-confidence and self-worth. The benefits of mentoring do not stop with the youth. Research by the Commonwealth Fund shows that 83 percent of adult mentors ``learned or gained something personally from their mentoring experience,'' suggesting that mentoring is a positive experience for the both the mentor and the youth. Further, by involving individuals and organizations, such as non- profits, faith-based institutions and businesses, we strengthen our communities--something that each of us works diligently to accomplish on a daily basis. In my district in Houston, we have worked to foster this relationship through several mentoring programs. Two key institutions are the Volunteer Houston Mentoring Institute and the National Big Brothers, Big Sisters Program, both of which are working with area schools to administer successful programs. Volunteer Houston and the Houston Independent School District entered into a partnership to ensure that at-risk high school students have mentors to help them achieve academic success. Last year, the national Big Brothers, Big Sisters Program matched 225,000 youth with mentors, 1,500 of which are in the Houston program. Both of these programs illustrate that significant progress has been made, but there is still much to be done. Nationally, there are as many as 15 million young people that make up what is known as the mentoring gap, or youth in need of mentors. In my district this is of particularly grave concern, as 5,300 youth displaced by hurricane Katrina are enrolled in the Houston Independent School District. They have sustained both psychological and emotional burdens, and could immediately benefit from a mentoring program. In order to extend the great benefits of mentoring to all of those in need of services it is important to recruit new volunteers and expand the scope of operations. With that said, I join my colleagues in supporting the goals and ideals of National Mentoring Month, recognize the need for increased awareness, and stand to recognize those self-less individuals and organizations that make mentoring a priority, often without the praise they deserve.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 331, ``Honoring the sacrifice and courage of 12 coal miners killed and stamina and courage of one who survived the mine disaster in Sago, West Virginia and the sacrifice and courage of the two coal miners killed in the Aracoma Alma mine disaster and recognizing the rescue crews for their outstanding effort in the aftermath of tragedies.'' I would first like to commend the West Virginia delegation including my good friend Mr. Rahall, for introducing this resolution honoring those who lost their lives and the dedicated rescue crews who worked tirelessly during the crises. This resolution proposes recognition of our brave citizens who gave their lives for their work. West Virginia is the Nation's second largest coal producing State that generates more than half of domestic electricity and provide millions of Americans with energy for their homes and businesses. The United States has an estimated 275 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves representing about 95 percent of all fossil fuel reserves in the Nation, meaning that the average of 7,600 pounds of coal per person per year is used in the United States. Moreover the coal miners are extremely productive American workers in the face of grueling conditions, producing 7 tons of coal per miner per day. During the last century over 100,000 coal miners have been killed in mining accidents in the Nation's coal mines. The Nation is greatly indebted to coal miners for the difficult and dangerous work they perform to provide one of the sources of fuel needed to operate the country's industries and to provide energy to homes and businesses. There were 12 miners, Thomas Anderson, Alva Martin Bennett, Jim Bennett, Jerry Groves, George Hammer, Jr., Terry Helms, David Lewis, Martin Toler, Fred Ware, Jr., Jack Weaver, Jesse Jones, and Marshall Winans, that lost their lives on January 3, 2006, but fortunately one miner was rescued, Randal McCloy. I also recognize the 2 miners that lost their lives early this year in a fire in Aracoma Alma Mine on January 19, 2006. These men were Don Israel Bragg and Ellery ``Elvis'' Hatfield. It is a burden on all of our hearts when hard working citizens of this country perish, especially while on the job. My prayers go out to the friends and families of those who have lost their lives. I support H. Con. Res 331 and I urge my colleagues to follow suit. I thank you for your consideration and yield the reminder of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that any of us in the backdrop of 9/11 have changed our attitude about the consistency and the value and the importance and the crucialness of fighting the war on terror. With not enough time to pursue that debate, let me simply say that this extension is crucial for a reasonable response to the needs of the American people to have their liberty protected. And I read very quickly a statement from ``On Liberty,'' written in 1859: ``Protection therefore against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough. There needs protection against also the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling.'' This is an important extension, and I wish it were longer because it is crucial that we investigate beyond the infringement on library records, beyond the infringement in terms of wiretapping, is the President's NSA terrorist surveillance program and the lack of use of FISA. FISA is an effective tool, and as I heard the President use the term, to be hit again, obviously striking at the fear and the hearts of Americans. None of us want to be hit again, but we do want to protect our civil liberties. This extension will allow that very effective debate, and we will get the right way to fix the PATRIOT Act and protect America. One of our Founding Fathers, John Quincy Adams, made the following statement regarding the importance of civil liberties: Individual liberty is individual power, and as the power of a community is a mass compounded of individual powers, the nation which enjoys the most freedom must necessarily be in proportion to its numbers the most powerful nation. I have in my hand a copy of chapter 1 of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, written in 1859. Selections of this chapter are quite fitting for today's proceeding: Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism. (emphasis added). We passed the PATRIOT Act in 2001 6 weeks after the terrorist attacks of September 11. While the actual bill passed by wide margins in both Chambers of Congress, I made the record clearly reflect my strong reservations about provisions that pose serious threats to fundamental freedoms and civil liberties. In my capacity as a member of the House Judiciary Committee, I joined a caucus of members in submitting letters to the administration and to the Department of Justice requesting documentation and statements that speak to the protection of individual rights in light of the potentially dangerous provisions contained within the bill. Congress included in the bill a ``sunset clause'' that provides an expiration date for over a dozen provisions on December 31, 2005 unless we act to renew them. This fact was the impetus behind several hearings held by the committee in the first session of the 109th Congress. One of the most talked about issues surrounding the PATRIOT Act is the President's authority to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance searches--in essence, execute an order that allows the National Security Agency, NSA, to monitor, without a warrant, the international, and sometimes domestic, telephone calls and e-mail messages of hundreds and possibly even thousands of citizens and legal residents inside the United States. I do not oppose the monitoring of telephone calls and e-mail messages when it is necessary for national security reasons. I oppose engaging in such monitoring without a warrant as the law specifies. We have a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that was established for the sole purpose of issuing such warrants when they are justified. That court should have been allowed to decide whether the telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens and legal residents is justified by security needs. Doing this kind of surveillance without a warrant is illegal. The day after this monitoring became public, President Bush admitted that he had authorized it but argued that he had the authority to do so. According to the President, his order was ``fully consistent with my constitutional responsibilities and authorities.'' But his constitutional duty is to ``take care that the laws be faithfully executed'', article II, section 3; the law here clearly establishes well-defined procedures for eavesdropping on U.S. persons, and the fact is, President Bush ordered that those procedures not be followed. Further, from a statutory argument point of view, it is not credible that the 2001 authorization to use force provides authority for the President to ignore the requirements of FISA. It is very doubtful that the courts would sustain the President on this basis. From a constitutional standpoint, the President can try to make a case, although it is weak, that he does have constitutional authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps of American citizens in the U.S.. for national security purposes. Because the Supreme Court has never said he does not have this power, some regard it as an open question. However, passage of FISA seriously undermines this argument. In closing let me note that this 6-week extension is not enough time to resolve the important issues that surround the PATRIOT Act. Further I am very disappointed, but not surprised that the Republicans have not been willing to come to the table to meet with us in an effort to come to some middle ground.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the passing Monday night of Coretta Scott King, filled me with sadness, an emptiness, and a determination to see her work through to the end. She was a courageous, heroic, and beautiful individual who sacrificed her life so Americans might relish in the gift of equal justice. Coretta Scott King and her late husband, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., were Americans of monumental strength and stature through their lives. In times of struggle, frustration, injustice, and violence, they spoke of composure, grace, love, and equality. They will be remembered for their tireless and ceaseless efforts to advance race relations, civil rights, social justice and human rights. I would like to share a few quotes with you. These are moments in which the voice, character, and spiritual tenacity of Mrs. King was captured. When a heroine passes away, we look to her words, and our memories, to convey the spirit and tenacity she carried with her, brought into every room, and left imprinted on our souls. Corretta Scott King once said, ``Hate is too great a burden to bear. It injures the hater more than it injures the hated.'' Whether segregation, sexual orientation, the rights of the poor or the rights of women, Mrs. King spoke with a voice that resonates beyond the limits of radiowaves and printed pages and out to who are desperately in need of help. I have known Coretta Scott King over the last several years, and she had a rare gift to motivate others to carry on the legacy of equality, the idea of freedom, and social justice which was first accomplished by her husband and partner, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It is our duty in her honor to never waver in the face of injustice and degradation. ``Struggle is a never ending process. Freedom is never really won; you earn it and win it in every generation.'' These words of Coretta Scott King are increasingly relevant. As a member of the House Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees, my thoughts can't help but turn to yesterday's confirmation of Justice Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. I have had concerns about Justice Alito's past judicial record. I am still apprehensive, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out what I believe is a test of civil liberties presented today. The tragic passing of Coretta Scott King, a formidable human rights and civil liberties activist, and the concurrent confirmation of Justice Alito, may foreshadow difficult times ahead for American freedoms. Much of what Coretta Scott King fought for is now threatened by Justice Alito's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. His dubious record on voter's rights, discrimination issues, civil rights, civil liberties, reproductive freedom, the right to privacy and environmental protections, among others, fly in the face of the life and work of Coretta Scott King. The passing of Coretta Scott King and the confirmation of Justice Alito should be a wake-up call to America. Dr. and Mrs. King will forever hold an esteemed place in my heart and the hearts of all Americans. As an African-American woman, and a Member of Congress, I shall endeavor in my own way to continue their fight for equality and justice every day.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 648, Mr. Dreier's provision to eliminate floor privileges and access to Member exercise facilities for registered lobbyists who are former Members or officers of the House. Since the founding of our country, interest groups, or ``factions,'' as Madison called them in 1787, were seen as both a boon and a bane to giving the American people fair representation. Fully 90 years before votes were finally given to African Americans and former slaves, and 150 years before universal suffrage, our Founding Fathers understood the dangers of interest groups and the biased effect they can have on policy and law. Unfortunately, in 2006, the interest groups now have the higher hand at the expense of our citizens and constituents. The pockets of powerful Members of Congress, and the unequal access former Members of Congress have, supercede their responsibility to their constituents. This is unequal access to democracy. Reforms are desperately needed, and for once, we have bipartisan agreement. The difficulty now, is determining where reform is needed urgently and unequivocally, and seeing it through to established law. As a co-sponsor for the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006, which we will all be considering soon enough, I can say that today's bill should be the beginning of many reforms. The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006: Limits gifts and travel: Bans gifts, including meals, tickets, entertainment and travel, from lobbyists and non-governmental organizations that retain or employ lobbyists, prohibits lobbyists from funding, arranging, planning or participating in congressional travel. Regulates Member travel on private jets: Requires Members to pay full charter costs when using corporate jets for official travel and to disclose relevant information in the Congressional Record, including the owner or lessee of the aircraft and the other passengers on the flight. Shuts down the K Street Project: Makes it a criminal offense and a violation of the House Rules for Members to take or withhold official action, or threaten to do so, with the intent to influence private employment decisions. Slows the revolving door: Prohibits former Members, executive branch officials and senior staff from lobbying their former colleagues for 2 years; eliminates floor and gym privileges for former Members and officers who are lobbyists; and requires Members and senior staff to disclose outside job negotiations. Ends the practice of adding special interest provisions in the dead of the night: Prohibits consideration of conference reports and other legislation not available in printed form and on the Internet for at least 24 hours; requires full and open debate in conference and a vote by the conferees on the final version of the legislation; prohibits consideration of a conference report that contains matters different from what the conferees voted on. Toughens public disclosure of lobbying activities: Requires lobbyists to file quarterly reports with more information, including campaign contributions, fundraisers and other events that honor Members, and the name of each Member contacted. Report must be in electronic format, searchable on the Internet; increases civil and criminal penalties for lobbyists who violate the rules. The most obvious place to begin these reforms is here, where we conduct business every day. It is unconscionable that we would allow this access to special interest groups in a place where citizens of this country are not allowed to step. The House has played favorites, against the people we took an oath to protect and serve. Lobbyists should not be allowed on the floor, or in exercise rooms maintained for the well-being and personal use of congressional Members, staff, and employees. I am ashamed that we have to urge my Republican colleagues to adopt more effective measures. It should be a no-brainer. Let's start with this simple reform and keep it going until we succeed in delivering the government ``of the people, by the people, and for the people,'' back to the people. It is for these reasons that I vigorously support drawing a clear ethical line at that door and preventing unjust and unethical influence in our place of business. I urge my colleagues to also extend their support for H. Res. 648 and renew our dedication to our constituencies and ethical principles.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have before us, for the third time, the Budget Reconciliation Spending Cuts Act. Reigning in spending is an idea that everyone in this House can agree on. Many of my colleagues and I are deeply disturbed where this $40 billion in spending cuts is coming from, however. In a time when it is getting harder and harder for the lower class to get by in this country, the Republicans are asking the poor, the downtrodden, the disabled and the young to sacrifice on behalf of the rich. I want to emphasize that these cuts are not meant to free up money to rebuild the gulf coast, or reduce the deficit, or even help our troops in Iraq. In fact, many of these proposed cuts will actually hurt those affected by Katrina. Overall, these spending cuts, when combined with $86 billion in tax cuts for the rich, will increase the deficit and the national debt, and increase the burden placed on our neediest families. Medicaid In the United States, there are 45 million Americans living today without any health insurance at all. We have one of the worst records of all of the developed nations when it comes to providing health care to our citizens. This conference agreement cuts $6.9 billion over 5 years from Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. A large portion of the ``savings'' in Medicaid comes from language that will allow States to reduce the number of beneficiaries eligible for Medicaid, and increase the costs for others. The purported ``savings'' in the Medicaid program found in this conference agreement will be paid for directly out of the constituents' pocketbooks. This bill makes it even harder for families in need to afford healthcare. Medicare The conference report includes provisions that will reduce spending on Medicare by a net total of $6.4 billion over 5 years. The agreement reduces Medicare payouts for certain services, and requires beneficiaries to purchase, rather than rent certain medical equipment. In the agreement, also cut are payments to home health care providers, making it even more difficult to provide adequate care to the elderly. Student Loans As founder and co-chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, as a person who understands the value of our Nation's youth, and as a mother of two, I really want to bring focus on the effect this bill will have on our Nation's children. If you have children who are in, or considering going to college, I want you to listen to this: this agreement, if passed today, will place an added burden of $12.7 billion directly on students over the next 5 years. This is accomplished through adding fees to the processing of student loans, and increasing the interest rates on paying back those loans. Students borrowing money for college will pay thousands of dollars more on their student loans. This is in the face of college costs up over 7 percent this past year alone. Voting ``yes'' for this agreement will harm one of our most precious national resources, our students. Child Support Enforcement This conference report cuts matching funds to child support enforcement. In other words, we are cutting $1.6 billion to fund that enforces collections on dead-beat dads. It is said that for every $1 put in to child care enforcement, $4 is collected for the families. This cut will seriously harm States' abilities to help families receive child support that is owed to them. The CBO estimates that this policy change will reduce child-support collections by $2.9 billion over 5 years and $8.4 billion over 10 years. Child Welfare The bill cuts $577 million from foster care programs by reducing the number of children eligible for foster care. The burden of covering the newly ineligible children is shifted to the states, who are already eye-ball deep in budget crises and will leave some children without the care they need.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I thank the leader of the House, Leader Pelosi, and the Speaker of the House for giving us this opportunity to take a moment in history to be able to simply say thank you; to be able to, for a moment, honor a woman who did not pause and mourn as they buried her husband in April of 1968, as many of us would have thought. I start from that moment, because many have already recounted what a beautiful person Coretta Scott King was and for me continues to be. We already know of her beautiful voice, of the partnership, where she stood alongside of Martin Luther King, of the beautiful children, Martin, Dexter and her beautiful girls. So we know that she has been all that you would want a woman to be, particularly in the context of our history. But I think it is important to be able to say simply ``thank you,'' as she rose to take the call, to carry forth the dream and the mantle. I think there is something more that we need to say thank you to Coretta Scott King for. As you know, and I see one of the able Representatives, as I heard John Lewis and my good friend Ms. McKinney, who has the honor and privilege of representing the area, all those of us who live outside that great State of Georgia say that we honored and admired what she did by holding together the legacy of Dr. King, the words of Dr. King, the papers of Dr. King, minimally to many people, but now that we have lost both, what a richness that we will be able now to go to a place that was her expanded vision, and that of course was the vision to hold together this wonderful legacy, years, decades of history. We thank you for that, Coretta. We thank you also for rejecting wealth and prestige, not being honored and worshipped, being put on a pedestal, and for traveling around the country, place after place after place, person after person, and being yourself and letting us touch you, letting us feel that warmth, Dr. King's spirit, your spirit, your relationship with a man and a cause, and beginning to understand and know you for yourself that you could have been and were the leader that you were and knowing that it was not just the fact that you were Martin Luther King's wife, but you were Coretta Scott King. We are reminded of the words when you spoke about hatred, when you said it is not the hated that feel the venom of hatred, but it is the hater. So we take to heart your message. The moment I heard this, I had to stop, broken in tears and spirit. I just wondered where would we go and what would we be, because there were many leaders, but you brought together a spirit, a humble spirit. So I simply wanted to rise today on the floor to be able to say thank you to your family for sharing you, to thank you for being the woman that you are, for you taking to heart a dream and saying to us it should never die. I do say that today we had the moving forward of the Supreme Court. It gives us only a greater cause to fight for justice. And I promise you, not on behalf of Sheila Jackson-Lee, but really on behalf of the constituents of the Eighteenth Congressional District, and I know also many colleagues in this place, that we will link arms and that the dream will never die. Coretta Scott King will be one of the icons of history and that your spirit will live on, and that we in our own actions will walk the walk and talk the talk and never step away from a fight for equality and justice for all. To Coretta Scott King, we love you, and your spirit will be in us forever. May God provide rest to your soul and may God bless your family.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 655, honoring the life and accomplishments of Mrs. Coretta Scott King and her contributions as a leader in the struggle for civil rights, and expressing condolences to the King family on her passing. With sadness, I recognize the passing last night of Coretta Scott King, a courageous and heroic individual who sacrificed her life so Americans might relish in the gift of equal justice. Coretta Scott King and her late husband, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., were Americans of monumental strength and stature through their lives. They will be remembered for their ceaseless efforts to advance race relations, civil rights, social justice and human rights. Her immense contributions to our national community will never be forgotten. Corretta Scott King once said, ``Hate is too great a burden to bear. It injures the hater more than it injures the hated.'' Whether segregation, sexual orientation, the rights of the poor or the rights of women, Mrs. King was a consistently strong and resonant voice for those who were desperately in need of help. I have known Coretta Scott King over the last several years, and she had a rare gift to motivate others to carry on the legacy of equality, the idea of freedom, and social justice which was first accomplished by her husband and partner, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. She will truly be an unspeakable loss. It is our duty in her honor to never waver in the face of injustice and degradation. As a member of the House Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees, my thoughts can't help but turn to today's confirmation of Justice Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. I have had concerns about Justice Alito's past judicial record. I am still apprehensive, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out what I believe is a test of civil liberties presented today. The tragic passing of Coretta Scott King, a formidable human rights and civil liberties activist, and the concurrent confirmation of Justice Alito, may foreshadow difficult times ahead for American freedoms. Much of what Coretta Scott King fought for is now threatened by Justice Alito's confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. His dubious record on voter's rights, discrimination issues, civil rights, civil liberties, reproductive freedom, the right to privacy and environmental protections, among others, fly in the face of the life and work of Coretta Scott King. The passing of Coretta Scott King and the confirmation of Justice Alito should be a wake-up call to America. Dr. and Mrs. King will forever hold an esteemed place in my heart and the hearts of all Americans. As an African American woman, and a Member of Congress, I shall endeavor in my own way to continue their fight for equality and justice every day. I rise in strong support of this proposed legislation, and urge my colleagues to follow suit.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Mr. Kirk's ``Terrorist Rewards Enhancement Act of 2005,'' H.R. 2329, which would permit those eligible in certain circumstances such as an officer or employee of a foreign government to receive a cash reward under the Department of State Rewards program. The value of this rewards program in dealing with terrorists is beyond dispute. I have introduced a bill that would use a virtually identical rewards program for dealing with commercial alien smuggling operations, the ``Commercial Alien Smuggling Elimination Act of 2005,'' the CASE Act, H.R. 255. It would provide for cash rewards to facilitate the investigation and prosecution, or disruption, of reckless commercial alien smuggling operations. This is not a controversial idea. The Rewards for Justice Program that was established by the 1984 Act to Combat International Terrorism, Public Law 98-533, has been very successful. The Rewards for Justice Program is administered by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Diplomatic Security. It authorizes the Secretary of State to offer rewards for information that prevents or favorably resolves acts of international terrorism against U.S. persons or property worldwide. Rewards also may be paid for information leading to the arrest or conviction of terrorists attempting, committing, conspiring to commit, or aiding and abetting in the commission of such acts. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 authorizes the Secretary to offer or pay rewards of greater than $5 million if he determines that a greater amount is necessary to combat terrorism or to defend the United States against terrorist acts. A well known success of this program occurred a few years ago when a $30 million reward was given for critical information that led to the location of Uday and Qusay Hussein. Rewards under the CASE Act, however, would be limited to $100,000, except as personally authorized by the Secretary of the Homeland Security Department. I urge you to expand the use of this effective tool to include cash rewards to facilitate the investigation and prosecution, or disruption, of reckless commercial alien smuggling operations.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Passport Services Enhancement Act of 2005, H.R. 4501. This bill would amend the Passport Act of June 4, 1920, to authorize the Secretary of State to establish and collect a surcharge to cover the costs of meeting the increased demand for passports as a result of actions taken to comply with section 7209(b) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. I am pleased that we will be funding this security measure required by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. I look forward to a time when all of the security measures in that Act have been funded. The failure to fully fund the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act is an indication that Congress has not allotted enough resources to deal with the requirements for security in the fight against terrorism. Another example is the failure to enact my Rapid Response Border Protection Act of 2005, H.R. 4044, which would provide critical resources and support for the men and women who secure our borders, which is essential to our defense against terrorism. The resources and support in my bill would include the addition of 15,000 Border Patrol agents over the next five years, which would increase the number of agents from 11,000 to 26,000. With more than 8,000 miles of land and coastal borders to patrol continuously, it is evident that this increase is desperately needed if any semblance of control is to be achieved. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be required to respond rapidly to border crises by deploying up to 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents to a State in which a border security emergency has been declared by the Governor. It also would include 100,000 more detention beds to ensure that those who are apprehended entering the United States unlawfully are sent home instead of being released into our communities. It would assist in cracking down on the problem of fraudulent documents used to enter unlawfully and remain in the United States by adding specialized enforcement agents and establishing cooperative mechanisms with State and local law enforcement agencies. And it includes provisions for critical equipment and infrastructure improvements, such as additional helicopters, power boats, police-type vehicles, portable computers, reliable radio communications, hand-held GPS devices, body armor, and night-vision equipment. Those who object to the cost of such security measures need to recall the enormous costs, not just in monetary terms, of the last terrorist attacks. As Benjamin Franklin wisely noted nearly 270 years ago, ``an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.'' The total cost of my border security bill would only be a very small fraction of the amount being spent fighting terrorism overseas. If we want to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil, we must be prepared to devote whatever resources are necessary to keeping terrorists out of our country. This legislation is designed to help provide more resources for the now required greater utilization of the U.S. passport because of the 9/11 tragedy. Americans will need more passports and the State Department will need more staff. The same can be said for our border security taking short cuts and scrimping on homeland security as this only serves as an open invitation to future disastrous attacks.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 456, ``expressing support for the memorandum of understanding signed by the government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Free Aceh Movement on August 15, 2005, to end the conflict in Aceh, a province in Sumatra, Indonesia.'' Let us begin by first thanking Congressman Crowley for his tireless work and steadfast leadership on this issue. For over thirty years there has been armed conflict in the Indonesian province of Aceh between the Indonesian military and the Free Aceh Movement. The Free Aceh Movement had demanded independence while the Indonesian government has fought to maintain their control over the region. The fighting in the region has not only devastated the landscape, but has led to an estimated 15,000 deaths in the region. Last December's tragic tsunami killed at least 165,000 people in Aceh. If something good can be taken from the horrible disaster, it is that the tsunami's destruction led the Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Movement to set aside their three decades of fighting to enable the rebuilding of Aceh. With the help of former President Martti Ahtisaari of Finland, the parties agreed in July to a draft memorandum of understanding to end the conflict. The memorandum of understanding not only provided a timetable for disarmament and troop withdrawal, but also granted the people of Aceh with new political powers and the right to retain much of the revenues of resources extracted from the province. The Indonesian President has also granted amnesty to hundreds of Free Aceh Movement members, and the Free Aceh movement has agreed to forgo its demand for independence. Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleagues can understand and respect just how difficult it can often be to reach compromises in highly charged political situations. It is precisely because of this fact that we as a Congress should whole-heartedly congratulate the Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Movement for their willingness to compromise. Their ability to compromise has made both parties better off, and perhaps can serve as an example to all of us. I sincerely hope the memorandum of understand the parties reached will stand the test of time and be the first step toward extended peace for the Aceh region. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I believe this country can most show its support of this peace process not only with kind and supportive words, but with kind and supporting actions. I encourage the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development to commit resources in guaranteeing the peace and building a strong civil society in Aceh.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if there is a positive element to being here on the very brink of the holiday season, on a Saturday, it is the passage of this legislation. I thank the ranking member for his leadership. I thank Chairman Sensenbrenner for asserting the jurisdiction over the Department of Justice of the Judiciary Committee again and passing this authorization bill with the leadership of our ranking member. I want to dwell on two or three points. But obviously, I want to add my appreciation for the women of this House along with our ranking member and chairman and our co-chair, Hilda Solis, and our chair of the Women's Caucus for their leadership. I want to particularly highlight the embracing of all women, including women of Indian descent, Native Americans. Violence against Native American women is very important in this legislation. Might I also say that I am very pleased that the COPS program has been reauthorized and the DNA lab and the DNA integrity process has been promoted by this legislation because of the funding. But let me emphasize language that has been offered in this legislation, and I am very glad that we may ultimately get to this understanding, the sense of Congress that we should look at implementing a good time early release program. Let me share with you the numbers of prisoners languishing in the Federal system who are nonviolent. The cost for those who are in the prison is $28,000, and the geriatric prisoners, 56 and over, who are nonviolent are costing us $80,000 per prisoner. We could obviously in the good time early release program language that is in this bill allow these people to be released, and they would be gainfully employed and utilize a process of what we call alternative sentencing. Not only because they are incarcerated do we lose tax revenues, but we add entire families to the list of those receiving public assistance. Not only the families, but the children. Statistics show as many as 70 percent of those incarcerated had a parent incarcerated before them. What would have happened if we would have released these individuals who have had no violent history, they are nonviolent persons incarcerated, to their families? In 2002 we saw 2 million people in our jails; 650,000 are released from incarceration to communities nationwide. These are the real statistics. Recently, the American Bar Association issued their findings after conducting extensive research and hearings surrounding today's sentencing guidelines. In Federal prison alone we have over 179,000 men and women incarcerated, of whom 85 percent are first-time, nonviolent offenders. Lengthy periods of incarceration should be reserved for offenders who pose the greatest danger to the community and who commit the most serious offenses. We have the opportunity to study this issue and do it right. There are a number of legislative initiatives, such as Second Chance. But the idea of providing an opportunity for prisoners who are nonviolent who have been on good time in the prison to be able to go out to their families, to take their families off public assistance and regain their dignity and invest in this United States by their work and taxes, I think, is a very positive step on behalf of this legislative initiative. I hope my colleagues will join me, along with the Senate, on this long overdue idea that there are people languishing in our prisons. I hope we will support this legislation. It is a good, good piece of legislation which has done a lot for the American people. I first would like to commend Chairman Sensenbrenner for reasserting the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction over the Department of Justice with this bill. In the past few years, the Department has become increasingly resistant to congressional oversight, either refusing to answer questions or answering them vaguely at best. Fortunately, we worked together to address our concerns with the Department and arrived at a bill I feel is a success. An important piece of the bill is the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994. This is the third time we have worked on this bill, and each time we make dramatic improvements by using new vehicles to tackle the issue. Building on work from previous years, the Act reauthorizes some of the current programs that have proven enormously effective, including the STOP program--which provides state formula grants that help fund collaboration efforts between police and prosecutors and victim services providers--and legal assistance for victims. In addition, VAWA reauthorizes the grant program for legal services for protection orders and related family, criminal, immigration, administrative agency, and housing matters. It allows victims of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and sexual assault to obtain access to trained attorneys and lay advocacy services, particularly pro bono legal services, when they require legal assistance as a consequence of violence. This program has been expanded to provide services to both adult and youth victims. Previously authorized at $40,000,000 annually, funding is set at $65,000,000 annually for 2007 through 2011, to be administered by the Attorney General. This provision also includes an amendment to ensure that all legal services organizations can assist any victim of domestic violence, sexual assault and trafficking without regard to the victim's immigration status. The organizations can use any source of funding they receive to provide legal assistance that is directly related to overcoming the victimization, and preventing or obtaining relief for the crime perpetrated against them that is often critical to promoting victim safety. Furthermore, VAWA's reauthorization creates a new and badly-needed protections for victim information collected by federal agencies and included in national databases by prohibiting grantees from disclosing such information. It creates grant programs and specialized funding for federal programs to develop ``best practices'' for ensuring victim confidentiality and safety when law enforcement information (such as protection order issuance) is included in federal and state databases. It also provides technical assistance to aid states and other entities in reviewing their laws to ensure that privacy protections and technology issues are covered, such as electronic stalking, and training for law enforcement on high tech electronic crimes against women. It authorizes $5,000,000 per year for 2007 through 2011 to be administered by the Department of Justice. On the issue of cyberstalking, VAWA's reauthorization strengthens stalking prosecution tools, by amending the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) to expand the definition of a telecommunications device to include any device or software that uses the Internet and possible Internet technologies such as voice over internet services. This amendment will allow federal prosecutors more discretion in charging stalking cases that occur entirely over the internet. Before turning my attention to the Department of Justice Reauthorization, let me note that VAWA reauthorization and expands the existing education, training and services grant programs that address violence against women in rural areas. This provision renews the rural VAWA program, extends direct grants to state and local governments for services in rural areas and expands purpose areas to include community collaboration projects in rural areas and the creation or expansion of additional victim services. New language expands the program coverage to sexual assault, child sexual assault and stalking. It also expands eligibility from rural states to rural communities, increasing access to rural sections of otherwise highly populated states. This section authorizes $55,000,000 annually for 2007 through 2011--it is currently authorized at $40 million a year. I am also pleased to see that the bill includes language on an issue I feel very strongly about. Section 403 of the bill mandates the Attorney General to award grants to states for carrying out public awareness campaigns regarding domestic violence against pregnant women. Violence against pregnant women can include a range of behaviors such as hitting, pushing, kicking, sexually assaulting, using a weapon, and threatening violence. Violence sometimes includes verbal or psychological abuse, stalking, or enforced social isolation. Victims are often subjected to repeated physical or psychological abuse. This is a very serious issue and we must continue to make the world aware of what these women are going through. In terms of the Department of Justice the bill provides funding for the various offices within the Department. In this regard, I would like to note that it gives the Office of the Inspector General over $70 million for its responsibilities. In the past few years, the OIG has been diligent in overseeing the Department's war on terrorism, issuing reports on 9/11 detainees and pushing the Department to change its procedures for handling terrorism suspects. The bill reauthorizes the COPS office. We all know that this Clinton Administration program has been increasingly vital in crime prevention and crime solving. That is why COPS has received the praise of the Fraternal Order of Police, the largest law enforcement organization in the country. Local policing also is the backbone in our war on terrorism, as community officers are more likely to know the witnesses and more likely to be trusted by community residents who have information about potential attacks. This bill provides over $1 billion per year for this program. The bill also includes language offered by Representative Adam Schiff to require the Attorney General to report to Congress on the number of persons detained on suspicion of terrorism. This is important because the Department has thwarted congressional and judicial efforts to obtain justification for terrorism detainees. The Department's Office of the Inspector General found that the Department and its components had abused terrorism suspects, pushing them into walls, leaving them in legal limbo, and depriving them of access to family or counsel. With these reports, elected representatives can better determine whether the Department is overstepping its bounds again. In addition, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for their cooperation in incorporating the language of an amendment that I offered that expresses a commitment of Congress to continue exploring the benefits of granting ``good time release'' to non-violent federal incarcerated persons. This is an initiative that I have pursued for a long time and will continue until we make real progress. The language of my amendment to this effect was passed in the 108th Congress as part of H.R. 1829 and in the Subcommittee on Crime this Congress as H.R. 2965. In essence, section 1190 expresses the sense of Congress that it is important to study the concept of implementing good time release policies in the federal prison system. When looking at this issue we must ask ourselves how we expect our economy to survive when we continue to incarcerate larger numbers of nonviolent, first-time offenders, who pose no public safety risk. Cost per prisoner to incarcerate in a federal prison is approximately $28,000 with geriatric prisoners (55 years and older) costing as much as $80,000 per year. Yet, the cost of community supervision or drug court supervision is in the area of $3,000 to $5,000 per year. Furthermore, these prisoners could otherwise be gainfully employed under an alternative sentence, we not only lose tax revenues and add entire families to the list of those receiving public assistance, but we shift the dollars being spent from local and small businesses to those large industries handling the federal contracts. In addition, we create an even larger group of children more at risk to incarceration themselves. In addition statistics show that as many as 70 percent of those incarcerated had a parent incarcerated before them. The overall negative economic impact is just as staggering as the destructive effect on families and communities. Before closing, it is important that I make note that the ABA issued their findings after conducting extensive research and hearings surrounding today's sentencing guidelines. In federal prison alone we have over 179,000 men and women incarcerated of which 85 percent are first time, nonviolent offenders. The ABA recommended: ``That states, territories and the federal government ensure that sentencing systems provide appropriate punishment without over-reliance on incarceration. Lengthy periods of incarceration should be reserved for offenders who pose the greatest danger to the community and who commit the most serious offenses. Alternatives to incarceration should be provided when offenders pose minimal risk to the community and appear likely to benefit from rehabilitation efforts.''

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 612, ``Expressing the Commitment of the House of Representatives to Achieving Victory in Iraq''. Because of the severe importance of this issue, I feel it is crucial that I explain my position on this issue. As we are all aware, on Friday, December 2, 2005, 10 United States Marines were killed in a bomb attack on their foot patrol outside Fallujah. The following day, 11 Iraqi soldiers died after insurgents ambushed a joint patrol of American and Iraqi forces just north of Baghdad. In my District of Houston, TX, several Disabled Veterans, family members of current and fallen soldiers, and friends joined in a ``call to action'' to let this Administration know that enough deaths have amassed in the Iraq war to warrant an immediate plan to redeploy our troops back to the U.S. We see daily examples that define this situation as a crisis that continues to increase. Americans deserve a serious exit strategy--`staying the course' has clearly failed. I salute our brave women and men who are serving and who have served in our military, as they have been victorious. There is no separation among Americans on our belief that our troops deserve and should receive honor. However, as many defense specialists and other scholars have suggested, our troops continued presence in Iraq may constitute and be the basis for the increased violence. We must transfer authority and oversight to a sovereign Iraqi Government. They should then seek to gain the support of certain Arab nations. There is no success in the mounting bloodshed. The Washington Post reported on December 3, 2005 that sources suggest media groups in the United States might have paid Iraqi press to publish favorable propaganda about U.S. military operations there. With this and numerous other possible incidents that raise suspicion as to the credibility of certain American government officials, the troops are in a very tenuous position in a land foreign to them amid daily attacks by insurgent groups. Let us be proactive in helping to save lives and honor our troops by bringing them home safely. Part of the plan that I suggest includes the following steps: (1) acts of American diplomacy in furtherance of the creation of an international coalition of support, (2) convening of a summit of Arab nations for the purpose of engaging leadership on the question of what steps can be taken to aid this region, (3) cessation of the redeployment of American troops to multiple tours of duty to the region, (4) allocation of resources and attention to the over 15,000 injured soldiers and the need for medical and educational services, (5) establishment of a special memorial to honor those who have fallen in the Iraq engagement, and (6) establishment and articulation of a comprehensive exit strategy that will result in the redeployment of the troops back to the U.S. and the restoration of sovereignty to the installed Iraqi government. Democrats should distinguish themselves by their alliance on this issue. Many of the Democratic resolutions, specifically that introduced by Mr. Murtha, deserve our support. They represent excellent vehicles to distinguish Democrats before the American people. We must do that! I urge all of my colleagues to join me in furthering these initiatives, and I would like to thank our troops for their hard work and dedication in keeping us safe.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have all appreciated the great charitable spirit of Americans as they welcomed into their homes and into their neighborhoods and into their States the victims of Hurricane Katrina and Rita and Wilma. But this appropriations bill that is making its way through the House and the Senate is crucial for survival of many of our school districts around the Nation. Let me cite my colleagues a particular figure for Houston Independent School District. We are now paying $186,000 a day for the additional Katrina students who are in our school districts. We welcome them, but we cannot pay this burden alone. This is costing our school district an additional $30 million, and so far, we have been reimbursed by the Federal Government $164,000. My friends, $30 million, $186,000 a day, and all we have received is $164,000. In addition, we have got $300 million on hold, that the school district has not received. We need this appropriations bill to be fully funded. We need the tax cuts to be put aside. We need FEMA to be able to do its job for those who are still waiting, languishing in shelters and needing homes, languishing in tents and needing trailers. We need this system to work on behalf of the working people of America and those who are in need. Americans have opened their hearts and pocketbooks to those in need. The Federal Government, the greatest safety net that all of the people have, needs to do its job and do it now.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado for yielding me this time and for the leadership she has given, along with the Congressman from Delaware on this stem cell legislation, and we hope that we will see that move. I want to thank Mr. Smith, Mr. Davis, Ms. Millender-McDonald, and the many others who have been so supportive on this legislation, the collection and maintenance of human cord blood stems. Just a few minutes from now we will be discussing the NASA reauthorization bill, and I raise that point because I believe it is the mission of the United States to be at the forefront of science and research to save lives. The world looks to our leadership, our labs, our scientists, our inventors, our medical professionals as they do to the Texas Medical Center to be able to add enhancement to the quality of lives. In my community alone, I realize that the organizations that fight against leukemia, multiple sclerosis, lupus, and sickle cell anemia are looking forward to the passage of this legislation and a new day of research. Those newborn African American babies who are born with sickle cell also will benefit from this kind of research. But this does not highlight a particular minority group. This research, this maintenance of the human cord blood stem cells will in actuality provide the underpinnings of the research for all kinds of medical science. So I ask my colleagues to support this legislation. And the important aspect of it singularly is for America to take her rightful and prominent place in medical research to save lives around the world.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee for yielding me this time, and I want to applaud the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member for their leadership and the work that they have done in working with all the Members for what I think will be a very large scientific statement for America. I want to also thank the subcommittee ranking member and the subcommittee chair, as well, for their collegiality and their interest in moving NASA forward and the members who work on the committee and the subcommittee. I am very pleased to congratulate all who have had a part, also the staff, in this great coming together of not only reinforcing our commitment to space exploration but a recognition of the need for balance in the Nation's budget. I am very pleased to note the $10 billion for exploration systems and space operations and the continuing support of the international space station. And might I also thank my colleagues for being very sympathetic to the language that we included that deals specifically with the question of safety and the language that was added that provides for a review of NASA's safety management as well as a report on the use and dissemination of best practices, and expanded whistle- blower protection that allows those employees of NASA to be able to report without concern of recrimination on the issue of safety and the issue of health. Let me also thank my colleagues for accepting my language on creating the framework for a commission to investigate future U.S. space vehicle accidents as well as a task force to evaluate and report on international space safety. Again, I am very pleased that the international space station has been declared a national laboratory, because it was this kind of research that found us new advances in HIV/AIDS, stroke, and other diseases. And I guess my greatest appreciation is for the announcement of the Dr. Mae C. Jemison Grant Program to work with minority-serving institutions to bring more women of color into the field of space and aeronautics. Might I share with you that in a 2001 graph we saw that of the science and engineering doctorate holders 2.8 percent were black and 2.7 percent were Hispanic. And in engineering it was 1.8 percent black and 2.0 percent Hispanic. We want America's youth to find their way to engineering and the sciences. This program in the NASA organization will be a great step towards that. Many of us remember Dr. Mae Jemison. She blasted into orbit aboard the space shuttle Endeavour on September 12, 1992, making her the world's first woman of color to go into space and the city of Chicago's first astronaut in U.S. history. As a young girl and teenager, she was always interested in science, especially astronomy, and was encouraged by her parents and teachers to pursue not only her science studies but also dance and art. She went on to receive her bachelor of science in chemical engineering and a B.A. in Afro-American Studies from Stanford and her medical doctorate from Cornell University. She joined NASA in 1987. Dr. Jemison was quoted in Newsweek as saying, ``One of the things that I'm very concerned about is that as African Americans, as women, many times we do not feel we have the power to change the world and society as a whole.'' She certainly changed the world and society as a whole, along with Eileen Collins, who was one of the outstanding commanders that we had in the recent space flight. I believe this legislation will move us forward; and I would like to thank James Williams, my staff, and all the staff for the great work they have done. I ask my colleagues to enthusiastically support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in complete support of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 which authorizes funding for NASA for fiscal years 2008 and 2009, and among other things gives Congressional endorsement to the Vision for Space Exploration and authorizes. Before continuing I would like to first thank Members on both sides of the aisle and their staffs for all the hard work that went into making this bill a success. I am also pleased to see that in light of the limited time we have remaining in the year; we were able to move quickly on this bill. Let me take a moment to state that NASA is at a very pivotal moment in its history and therefore it is the responsibility of this Congress to ensure that the future of NASA is one of continued progress. After the tragic Columbia Space Shuttle accident the Science Committee and this Congress were forced to reevaluate NASA's purpose. I have stated that safety must be the number one priority of NASA; however this should not deter NASA from pushing the boundaries of technology and discovery. I feel confident that this Reauthorization bill addresses both safety and discovery in a comprehensive manner. I am also pleased to see that we were able to address a few issues of importance to me. Two of which are Whistleblower Protection for NASA employees and the creation of the Dr. Mae C. Jemison Grant Program to work with Minority Serving Institutions to bring more women of color into the field of space and aeronautics. In terms of Whistleblower Protections for NASA employees, it is important that we move forward in providing protection to NASA employees who present concerns about health and safety. During a hearing held in the Science Committee, Admiral Gehman and the Columbia Accident Investigation Board explained how fear of retaliation by management, had lead some engineers to stifle their concerns about the safety and well-being of NASA missions and crew. My Whistleblower language creates needed protections for NASA workers and sets forth certain specific reporting requirements for NASA. These two combined will help to bring about a safer and more productive NASA. In terms of Dr. Mae C. Jemison, the language in this bill would create a grant program named in honor of Dr. Mae Jemison blasted into orbit aboard the space shuttle Endeavour on September 12, 1992 making her the world's first woman of color to go into space, and the city of Chicago's first astronaut in U.S. history. As a young girl and teenager she was always interested in science, especially astronomy, and was encouraged by her parents and teachers to pursue not only her science studies, but also dance and art. She went on to receive her Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering and a BA in Afro-American Studies from Stanford and her medical doctorate from Cornell University she joined NASA in 1987. Jemison continues to serve as a role model to women and African Americans. She told Newsweek, ``One of the things that I'm very concerned about is that as African-Americans, as women, many times we do not feel that we have the power to change the world and society as a whole.'' With her life and accomplishments she has proven that idea truly wrong. While the bill only establishes the program, I look forward to working with appropriators when we return next year to fully fund this program. Before closing, I am also pleased to see that the bill requires NASA's Administrator to establish an independent task force to review the International Space Station program with the objective of discovering and assessing any vulnerabilities of the International Space Station that could lead to its destruction, compromise the health of its crew, or necessitate its premature abandonment. The independent task force shall, to the extent possible, undertake the following tasks: Catalogue threats to and vulnerabilities of the ISS, including design flaws, natural phenomena, computer software or hardware flaws, sabotage or terrorist attack, number of crewmembers, inability to adequately deliver replacement parts and supplies, and management or procedural deficiencies. Make recommendations for corrective actions. Provide any additional findings or recommendations related to ISS safety. Prepare a report to the Administrator, Congress, and the public. As I close and as a Member of the House Science Committee, I am honored to have been a part of this process and the successes achieved here today.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee for yielding. This is a bill that also focuses on science, and science has, over the years, been the economic engine of our Nation. The more we are at the cutting edge of science and the inventions that provide new opportunities for work, new opportunities for industry, we are advancing the economic opportunities of Americans. That is what is within this bill in many, many instances, beyond where the NASA centers are located. I want to thank, again, the chairman and the ranking member for working together and having the focus of this bill really be on science and all that we can produce through scientific research.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, our soldiers need us, and they need the funding and the support that an appropriations bill can give to them and their families. Not only the soldiers that are on the frontlines of Iraq and Afghanistan, but the many soldiers returning home and the enlisted personnel stateside along with their families. The Defense appropriations bill will provide a salary increase long overdue or at least needed again in these very difficult economic times. The bill will also provide and enhance improved health care for our soldiers. And recognizing that all Americans look forward to prosperity and a better way of life, I can assure you, in visiting with soldiers and families in my district, the limitations of their health care cries out for repair. Soldiers and their families are on limited opportunities for diverse health care, hospitals are limited, the care is limited; and certainly for those families who have elderly parents or dependents, family members who are ill, children who need health care, our soldiers' compensation and a bad health plan is a bad mixture for America. And so I would ask the conferees, as they make their way in gathering and moving this legislation to the floor, remember the people who need the Defense appropriations bill. It is not filled with politics, because those of us who have raised our voices for redeployment, peace, and a better way in Iraq still understand the importance of providing for our men and women in the United States military. This time around the Defense appropriation will be more than just the anchor for our military; it will be the anchor for those who have lost greatly in this last year. This will be the anchor for the Katrina survivors. And anyone who has interacted with them knows that they are not deadbeats. They are Americans who are simply looking not for a handout but for a helping hand. Thousands live in the 18th Congressional District in the city of Houston, and I applaud the mayor and the council members and other elected officials; and I applaud Americans in general for the outpouring of their generosity, and particular Houstonians. But we need your help. We need your help in helping FEMA continue its funding of apartment contracts that were supposed to be for 12 months and 18 months, otherwise we will see Katrina victims, their families and children dumped into the streets. We need the funding to continue to provide hotel compensation until February 7 or longer, or we will see Katrina survivors dumped into the streets. When I use the word ``Katrina,'' I really mean Americans, for the American Federal Government should be the safety net for all Americans in time of trouble. If we do not have the funding that we should have, we will see Katrina survivors stranded throughout America, 44 different States where they are located, with a one-way ticket to those States and no return ticket home. FEMA will provide that ticket with the continuing funding for them to return home to their States. Now we understand that Defense appropriations will have 527s, issues dealing with campaign funding. That is not a Defense bill. We also find out that in addition to the Katrina resources, we will be putting the development and the expiration of ANWR. Many of us are disagreeing with that. We believe in energy development, but we are disagreeing with going into ANWR, because we believe it has not been proven that that is a source of energy, other than, of course, an enhancement and opportunity for Alaska, one State. We applaud them for that, but there are many other resources that can be utilized to keep energy prices down. We can explore in the gulf. It has not been explored to the extent that it should be, and there is a welcoming attitude about the exploration in the gulf, not only for energy oil but also for gasoline or gas. Let me also say that there are still districts in the city of Houston that are in greet need of the funding that is in this bill. In the city of Houston, Houston Independent School District spends $186,000 a day for the additional visitors, or students, from Louisiana and Mississippi. We are in debt $30 million. We have 5,000 students. We welcome them. We want to teach them. We want to help them, but we need the support that is in this Defense appropriations bill. We want this bill to come to the floor, and certainly what we want most of all is to be able to have a free-standing bill to help our soldiers, our veterans to give them good health care, good housing, and good support. We want to be able to be the safety net for all Americans in time of tragedy, provide for the Katrina survivors, the Wilma survivors, the Rita survivors to be able to have school in the place where they do not live; and we want most of all to be able to have housing and the travel trailers to get where they have to go. Let us get the bill on the floor. Let us do what America needs us to do. Let us provide a safety net for America.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman's argument, but I think that the American people would be somewhat surprised that a prosecutorial system, a Federal system, picks and chooses who they will prosecute. We have laws on the books to prosecute these individuals. We have laws on the books to prevent them from coming into the United States. It is all a question of resources. How do we use our resources? In this bill, we do not have sufficient dollars for prosecutors, for court systems, for detention systems and for jails. And are the American people asking for us to bear the burden of undocumented criminals that will be here for 25 years and how many long years and we pay the bill for them? I think not. We should be focusing today on comprehensive immigration reform. We should be focusing on putting resources at the border, the northern and southern border, so that, in fact, as we do so, we prevent these people from coming into the United States. I believe that the best defense is offense. And I believe that homeland security starts at the border. Here we are talking about closing the barn door after the fact. And so, yes, I agree with the gentleman. We all should be against those who perpetrate crimes of violence, those who are drug traffickers and, unfortunately, happen to be illegal aliens. But ask the Federal Government whose responsibility it is, the Justice Department, the Homeland Security Department, why they have been ineffective in enforcing our laws at the border and internally in terms of individuals who have perpetrated crimes? These mandatory minimums are burdensome. They are expensive to us, and we do not have the system in place to prosecute. But I would admonish our prosecutorial system that it is certainly unfortunate to tell Americans, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) has said, that we pick and choose how we prosecute, and so we let people go when we should be prosecuting. Maybe we might save lives if we would prosecute. Mandatory minimums are extremely expensive. And just as an example, as I close, the cost of fighting crime in the United States for police, prisons and courts rose to a record $167 billion in 2001, $20 billion more than was spent on the criminal justice system in 1999. My only point is that this will go up and up and up, and now this gentleman is adding more cost. I hope my colleagues will recognize that we are interested in crime fighting as well, but we need to put the blame where it needs to be put. We have failed in the immigration process and enforcement, and that is where we need to put more resources. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting Chairman. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I cite to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) that I do not think there would be a divide on your legislation, because all of us believe that criminals should have a fast track to a point where they are not doing others any harm. But I do have problems with this legislation. It poses a number of problems. It creates three new mandatory-minimum criminal penalties and one new death penalty. But I think the biggest concern that I have is the fact that they are in the country and the fact that they have been able to get in the country because we failed as a Federal Government to do the job that we are supposed to do. We have already received Ds and Fs from the 9/11 Commission's report on the work that we should be doing. For your information, we already have a criminal offense for immigrants who enter the country illegally. But there is no enforcement, because there are no resources. So to try to enhance it from the back door, with new mandatory minimums, with death penalties, with 5-year mandatory minimums, with 15-year mandatory minimums, just simply says, we failed. We are not going to stand here and advocate for drug dealers and those who use fraudulent documents, and might I just say that I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for joining me in supporting an amendment that was offered about fraudulent documents and creating a singular database. But frankly, I wish that we could join together in comprehensive immigration reform so that the enforcement against those who enter illegally would start where it was supposed to be, which would be at the border. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time. Might I just say that I have started this debate by suggesting that everyone who comes to this floor comes with good intentions and certainly comes charged with the responsibility of securing the borders. Again, there is no divide amongst Americans about the importance of securing the homeland. And, frankly, the eloquence of Mr. Hastings on reminding us of our original roots that the Statue of Liberty represents to this Nation, that we come from many walks of life. And some have, as we well know, come to this Nation in fishing boats or walked across various lands or may have flown here, and some of us came in slave boats. But we are all Americans now, and we should be united around the concept of security. But we should not be united around the concept of divisiveness. So when you poll Americans or ask constituents in the district, they again want comprehensive immigration reform because so many of them, short of our Native Americans, can track their history from places away from this soil. So I would ask my good friends why they would put a rule in that does not bring the diversity of this Congress, four Democratic amendments as opposed to a wide diversity of issues. Why, for example, do they insist on forcing local governments into utilizing hard-pressed resources for doing the Federal Government's work, immigration work? That is our work to do. Why do they insist on forcing law enforcement to take precious resources away from protecting children and going after bank robbers and making sure the crime statistics go down by arresting hotel maids in hotels? And it is important to recognize that they have amendments that would take away the very essence of the Constitution, which abides and believes in due process and the right to access the courts. We cannot dictate what the courts will say, but I think if you will ask any American, they would find it faulty that they do not allow people to petition to go into the courts. What about those babies who have come here at 6 months old, and you criminalize them when they are 17-year-old honor students and simply want to be part of the American Dream? So this legislation is missing because Americans understand the concept of earned access to legalization. Get the criminals out of here. We join you in that. Arrest the criminals. Arrest the drug dealers. Arrest the people that are not doing what they should do. But those who are working hard, paying taxes, should have an opportunity to be able to be part of this great American dream. And, Mr. Speaker, what about the soldiers on the battle line who are seeking citizenship, but have undocumented relatives, offering their lives for Americans and the undocumented relatives which they seek to bring into status, are now criminalized and arrested and incarcerated simply for their presence in the United States? So I hope, as we proceed, we will find ways to defeat these amendments. And I ask that we defeat the underlying bill.