Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much for yielding me this time. And might I thank Mr. Sensenbrenner because, as I said in the Rules Committee, I believe, between the ranking chairman of the Judiciary Committee and certainly the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, there are a lot of good intentions. But, frankly, I think it is overwhelming to expect that, in this short period of time, that we can answer all of the concerns of the American people and answer the question of 20 years of shortsighted enforcement-only legislation to address this question of the enormity of illegal and undocumented individuals but, in particular, to address the question of security. That is the underpinning of this border security bill, and that is where I believe that we have a number of failures. The American people have polled repeatedly on one concept. That is whether or not they consider the immigration question a crisis worthy of our attention. But when they are asked about solutions, they specifically suggest the idea of comprehensive immigration reform. Strong enforcement at the border, which many legislative initiatives offered by Kolbe and Gutierrez, offered by members of the Homeland Security Committee, offered in Judiciary, offered by H.R. 4044, the Rapid Response Border Protection bill, all had reasonable responses, enforcement and earned access to immigration. But allow me to tell my colleagues why this particular bill is going to fall on its own weight and, as I heard someone say, the wheels are going to fall off, unless we turn back the bill and work together. It is important to note that as we stand here on the floor today, there are members of the United States military on the frontlines of Iraq and Afghanistan whose family members are undocumented. We have a program that many of us supported that would allow those who are on the frontlines of Iraq to become documented, legal permanent residents. In fact, we heard a story of a young man who was killed on his way to get fingerprinted, tragically. But it allows them to be able to be documented, and they can then access legalization for their family members. While they are on the frontlines of Iraq, the very presence of their grandmother, their mother, their sister or their father will allow them to be incarcerated as a felon under this bill, will allow them to be detained under this bill. And then you want to ask the employers of America, who I believe should be responsible for who they hire, not to verify people whom they may question, and that means that they will think that anyone with a name that sounds unlike American should be verified. That will be close to 146 million persons who are currently employed and then 54 million persons who are eligible for employment. The basic pilot program will fall under its own weight. Why? Because the technology is not yet able to document and detail whether one name that has a particular sounding name is equal to the other name. Our technology does not equal that kind of competence at this point. And we have not answered the question of the funding because we require mandatory detention. The question is what kind of resources will be utilized. There are many elements to this bill that we could find common ground on, and those are the technology aspects. I believe there should be more in there to provide for our Border Patrol agents, the equipment, the night goggles, the computers that we have been saying they need over and over again, the helicopters, power boats and training. But that, unfortunately, was not allowed in this legislation. So, Mr. Chairman, as I conclude, might I thank those who have done the heavy lifting, might I thank the work that the Hispanic Caucus has done on behalf of all immigrants or individuals that may be undocumented. I value the fact that we as a Congress have been charged with the responsibility of securing America. Criminalizing undocumented hotel workers and restaurant workers does not do the job. Let us turn this bill back so that we will have an opportunity to work in a bipartisan manner. I rise in support of my Rapid Response Border Protection Amendment, H.R. 4044, to the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, H.R. 4437, and against the underlining bill as it is presently drafted. H.R. 4437 has a substantial number of provisions that would increase border security, but it is lacking in one very important respect. It does not provide the Border Patrol with the equipment and resources that it needs to secure the border. My amendment would address that deficiency. For instance, aircraft and watercraft are invaluable tools for spotting people illegally crossing our borders and for assisting in their apprehension. They also are essential for rescue operations when people crossing the border need emergency assistance. The Secretary of the Homeland Security Department would be required to increase the number of Border Patrol helicopters by at least 100 and to increase the number of Border Patrol powerboats by at least 250. The Border Patrol currently suffers from a severe shortage of serviceable, police-type vehicles. In many locations, agents have to wait for vehicles to be brought in from the field by other agents on the previous shift before they can begin their duties. The Secretary would be required to establish a fleet of such motor vehicles of at least one vehicle per every three Border Patrol agents. The lack of portable computers precludes Border Patrol agents from utilizing biometric databases in the field. This results in inadequate checks being performed before suspects are released. The Secretary would be required to ensure that each police-type motor vehicle in the Border Patrol's fleet is equipped with a portable computer with access to all necessary law enforcement databases. Smugglers and other criminals historically have used the cover of darkness to cross our borders. Although technology that enables the user to see at night has been available for many years, it is not readily available to all of the Border Patrol agents, and the Border Patrol is one of the few law enforcement agencies that conducts most of its operations in remote areas during the hours of darkness. The Secretary would be required to ensure that sufficient quantities of state-of-the-art night vision equipment are provided for every Border Patrol agent who works during the hours of darkness. Body armor is a relatively inexpensive piece of protective equipment that has saved the lives of countless law enforcement officers. The Secretary would be required to ensure that every Border Patrol agent is issued high-quality body armor that is appropriate for the climate and risks faced by the individual officers. Currently, fewer than 11,000 Border Patrol agents are responsible for patrolling more than 8,000 miles of land and coastal borders. Because of the need to provide continuous, around-the-clock coverage, no more than 25 percent of those agents are securing our borders at any given time. That averages one Border Patrol agent every 3 miles. A substantial increase in personnel is desperately needed. The Secretary would be required to hire an additional 10,000 agents. Recruitment and retention problems make it difficult to maintain a large force of experienced Border Patrol agents. One of the key difficulties in this regard is the fact that the pay lags behind that of many other law enforcement officers. The amendment would address this problem by requiring the Secretary to raise the base pay for all journey-level Border Patrol agents to a GS-13 level. Nonimmigrant S visas are available for aliens who assist the Government with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal organization or a terrorist organization. The amendment would establish a third category for aliens who assist the United States Government with the investigation or prosecution of a commercial alien smuggling organization or an organization engaged in the sale or production of fraudulent documents to be used for entering or remaining in the United States unlawfully. A protection program would be available for informants who need it. A rewards program would be established for encouraging informants to assist in the elimination or disruption of commercial alien smuggling operations or an organization engaged in the sale or production of fraudulent documents to be used for entering or remaining in the United States unlawfully. A protection program would be available if needed. Those who object to the cost of H.R. 4044 need to recall the enormous costs, not just in monetary terms, of the last terrorist attacks. 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. I urge you to vote for this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I join my many colleagues, many victims of terrorism, and many victims of racial and religious profiling in opposing this legislation, H.R. 3199, for several reasons. First, we never have been given the facts necessary to fully evaluate the operation of the underlying bill, the USA PATRIOT Act. Second, there are numerous provisions in both the expiring and other sections of the PATRIOT Act that have little to do with combating terrorism, intrude on our privacy and civil liberties, and have been subject to repeated abuse and misuse by the Justice Department. Third, the legislation does nothing to address the many unilateral civil rights and civil liberties abuses by the administration since the September 11 attacks. Finally, the bill does not provide law enforcement with any additional real and meaningful tools necessary to help our Nation prevail in the war against terrorism. Since 2002, 389 communities and 7 States have passed resolutions opposing parts of the PATRIOT Act, representing over 62 million people. Additionally, numerous groups ranging the political spectrum have come forward to oppose certain sections of the PATRIOT Act and to demand that Congress conduct more oversight on its use, including the American Civil Liberties Union, American Conservative Union, American Immigration Lawyers Association, American Library Association, Center for Constitutional Rights, Center for Democracy and Technology, Common Cause, Free Congress Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People--NAACP, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, People for the American Way, and numerous groups concerned about immigrants' rights. I sit as ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. Of particular concern to me are a number of immigration-related provisions that cast such a broad net to allow for the detention and deportation of people engaging in innocent associational activity and constitutionally protected speech and that permit the indefinite detention of immigrants and noncitizens who are not terrorists. Among these troubling provisions are those that: Authorize the Attorney General, AG, to arrest and detain noncitizens based on mere suspicion, and require that they remain in detention ``irrespective of any relief they may be eligible for or granted.'' (In order to grant someone relief from deportation, an immigration judge must find that the person is not a terrorist, a criminal, or someone who has engaged in fraud or misrepresentation. When relief from deportation is granted, no person should be subject to continued detention based merely on the Attorney General's unproven suspicions. Require the AG to bring charges against a person who has been arrested and detained as a ``certified'' terrorist suspect within 7 days, but the law does not require that those charges be based on terrorism-related offenses. As a result, an alien can be treated as a terrorist suspect despite being charged with only a minor immigration violation, and may never have his or her day in court to prove otherwise. Make material support for groups that have not been officially designated as ``terrorist organizations'' a deportable offense. Under this law, people who make innocent donations to charitable organizations that are secretly tied to terrorist activities would be presumed guilty unless they can prove they are innocent. Restrictions on material support should be limited to those organizations that have officially been designated terrorist organizations. Deny legal permanent residents readmission to the U.S. based solely on speech protected by the first amendment. The laws punish those who ``endorse,'' ``espouse,'' or ``persuade others to support terrorist activity or terrorist organizations.'' Rather than prohibiting speech that incites violence or criminal activity, these new grounds of inadmissibility punish speech that ``undermines the United States'' efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activity.'' This language is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and will undeniably have a chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech. Authorize the AG and the Secretary of State to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and block any noncitizen who belongs to them from entering the country. Under this provision, the mere payment of membership dues is a deportable offense. This vague and overly broad language constitutes guilt by association. Our laws should punish people who commit crimes, not punish people based on their beliefs or associations. In addition, the current administration has taken some deeply troubling steps since September 11. Along with supporting the USA PATRIOT Act, it has initiated new policies and practices that negate fundamental due process protections and jeopardize basic civil liberties for noncitizens in the United States. These constitutionally dubious initiatives undermine our historical commitment to the fair treatment of every individual before the law and do not enhance our security. Issued without congressional consultation or approval, these new measures include regulations that increase secrecy, limit accountability, and erode important due process principles that set our Nation apart from other countries. I cosponsored the Civil Liberties Restoration Act, CLRA, reintroduced from the 108th Congress by Representatives Howard Berman and William Delahunt, that seeks to roll back some of these egregious post-9/11 policies and to strike an appropriate balance between security needs and liberty interests. The CLRA would secure due process protections and civil liberties for noncitizens in the U.S., enhance the effectiveness of our Nation's enforcement activities, restore the confidence of immigrant communities in the fairness of our government, and facilitate our efforts at promoting human rights and democracy around the world. While every step must be taken to protect the American public from further terrorist acts, our government must not trample on the Constitution in the process and on those basic rights and protections that make American democracy so unique. My ``safe havens'' amendment that relates to the civil forfeiture provision of 18 U.S.C. 981 and would add a section that would allow civil plaintiffs to attach judgments to collect compensory damages for which a terrorist organization has been adjudged liable, fortunately, was included in the text of the conference report as section 127: It is the sense of Congress that under section 981 of title 18, United States Code, victims of terrorists attacks should have access to the assets forfeited. This language seeks to allow victims of terrorism who obtain civil judgment for damages caused in connection with the acts to attach foreign or domestic assets held by the United States Government under 18 U.S.C. 981(G). Section 981(G) calls for the forfeiture of all assets, foreign or domestic, of any individual, entity, or organization that has engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States. The legislation, H.R. 3199, as drafted, fails to deal with the current limitation on the ability to enforce civil judgments by victims and family members of victims of terrorist offenses. There are several examples of how the current administration has sought to bar victims from satisfying judgments obtained against the government of Iran, for example. In the Sobero case, a U.S. national was beheaded by Abu Sayyaf, an AI-Qaeda affiliate, leaving his children fatherless. The administration responded to this incident by sending 1,000 Special Forces officers to track down the perpetrators, and the eldest child of the victim was invited to the State of the Union Address. Abu Sayyaf's funds have been seized and are held by the U.S. Treasury at this time. The family of the victim should have access to those funds, at the very least, at the President's discretion. Similarly, the administration barred the Iran hostages that were held from 1979 to 1981 from satisfying their judgment against Iran. In 2000, the party filed a suit against Iran under the terrorist state exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. While a Federal district court held Iran to be liable, the U.S. Government intervened and argued that the case should be dismissed because Iran had not been designated a terrorist state at the time of the hostage incident and because of the Algiers Accords--that led to the release of the hostages, which required the U.S. to bar the adjudication of suits arising from that incident. As a result, those hostages received no compensation for their suffering. Similarly, American servicemen who were harmed in a Libyan sponsored bombing of the La Belle disco in Germany were obstructed from obtaining justice for the terrorist acts they suffered. While victims of the attack pursued settlement of their claims against the Libyan government, the administration lifted sanctions against Libya without requiring as a condition the determination of all claims of American victims of terrorism. As a result of this action, Libya abandoned all talks with the claimants. Furthermore, because Libya was no longer considered a state sponsor of terrorism, the American service men and women and their families were left without recourse to obtain justice. The La Belle victims received no compensation for their suffering. In addition, a group of American prisoners who were tortured in Iraq during the Persian Gulf war were barred from collecting their judgment from the Iraqi government. Although the 17 veterans won their case in the District Court of the District of Columbia, the administration argued that the Iraqi assets should remain frozen in a U.S. bank account to aid in the reconstruction of Iraq. Claiming that the judgment should be overturned, the administration deems that rebuilding Iraq is more important than recompensing the suffering of fighter pilots who, during their 12-year imprisonment, suffered beatings, bums, and threats of dismemberment. Finally, the World Trade Center victims were barred from obtaining judgment against the Iraqi government. In their claim against the Iraqi government, the victims were awarded $64 million against Iraq in connection with the September 2001 attacks. However, they were rebuffed in their efforts to attach the vested Iraqi assets. While the judgment was sound, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's finding that the Iraqi assets, now transferred to the U.S. Treasury, were protected by U.S. sovereign immunity and were unavailable for judicial attachment. While the PATRIOT Act may not deserve all of the ridicule that is heaped against it, there is little doubt that the legislation has been repeatedly and seriously misused by the Justice Department. Consider the following: It's been used more than 150 times to secretly search an individual's home, with nearly 90 percent of those cases having had nothing to do with terrorism. It was used against Brandon Mayfield, an innocent Muslim American, to tap his phones, seize his property, copy his computer, spy on his children, and take his DNA, all without his knowledge. It's been used to deny, on account of his political beliefs, the admission to the United States of a Swiss citizen and prominent Muslim scholar to teach at Notre Dame University. Its been used to unconstitutionally coerce an internet service provider to divulge information about e-mail activity and web surfing on its system, and then to gag that provider from even disclosing the abuse to the public. Because of gag restrictions, we will never know how many times its been used to obtain reading records from library and book stores, but we do know that libraries have been solicited by the Department of Justice--voluntarily or under threat of the PATRIOT Act--for reader information on more than 200 occasions since September 11. It's been used to charge, detain and prosecute a Muslim student in Idaho for posting internet website links to objectionable materials, even though the same links were available on the U.S. Government's website. Even worse than the PATRIOT Act has been the unilateral abuse of power by the administration. Since September 11, our government has detained and verbally and physically abused thousands of immigrants without time limit, for unknown and unspecified reasons, and targeted tens of thousands of Arab-Americans for intensive interrogations and immigration screenings. All this serves to accomplish is to alienate Muslim and Arab-Americans--the key groups to fighting terrorism in our own county--who see a Justice Department that has institutionalized racial and ethnic profiling, without the benefit of a single terrorism conviction. Nor is it helpful when our government condones the torture of prisoners at home and abroad, authorizes the monitoring of mosques and religious sites without any indication of criminal activity, and detains scores of individuals as material witnesses because it does not have evidence to indict them. This makes our citizens less safe not more safe, and undermines our role as a beacon of democracy and freedom. Right now, H.R. 3199 is the most appropriate and timely vehicle in which to address this issue and allow U.S. victims of terrorism to obtain justice from terrorist-supporting or terrorist-housing nations. Madam Speaker, I oppose this legislation and ask that my colleagues work to negotiate real fixes to the sunsetted provisions.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me time. Coming from Texas, we well know the importance and the excitement around NASCAR drivers and NASCAR participants and those who enjoy the excitement of this sport. And so I rise to briefly salute the sport. Being from Texas, I can assure you that there are thousands and thousands of fans to pay tribute to Mr. Stewart, who has been winning races since the age of 18. His record of being one of the triple crown winners in all three USAC major divisions, the National Midget, Sprint and Silver Crown, means that he is part of a growing and exciting sport. So it gives me great pleasure to join my colleagues as well and to support this initiative, H. Res. 587, to honor and salute him. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to join my colleagues on the floor of the House as the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) brought forward H. Con. Res. 315, which really speaks to the sensitivities of being an American. And that is the urging of the President to issue a proclamation for the observance of an American Jewish History Month. I think it makes America better when we understand each other's history. We all come from diverse communities and certainly have grown up understanding the importance of the American Jewish community and also the importance of the relationship between Israel and the United States and the contributions that those who come from throughout Europe and other places around the world of Jewish heritage who have now come to America and made some great contribution, whether it is medicine, politics, academics, science. We know that the American Jewish community has had an enormous history and impact on America. We also know, as a member of the broad American psyche, that the American Jewish community certainly has been a leader in the civil rights efforts of all Americans. It was very much the American Jewish community that worked alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, who understood the importance of the freedom of speech and the freedom of the first amendment. And so I think that this resolution that Ms. Wasserman Schultz offered on the floor of the House, H. Con. Res. 315, should draw the support of all of our colleagues. It makes America whole. It makes America embracing when we acknowledge and understand the history of all Americans. Allow me to conclude, as I listened to the debate as I was in another meeting, regarding H. Res. 579, regarding the symbols of Christmas, I do not think there is anything one can say other than we are a great country because we do have diversity and faith, diversity in background. I listened to the debate, although I could not join it as I was in meetings, but I think the simple premise should be that we welcome the freedom to worship and celebrate as our faiths and our cultures dictate. There are so many good wishes that we could offer during this season. Just a few weeks ago was Ramadan, and certainly, we can wish many others happy Chanukah, and certainly, there are those who celebrate and commemorate and praise the name of Christmas in the spirit of merry Christmas. I know that some thought H. Res. 579 was a bill that needed to be brought to the floor, but what I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that none of my constituents has ever approached me to suggest that we should stop saying Merry Christmas or anyone has ever been offended because I might have said happy holidays and they celebrate Christmas. So why do I not conclude, it seems this may be a vote on the House, to say that I will enthusiastically vote for this bill, but at the same time, I am going to offer to this body that we should be respecting of the different faiths of many different people. And hopefully, by casting a vote for this initiative, H. Res. 579, we will not be casting a vote for discrimination or offense to anyone, but we really will be saying that however you express yourself, we welcome it. There should be many more bills like this or it should have been a comprehensive bill. But I simply close my remarks by thanking the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his leadership, thanking the sponsor for the original underlying bill honoring Mr. Stewart, H. Res. 587, congratulating the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) on the urging of the President to issue a proclamation for the observance of American Jewish History Month. I conclude by saying Merry Christmas, happy holidays and Happy New Year.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Michigan, and I thank you for yielding and convening us on the floor of the House to have an opportunity to be part of the celebration and the honoring of our friend and colleague, John Dingell, for 50 years of service. I have not had the privilege of serving as a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and so I cannot give testimony to the privilege and the pleasure and the excitement of that room on the first floor in the Rayburn Building. I do know that the fireworks are strong and the leadership is strong because John Dingell is in the room. I do, however, have the memories of Mickey Leland, who made it very well known of the excitement he had in having the opportunity to serve on such an important committee and serve alongside of John Dingell. It was a great step up for the Congressman, and he did great works alongside of John Dingell as a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. And so, yes, I came here longing after the opportunity to serve on that committee, knowing about John Dingell's leadership and the great things that could be done. But I am very glad to say that I serve alongside him just down the hall on the Committee on the Judiciary. And even without any membership on that committee, I come here today to cite the kind of counsel that John Dingell gives to Members, whether it is a minute amendment or a question of an issue going on in his committee or the sharing of his staff to answer questions. I want you to know, Congressman Dingell, thank you for being a counsel to many Members, whether they served with you in their committee or they just walked past the hall that you are in and are concerned about those issues. I also want to thank John Dingell and make mention of the fact that his 50 years saw a lot of tumultuous times, and those times included the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voter Rights Act. Those were difficult times, and no matter whether you were a Member from a northern State or a southern State, there was a great controversy of whether or not you would support that kind of legislation. Might I say that John Dingell's courage in standing up to maybe even the obstacles and opposition in his own district, being a vigorous and vibrant supporter of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voter Rights Bill really gives cause and a basis for me standing here today. For out of that vote that you have made was the creation of what we call majority-minority districts which allowed the maiden holder of this seat, the Honorable Barbara Jordan, to come to Congress as the first African American woman and African American elected to Congress after Reconstruction from the State of Texas. That was not an easy vote or an easy debate, and those of us who read the history of that debate realize that there was a lot of cajoling and encouraging and sacrifices to be made. As well I want to thank Congressman Dingell for another tough time that came along during this recent time in Congress, and that, of course, was the Enron tragedy. I was a Member of the Congress but, of course, not a member of the committee, but of course, Enron was in my congressional district. I went to my ranking member, who I call Chairman DIINGELL, and inquired as to whether or not I could be allowed to sit on the panel as the Enron proceedings began. It was a crowded room, a lot of Members, and he could have easily said it was just simply untenable at the time. Knowing how important it was to our constituents in Houston, many of whom had been laid off, I want to thank you again, Mr. Dingell, for recognizing the important issues to Members, embracing them and creating a pathway of opportunity. So, as I rise this evening to be able to cite you for the 50 years and congratulate you, might I thank you for the personal counsel and concern you take on Members' progress and growth and opportunity. Might I thank you for paving the way for sometimes a difficult road, sharing with us maybe the opportunity to pass an amendment or give insight to an issue, albeit we might be on that particular committee and a very powerful committee. Again, as I met with my senior citizens over this past weekend, talking about the Medicare enrollment part D, I was so proud to be associated with a man who understood what Medicare is supposed to be, the real safety net for senior citizens, something they understand, applaud and appreciate, something that has helped save lives. For many of my seniors, when I asked the question, had they enrolled in Medicare part D or did they understand it, maybe one hand raised in the room. As I asked them whether they had enrolled already, with only a few days before the deadline for them to be covered on January 1, as I looked at their eyes, I was glad to be part of the Dingell plan, who understood the right kind of benefit, a guaranteed prescription drug benefit, that you led the fight on, that someday I know we will have. So, Mr. Dingell, you have had 50 years. It may seem like a long time, but I know it has been made lighter by having a wonderful partner like Debbie Dingell alongside of you. Although she handles many of the spouse issues, she is a friend to many of us who are Members of the United States Congress. Her insight and understanding and friendship have certainly been appreciated by all of us. So I think you all make a dynamic duo, a dynamite duo, if you will, and I thank you both for your service to this country. Thank you, Mr. Conyers, for giving me the opportunity to salute our friend. Of course, what I say to him, you are a great American. Certainly a hero, and thank you again for the contributions you make to this great institution, and thank you for allowing us to understand that it is, in fact, a dignified and sacred institution and all who walk into this chamber must show it the respect that you have shown for the years of your service. God bless you as He blesses America. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this proposed resolution, ``Honoring Rep. John Dingell on his 50 years of service to the United States House of Representatives and the people of Michigan.'' Only two members in the history of the House of Representatives have served longer than our friend, Mr. Dingell. It is almost hard to believe that he has served his country and his fine state of Michigan in this House for 50 years to the day. This is especially difficult for me because I could have sworn he doesn't look a day over 40 years old! Over the last five decades, Congressman Dingell has been a steadfast champion of healthcare. At the beginning of every Congress, Congressman Dingell introduces the same bill to the House floor, providing for a national health insurance system. This bill was authored by his father many years ago when he was serving in Congress. Congressman Dingell also remains vigilant in his pursuit of a United States Patients' Bill of Rights. Mr. Dingle's bill would ensure patients' care is in the hands of doctors. Aside from fighting for better health care for this country, Dingell may be best known as one the most committed protectors of our environment, being himself an avid hunter and outdoorsman. Perhaps one of his most famous of his bills is the 1990 Clean Air Act, which ensures cleaner air for our children tomorrow by encouraging responsible stewardship of our air quality today. He also fought for the passage of such landmark legislation such as the Endangered Species Act. John Dingell, Dean of the House, is a giant among men. His resume reads as one of the great stories of this past century, but five decades of service in the House has not slowed Mr. Dingell down one bit. If one man could embody all that is great about this Institution of ours, John Dingell is that man. For half a century, he has resolutely left his mark on some of the most important legislation of our time. He tirelessly and tenaciously serves the interests of his constituents, and of average citizens across the United States. Quite simply, his enduring presence in the House of Representatives has made the United States a better place for all of us. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Congressman John Dingell for his 50 years of service and devotion to his country he loves so much. We all look forward to many more years of sharing the Halls of Congress with this great man.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation before us, H.R. 1400, the Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2005. I thank the distinguished chairman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner for his thoughtful inclusion of a definition of the term ``laser pointer'' at my suggestion. This bipartisan gesture is very important to the crafting of comprehensive and conscientious criminal measures. I kept my strict constitutionalist hat on and remained mindful to the fact that legislation should be as narrowly tailored as possible-- especially with respect to exacting criminal penalties. I understand that since 1990, there have been more than 400 incidents proscribed in this bill and more than 100 since November 2004. Furthermore, I understand the relative threat that the act proscribed in this bill poses for pilots--FAA research has shown that laser illuminations can temporarily disorient or disable a pilot during critical stages of flight such as landing or take-off, and in some cases, may cause permanent damage. This legislation could provide the legislative fix. I thank the chairman for his effort to address my concern with potential vagueness in its provisions. Mr. Speaker, for the above reasons, I do support this legislation.

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 Reconciliation Act. It is very important to understand this piece of legislation within the big picture the Republicans are painting here. Just last month, 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 to Medicaid, 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 actually add $86 billion dollars to the deficit over the next 5 years. This proposed tax cut will not help the poor and middle class, either. An estimated forty percent of the tax cuts will go to families with incomes of $1 million or more, and 84 percent of the major tax cuts in this bill will go to the richest 20 percent of families. In fact, under this bill, over 17 million middle class Americans will face a tax increase next year from the Alternative Minimum Tax (the AMT)! An important aspect of this bill is the House's failure to adequately address the AMT. The Alternative Minimum Tax 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. The senate bill provides $30 billion for AMT relief to the middle class, while the House Republican leadership could only find $2.8 billion for this cause. Republicans couldn't find the money to adequately pay for AMT relief for the middle class. They can't find any money for tax relief for those affected by hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast. Last month, the Republicans couldn't find the money to spare the elderly from Medicaid cuts, to spare the students from loan increases, or spare our children from child care cuts. They couldn't find the money because they are choosing to extend the dividend and capital gains tax cuts for the richest in our country. 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. Mr. Speaker, the decision to vote up or down on this legislation isn't a blurry line involving political ideology; it isn't a debate of Republican vs. Democratic philosophy. The priorities in this bill are misguided. Congress should not be providing additional tax breaks for the rich less than a month after huge spending cuts aimed at the most vulnerable. Congress should not be providing tax cuts for the rich in a time of war! 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, and I implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against these unreasonable cuts and instead consider the revenue neutral Democratic alternative.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, because the Republican tax bill raises the deficit $3 trillion and because of the valuable aspect of the substitute deductions for State and local retail taxes and other provisions for working Americans, I rise in support of the substitute and oppose the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, we have before us a very important piece of legislation, H.R. 4297, the Tax Reconciliation Act. It is very important to understand this piece of legislation within the big picture the republicans are painting here. Just last month, 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 to Medicaid, 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 actually add $86 billion dollars to the deficit over the next 5 years. This proposed tax cut will not help the poor and middle class, either. An estimated 40 percent of the tax cuts will go to families with incomes of $1 million or more, and 84 percent of the major tax cuts in this bill will go to the richest 20 percent of families. In fact, under this bill, over 17 million middle class Americans will face a tax increase next year from the Alternative Minimum Tax (the AMT)! An important aspect of this bill is the House's failure to adequately address the AMT. The Alternative Minimum Tax was enacted over 35 years ago enacted 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 extra burden to middle class taxpayers at an alarming rate. The senate bill provides $30 billion for AMT relief to the middle class, while the House republican leadership could only find $2.8 billion for this cause. Republicans couldn't find the money to adequately pay for AMT relief for the middle class. They can't find any money for tax relief for those affected by hurricane Katrina in the gulf coast. Last month, Republicans couldn't find the money to spare the elderly from Medicaid cuts, to spare the students from loan increases, or spare our children from child care cuts. They couldn't find the money because they are choosing to extend the dividend and capital gains tax cuts for the richest in our country. They also choose 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. The Democrats have instead offered an amendment in the form of the substitute that is much more fiscally responsible and equitable. The Democratic Substitute extends 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. This will reduce the number of individuals that pay the AMT next year by 16 million people, to just over 3 million people. This provision would cost about $45 billion dollars, but 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. The Democratic substitute, unlike the Republican option, is a fiscally responsible bill that goes to help those who really need it instead of the very rich. Mr. Speaker, the decision to vote up or down on this legislation isn't a blurry line involving political ideology; it isn't a debate of Republican vs. Democratic philosophy. The priorities in the republican bill are misguided. Congress should not be providing additional tax breaks for the rich less than a month after 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, and I implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against these unreasonable cuts and instead consider the revenue neutral Democratic alternative.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise here today to express my support for H.R. 196 that recognize the 140th anniversary of the thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery in the United States. I applaud my colleague from Oakland, California, for her hard work on this resolution because of the efforts that have been made to ensure that the Thirteenth Amendment is respected in practice. There were many examples of seemingly deliberate attempts to bypass the 13th Amendment regarding slavery. For example, in Texas in 1867, African-Americans constituted about one third of the convicts in state penitentiaries. However, about 90 percent of those inmates were leased out for cheap railroad labor. Apprenticeship laws also were embraced with increasing vigor throughout the South. In some States, such as Maryland and North Carolina, courts ordered African American children to be bound for labor to white ``employers'' without the permission or knowledge of the children's parents. Records compiled by the Freedmen's Bureau in those States indicate a virtual deluge of requests for assistance in obtaining the freedom of children enslaved through ``lawful'' State- court action. Of course, the State-court actions in these cases were inconsistent with Federal law, and the resulting involuntary servitude of these children was a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. As founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I assert that it is critical for the future of our children that we preserve the spirit of this Constitutional Amendment, for history has shown that children have been vulnerable in the past. As members of Congress, we must ensure that this milestone in American history is recognized and celebrated. I am pleased to stand with my colleagues by being an original co-sponsor of this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, over the last 48 hours a number of us had the displeasure of reading in The Washington Post an article detailing the antics of the process of redistricting in the State of Texas. Many of us who were engaged in that process a good year or two years ago remember sitting down and presenting a very fair case to the Justice Department lawyers that the plan that was offered by Texas Republicans would undermine the Voting Rights Act and be discriminatory. Lo and behold, though we presented a very fair case, and the Justice Department lawyers agreed with us and wrote accordingly, what came out of the Justice Department was completely different. I cannot imagine any greater abuse of power than what happened in the Texas redistricting plan, where the lawyers for the Justice Department, civil servants who did their work and indicated that the plan would violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965, were not allowed to prevail. I would ask the Attorney General present now to investigate what occurred with respect to the Texas redistricting plan. We all know politics are in play, but they should not be in play in the works of our various executive agencies to provide the truth to the American people.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me share with you the real facts of this trade bill; and let me thank Mr. Cardin, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Rangel for really doing the heavy lifting which has created an opportunity for real debate on a good trade bill. There are concerns that my colleagues have raised about this trade bill, but I think there are provisions and there are reasons for us to give an open and free flowing discussion to a vital partner that we have had for many, many years. It is important to note that Bahrain is predominantly a manufacturing country. Its products include oil products and aluminum products, and we know for sure it has lessened its involvement in textiles. But what most Members do not know is that 80 percent of the investment of this country has been invested in the United States. That raises my interest. It is invested in real estate, in banking and other opportunities. I like trade bills that create jobs and I want to thank my friends in the labor movement who have raised concerns about child employment, about provisions that should be protecting unions and protecting workers. I am concerned about the fact that most of these provisions are in the side letters. It is unfortunate when the Republican administration sat down to negotiate with Bahrain, they did not sit down and create the intelligent and forward-thinking provisions that are in the letters created by the Democratic Ways and Means members. But these letters, I am told, will have the same sort of authority as provisions in the trade bill, and if they are violated, there will be opportunities for consultation in order to ensure that these provisions are made. I will be looking forward to receiving additional information that will prohibit child labor, but I think the crux of this trade bill, with the observation that it is certainly timely, to ensure that we do think about labor issues and we fight for the labor issues. I do not stand here to create this divide that my good friend on the other side of the aisle who said you, who are against trade bills. No, we are not against trade bills. But we are against trade bills that singly ignore the rights of workers. If the Democrats were in control, as we had the opportunity in the Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, although that is not the best example, but I remember the hard work and the heavy lifting of Democrats to create a better trade bill. That is the problem we have. That these bills are negotiated and they are, if you will, negotiated without a concern for workers. In this instance I think the Democrats have worked very hard to make this a fair bill for a partner of the United States, who has been a strong partner and a democratic partner. I ask as Members consider this legislation to look at the improvements that have been made and the side bar letters that have created the right kind of negotiated document to help the people who would be benefited in Bahrain, and also help investment here in the United States. We would like to create jobs.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4340, the ``United States-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.'' In spite of my support, I do have some concerns. For example, as in all other U.S. Free Trade Agreements (FTA's) the text of the U.S.- Bahrain Free Trade Agreement requires only that the two countries enforce their own labor laws. It is my understanding that in 2002, Bahrain completed a major revision to its own labor laws to comply with internationally-recognized standards and to ensure that working people in its country share fully in the benefits of globalization. However, six provisions of Bahrain's law, as currently written, raise concerns with regard to basic international labor standards. These six provisions have been identified by the U.S. Department of State and the International Labor Organization (ILO). These concerns force me to believe that the workers' rights provisions in the Bahrain FTA are somewhat weak. In contrast to the U.S.-Jordan FTA, the Bahrain agreement contains only one enforceable provision on workers' rights which is an obligation to enforce domestic labor laws. While the labor chapter also contains a commitment to uphold the ILO core workers' rights and not to weaken labor laws, these provisions are explicitly excluded from coverage under the dispute settlement chapter, rendering them essentially useless from a practical standpoint. To put it bluntly, under this agreement, a country could ban unions, set the minimum age for employment at ten years old, and reinstate slave labor. While I believe this will not happen, the fact that it could raises concerns. Before closing, let me note that I appreciate the efforts made to negotiate a commitment from the Bahraini government to bring its labor laws up to ILO standards in the near future, and I hope that this agreement is honored. I must also note that a commitment to improve labor laws in the future is not an adequate substitute for having decent labor laws in place, especially when the labor provisions in the agreement raises concerns. To this end, I am pleased to note that I have been promised a letter from the Bahrain government expressing the fact that child labor will not be an issue and that such labor will not be used as a result of this agreement. Unfortunately, if the promise is not honored, there is no recourse that can take in the context of the FTA itself, other than to engage in consultations. While I overall support free trade agreements, I strongly believe that we need to make sure that we are not setting ourselves up for a pit fall.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, allow me to likewise lend and associate myself with the remarks of the leadership of the two gentlemen from Louisiana, both in terms of the legislation written, but also the inclusiveness of this legislation. I am one that has seen the aftermath of the Katrina tragedy and certainly my constituents who experienced the suffering of Hurricane Rita and those of us who have encountered the devastation of Hurricane Wilma. The relevance of the United States as a Federal Government is to be the safety net and the umbrella for the American people. We know that there were many failures as it relates to Hurricane Katrina, and we are making our way steadily to determine the facts of where we failed in helping those people and helping those keep and secure their property, and also to answer the questions for those families who lost loved ones. This legislation, however, is a step forward and it provides incentives to small businesses and businesses in the region. It is inclusive and includes the hurricanes of Wilma and Rita. Rita impacted the State of Texas, and Hurricane Katrina impacted the State of Texas as we have welcomed into areas of Houston those survivors and evacuees who came from the other regions that were hit directly by Hurricane Katrina. This provides entrepreneurs with tools, and entrepreneurs with tools creates jobs. We know that small businesses and medium-size businesses are the backbone of America. So I thank Mr. Jefferson for the housing assistance. I thank him for the access to capital. It makes a difference. It allows our local authorities and State authorities to get back on their feet. But I must add my concern having been to States like Louisiana and Mississippi, where I have seen the healthy gaming industry that is not filled with corruption because it has been regulated very well by States and oversight by the Federal Government, where it gives $800 million to the infrastructure of various States, and yet this particular bill excludes the rebuilding or the help in the rebuilding of those particular institutions. Mr. Speaker, they provide jobs to thousands upon thousands of people in Mississippi and Louisiana. It is imperative that we reconsider this aspect of the bill, and I am hoping that we will have an opportunity for a freestanding incentive bill to help all the businesses come back in the region. Might I also offer and hope that my colleagues would consider a concept that I have raised called the Urban Village Tax Credit, and that is to give relief to many of those who opened their homes. Oh, yes, some may say they were their relatives, but many were not. There were many in my constituency who had 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 people in their homes, churches and other institutions, religious institutions, who took people in not because they wanted a tax incentive but because it was right, because they cared. So I would hope that my colleagues consider the Urban Village Tax Credit, which gives some tax credit relief to those who can document that they took families in during this tragic time. We are all one family and one America. This is a great tax bill, and I would hope my colleagues would vote on it and consider the Urban Village Tax Credit.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to associate myself with the reasonable presentation and offering of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), who has allowed this Nation to debate a very important issue of redeploying our troops. Mr. Speaker, as I join him in his excellent leadership, I would offer to my colleagues the thought of engaging American diplomacy and providing an international coalition to provide the support and security for Iraq, to convene a summit of Arab nations to ensure that our Arab allies are involved in the security of Iraq, to stop the redeployment of American troops for multiple tours of duty, to have the allocation of resources and attention to cover the 15,000 injured soldiers and proceed for their medical and educational services, and to establish a special memorial for those who have come home from Iraq and those who have lost their lives on the frontlines of Iraq, and then to provide this Nation with a comprehensive exit strategy to redeploy our troops. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I stood with disabled veterans in Houston. They join me in this request. I look forward to this debate.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this proposed legislation, ``Honoring the life, legacy, and example of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on the tenth anniversary of his death.'' Perhaps no man in Israel's short history as a state has been more influential on the country as Yitzhak Rabin. The story of Rabin's life mirrors the conflicting nature of his county, fiercely wielding the sword of war when necessary in one hand, while extending the olive branch of peace in the other. Few will be considered to have been more dedicated to the peace and security of his country than was Yitzhak Rabin. As a young man, Rabin's character was hardened by war. He joined the army at 18 years old, before it was named the Israeli Defense Force, before the state of Israel existed. He would serve in the military for 27 years, fighting in the 1948 War of Independence, 1956 Suez War, and, after rising to the rank of Chief of Staff, commanded the Israeli Defense Force in the Six Day War of 1964. Shortly after leading his troops to a stunning, decisive victory in that historical war, Rabin retired from the military to become a diplomat and politician, perhaps suggesting that peace was more effectively sought through diplomacy than through war. Rabin, who spent a majority of his life as an instrument of war, shifted gears and dedicated the rest of his life to the peace process. Among his major accomplishments were, as Prime Minister, orchestrating the signing of the interim peace agreement between Israel and Egypt, which laid the groundwork for the 1979 Camp David Peace Treaty between the two countries. Fifteen years later, in his second term of service as Prime Minister, he would sign a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan. It is remarkable in retrospect that Rabin, who as a young man fought several wars against Egypt and Jordan, would be such an outspoken and instrumental figure in working towards peace with Israel's Arab neighbors. Yitzhak Rabin's life was prematurely taken from him on November 4, 1995, when he was murdered at a peace rally in King David Square. Many today suggest that if Rabin had never been murdered, his vision of peace for the Middle East may have come to fruition. Despite his great military career, Yitzhak Rabin is remembered as a champion of peace. I urge my colleagues to honor the distinguished life and legacy of Yitzhak Rabin by voting for this legislation. A decade has passed since Yitzhak Rabin was murdered; I pray another decade need not pass before his lifelong goal of peace in the Middle East is realized.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this was a day when many of us had wished that we could have taken a very serious step toward redeploying our troops and bringing them home. I believe it is very important to speak to the American people for this brief moment by telling them of a story of a young woman I saw in a hospital in Germany who had just been shipped from Iraq. She was burned from head to toe. She laid in a hospital bed; and, yes, as a soldier, she was valiant and courageous, and her only concern was for her mother. I use that example because we have heard it on the floor tonight, how our soldiers want to go back into battle and how our soldiers want us to have the resolve to stay the course. But, Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility as Members of Congress and policymakers whenever we send our soldiers into battle, we must send them for the right reasons. We heard tonight that the American intelligence did not prove there were weapons of mass destruction, in fact, there were none; that the troops are in fact fodder for the insurgents, and health care is no longer promised to our soldiers coming home; that we are now sending troops that are at the C-4 level, the lowest state of readiness; 50,000 may suffer from battle fatigue. It is important that we stand together for a solution to bring our troops home. I voted ``no'' against the Hunter resolution because it was not a serious debate. It was not a serious statement to our soldiers, and I want them to know that I am willing to stay the course, but I want them to come home, and I want them to come home now with a plan. And a plan has been offered by Mr. Murtha in H.J. Res. 73, a plan that suggests that the troops should be in a small number in the region, but our troops in large numbers should come home from Iraq. We must turn the government of Iraq over to Iraq. This is the debate we should have: H.J. Res.___ To Redeploy U.S. Forces from Iraq.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. My inquiry is if this amendment is voted on, does this mean that the underlying resolution could not be withdrawn as we would like for it to be so that we can debate in a civil manner the discussion of our troops in Iraq?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if I might restate, if this resolution is voted on and it succeeds, is there then an opportunity to have by unanimous consent the resolution itself withdrawn? Does this block the withdrawal of the resolution?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I appreciate the indulgence of the Speaker. We have now had an amended rule. My question is----

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. We may ultimately have it. My question is, if the rule passes, can we still have the opportunity to have the actual bill withdrawn?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the distinguished ranking member from Massachusetts for a tough job, a tough task, and very good work. I add my appreciation to the chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg). I could not imagine a more combined challenge than the appropriations bill that we have before us. Unfortunately, in tough times we have tough choices, and many times some along the way are affected by those tough choices. So, Mr. Speaker, I add my appreciation for a number of aspects of this bill. First of all, I want to thank the combined Texas delegation and, as I said, the ranking member and chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) in particular, on at least providing for New Start monies for Metro in Houston. Mr. Olver knows that this has been a long journey. We have had discussions on the floor in sessions past when we have not made it. We have had conflicting views coming out of the Houston delegation. But I can stand proudly and say that the Houston money, $12 million for New Starts, will not go unused and unappreciated. We have a system that is one of the most used New Starts in America, with very large numbers of utilization; and it is important that we get started and continue to commit. Might I also say, however, it is important for Metro to listen to community input so that we will have light rail and not have BRT. Light rail is what we voted on, and light rail is what we want. I am gratified that the judiciary, or the Justice Department, has been funded in aspects where the staff has been kept. I do raise a point about an overuse of the national security letters by the FBI and hope that we may look at that in the future. But the real issue, Mr. Speaker, is to talk about HUD, which really has become a bank for this bill, as hard as my colleagues have worked. The bad news is that CDBG funds have been cut; that is the very heart of many of our communities, and we see that it has been cut by 9 percent. The voucher question is severe. The section 8 vouchers have been cut. Unfortunately, public housing authorities will come up short this year. Even though we have used the House formula of a snapshot of a few years back, we are going to face a crisis because Houston is an example where we have thousands of Hurricane Katrina survivors and Rita survivors, and we are short of vouchers for housing as we speak. FEMA has shut off the doors for the hotels by December 1. We hope to press them to realize that that is an untenable position. I also hope the elderly repair housing dollars are protected because the elderly are some of our most vulnerable populations. Then we do not even have Section 8 vouchers for the 25,000 backlog list that we already have in Houston. I am disappointed that the brownfields are effectively zeroed out. That has, of course, been an effort to clean up many of the dastardly conditions in urban and rural areas, particularly some of the chemical plants that have been in our inner cities. This is a bill that took a lot of choices and I know a lot of hard work. I wish we could have done better the housing area, Mr. Speaker, and I hope we do so in the future. general leave

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of H.J. Res. 73, To Redeploy U.S. Forces from Iraq. However, I must also speak to and oppose the cynical resolution offered by Mr. Hunter. Mr. Hunter's resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq is a political stunt and an outrageous politicization of a serious proposal offered by Congressman Jack Murtha, a respected leader in the Congress. Mr. Hunter's resolution shows great disrespect to someone of Mr. Murtha's stature and is a discredit to his years of service. From the beginning, this war has been conducted without oversight. Democrats have repeatedly asked for substantive hearings on the war in Iraq. In addition, we have requested investigations on the misuse of intelligence by the Bush administration. War is too important of an issue to politicize the lives of our soldiers. Despite Democrats request for hearings on torture, contract fraud, and the leak of confidential national security information. It goes without saying that the war in Iraq is not going as advertised. Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraq security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80 percent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, about 45 percent of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a ``free'' Iraq. The U.S. needs to vacate Iraq both to splinter the insurgent factions that have united against us and to create incentives for the Iraqis to take on their own security. Not surprising is the fact that the American people have realized this for months. It is just now that some Democrats and Republicans alike are beginning to express grave concerns about the need for a course change in Iraq. With the administration so unwilling to reconsider its disastrous policies in Iraq, it was only a matter of time that Congress would begin to assert itself. Sadly, in the past week the President and the Vice President have restored to questioning people's patriotism to hide their own mistakes. The administration has no idea as to how to proceed in Iraq and they are wrong to use these ``McCarthy-type'' tactics. I strongly support the Murtha Resolution. H.J. Res. 73 gives Americans a moment to pause so we can seriously discuss the future of America and our troops. This is what a democracy stands for. In addition, H.J. Res 73 calls for the: Immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, creation of a quick reaction force in the region, creation of an over-the-horizon presence of marines, diplomatic pursuit of security and stability in Iraq. Let me close by saying that the Republican cover-up Congress has refused to exercise its oversight responsibilities to protect our troops, the American taxpayers and our national security H. Res. 571 is not a serious response to the serious question of saving the lives of our soldiers. It is time to get serious and support Mr. Murtha's proposal now for disengagement in Iraq.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I speak today in opposition to H.R. 3010, the Labor-HHS-Education Conference Report. First and foremost, I am highly disturbed that the report has no earmarks for Member programs. Unfortunately, this conference report invests nearly $1.5 billion less in critical education, health care and job assistance than last year. In fact, Republicans will spend more on tax cuts this week, $70 billion, than they will on all education and labor programs over the entire coming year, $68 billion. The conference report is only the most recent evidence that Republicans are out of touch with the priorities of the American people. Together, America can do better. With a record 55 million children in public schools and state budgets stretched thin, No Child Left Behind funding is cut by $784 million. Title I, which is the core of NCLB's efforts to improve reading and math skills, receives the smallest increase for Title I in 8 years-- only $100 million--which means 3.1 million low-income children will be left behind. Further, even as the cost of a 4-year public college education has increased $3,095, 34 percent, since 2001, the maximum Pell Grant is frozen for the fourth straight year, and no new funding for all other student financial aid and support programs is provided. These cuts are unthinkable, and the American people do not deserve this treatment. In addition to other horrible cuts, in an age where being tech-savvy is a necessity not a privilege, the digital divide just got bigger as the bill cuts the Education Technology Program by $221 million or 45 percent. Republicans will actually cut the Federal share of special education costs from 18.6 percent in FY 2005 to 18.0 percent by providing the smallest increase for the Individuals with Disabilities Act in a decade. The bill provides $4 billion less than Republicans promised for IDEA. It is hard to imagine, but with 7.4 million Americans out of work, Republicans cut the Community College Initiative's efforts to train workers for high skill, high paying jobs by $125 million and rescind $125 million from funds provided last year, denying this assistance to 100,000 Americans. Republicans also cut job search assistance through the Employment Service by $89 million, 11 percent. To further add injury to insult, state Unemployment Insurance and Employment Service offices are cut by $245 million, 7 percent, eliminating help for 1.9 million people. With consumers expected to pay 52 percent more for natural gas and 11 percent more for electricity this winter, Republicans still failed to increase funding for LIHEAP home heating assistance, which helps keep the heat on for low-income seniors and children. Only about 10 percent of physicians in America practice in rural areas despite the fact that one-fourth of the U.S. population lives in these areas. There are significant shortages of health care providers in urban, underserved areas, but training grants for healthcare professionals are cut $206 million, 69 percent. Further, nearly 46 million Americans are without health insurance yet Republicans provide virtually no funding for new Community Health Centers beyond those approved last year. Republicans also eliminate the Healthy Communities Access Program, $83 million, and state planning grants to improve health care coverage, $11 million. Preventive Health Block Grants to state health departments help address critical public health problems. The bill provides less for responding to disease outbreaks, immunizing children, and improving care for people with chronic diseases, when it cuts these grants by $31 million or 24 percent. In addition, The International Labor Affairs Bureau will have a hard time protecting American workers from being undercut by child and slave labor abroad after being cut by $20 million or 21.4 percent. In closing let me note that I was disappointed that the bill did provide earmarks for Member projects. However, I was pleased to see that this action by the Republicans was the straw that broke the camel's back, and as a result, the Conference Report was voted down. I hope once conferees return to the drawing board; they get it right once and for all.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 500, recognizing the 60th anniversary the disappearance of five Avenger warplanes and one of the rescue aircraft sent to retrieve the lost pilots. The six planes flying out of the Naval Air Station of Banan River on December 5, 1945 contained a total of 27 men. These brave men have never been recovered. Their planes and all of their equipment have never been found, either. As an interesting point, the disappearance of the planes happened somewhere off the eastern coast of Florida. The strange disappearance of these aircraft was the first incident in the lore of what became the story of the Bermuda Triangle. To date, the incident which we are acknowledging today is still the most cited example of strange occurrences in the Bermuda Triangle. Mr. Speaker, we should remember the bravery of these 27 men by acknowledging the anniversary of their disappearance. It is a tragedy that for so many years, the cause of the disappearance has remained unknown, leaving the families of the fallen pilots without answers. For over 225 years, the freedom of America has been maintained by the fighting men and women of our Nation's Armed Forces. These courageous soldiers, sailors and marines put their lives on the line every day to preserve the safety and security of our Nation. In honoring the 27 men lost on December 5, 1945, we also honor the hundreds of thousands of men and women of America's Armed Forces whose heroic actions go unheralded every day. In passing this resolution, we also honor the families of the fallen pilots, whose sacrifices on behalf of our country will never be forgotten. I strongly support H. Res. 500, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.