Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is my question.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3975, the Hurricane Regulatory Relief Act of 2005. As many of you know, a key component of the Gulf Coast hurricane relief and recovery effort is flexibility and adaptability. Entire communities have been uprooted by these unprecedented natural disasters, and bureaucratic red tape must not stand in the way of efforts to rebuild the region. H.R. 3975 bill emphasizes much-needed regulatory relief to help the students, schools, workers, families, and communities affected by the hurricanes. The bill seeks to achieve this goal by prioritizing educational services for displaced students over bureaucratic hurdles. To this end, for one year, the bill would ease requirements for elementary and secondary schools, including: Maintenance of effort and supplement not supplant funding requirements. Easing these requirements would ensure states and schools can serve students effectively with the resources available. In addition, the bill would allow non-federal match requirements to be waived or modified for affected states. Deadlines for special education evaluations and reporting requirements. By extending--but not waiving--these deadlines, states and schools would have the flexibility they need to ensure the affected students will have access to the services they need. In addition, the bill expands opportunities for quality teachers to serve displaced students. For example, for one year, the bill would allow teachers that met the ``highly qualified'' standard in an affected state to be considered ``highly qualified'' in other states that are serving large numbers of displaced students where they may temporarily be teaching. In addition, the bill would expand the new individuals with Disabilities Education Act Paperwork Reduction Pilot Program to states affected by the hurricanes. This will further erase burdensome paperwork requirements on special education teachers. Among other positive aspects, the bill also strengthens financial aid opportunities for affected students by expand outreach efforts to ensure disadvantaged students and families have access to information about financial aid that may be available as they pursue higher education. It requires colleges and universities to adjust financial aid award calculations through the Expected Family Contribution (EFC), taking into account changes in families' financial circumstances caused by the hurricanes. Further more, the bill would encourage institutions of higher education to ease the process for displaced students to transfer the academic credits they have earned and continue their studies as the region rebuilds. In closing let me note that I strongly, support the idea of prioritizing children who have been impacted by the recent hurricanes. To this end I have been working on a proposal that seeks to achieve the goal of taking care of our children. It goes without saying that children respond differently to disasters, depending on their understanding and maturity, but it's easy to see how an event like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could leave a child feeling a good deal of anxiety. Kids who lived in the track of the hurricanes felt firsthand the threat of danger to themselves and those they care about. Now that the danger has passed, it's important to comfort them and reassure them that they're safe. It's also important to be open and honest with them in discussing unseen consequences of the hurricane for the family. My proposal would prioritize children by requiring that the children who lost 1 or both parents or a guardian as a result of Hurricane Katrina and Rita should be provided with all necessary assistance, services, and benefits and urging Federal, State or local agencies responsible for providing such assistance, services and benefits to move expeditiously in providing such assistance, services and benefits to those children. In addition, her proposal would further prioritize children by requiring that the children who lost 1 or both parents or a guardian as a result of Hurricane Katrina and Rita should be provided with such immediate assistance, services, and benefits for which they are eligible and which are necessary for their well-being, including: (1) foster care assistance; (2) adoption assistance; (3) medical, nutritional, mental and psychological care; (4) educational services; and (5) such additional care or services as may be necessary.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much for yielding. What a special time and a moment. I know that our preference would be to be able to sing praises and to salute Rosa Parks for a very long time on this floor. I think it is important that we have the opportunity to hear from the author of this legislation. I might share just a few moments of appreciation to you, Madam Ranking Member, for steadfastness and perseverance and the swift hand and the partnership you have with the chairman of this committee, who has, through his own love of history, managed to create more history in this Congress over the last sessions of his tenure as chairman with the hanging of a number of paintings. Now he joins in the celebratory announcement of the placing of the statue of Rosa Parks in the National Statuary Hall of the United States Congress. Just as a reminder for those of us who grew up just a few short years ago, I can tell you that there was much lacking in the study of African American history in our school books. In fact, I might say to you that through my primary and secondary training, and primary and secondary schools, there was no study of African American history. I might say that there was Black History Month, yes, and there would be little cutout features and stories, maybe; but when I opened the book, I could not find the place that would tell me the story of a Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King or maybe even W.E.B. DuBois. This legislation today has a special place for all of America. Rosa Parks's history is well known. We know that she first sat down in the back of a bus and then moved to the front of the bus so that others might stand and others might run and others might win. We know that she left Montgomery, Alabama; but I think we should be well aware that she left because there was no place for her there. The chiding, the chastising, the attacks on her life, the threats forced her to leave and go to Detroit, Michigan and what a refuge to find the Honorable John Conyers where she could find refuge in a job that lasted her until her retirement. Then the founding of the Raymond and Rosa Parks Institute focused on one issue, and we heard it over and over again in the funeral services, and that was to help children. So it is appropriate that the Honorable Jesse Jackson and Mike Rogers would come to the floor with this great legislation. The history of Jesse Jackson and his family but also his history of himself and being a student of history and recognizing the value of the Constitution and the presence of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments that freed us from slavery, also gave us equal rights that Rosa Parks had so much of that that she deserved this honor. I might say to you that one of the themes that came out of her funeral was that when there was trouble, there was wrongness, Rosa Parks stood in the way. I hope that this statue symbolizes the importance of America never forgetting her history. Rosa Parks was long-standing, determined, persistent, a demeanor that lit the world but also set the world on the right path. We must remember Rosa Parks because, in fact, she brought about the ending of an America that was locked in the shackles of segregation. America was held hostage by discrimination, but it was through her determination and commitment and courageousness that she was able to break the shackles of segregation in a Nation that had found itself locked and forever committed to such a terrible way. So I am excited about the fact that this legislation is on the floor, but more importantly, it will mean that no child that lives in America will ever have to worry about a history book that does not recount the story of Rosa Parks. For all they need do is come to the United States Congress as they have done over the years in school trips with their parents, with church groups and parishes and synagogues and mosques and simply walk up those steps and walk into Statuary Hall and look up and there at a statue of Rosa Parks and her story will be told. This is a great day for America. It is a great day for the history of this Nation. It is a great day for our children. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for his leadership, and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender- McDonald). It is a great day for America.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time. It is interesting that the good friend on the other side wants to quote the Bible. Let me simply remind him that the Good Samaritan says that we are, in fact, our brothers' and sisters' keepers. This budget, which causes an offset not on taxes and the rich but the offset on the backs of those in Hurricane Wilma, Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, what would you give to the answer of those who are going to be evicted in 2 weeks from hotels because this government says it has no money? And then we add insult to injury by cutting Medicaid $11 billion, student loans $14 billion, food stamps another $796 million, and we throw the crying mothers and the hungry babies to the streets. This is a budget that cries for shameless disgraceful attention to the other side of the aisle. Why are we mad, Mr. Speaker? We are mad because the American people are suffering the brunt of the inconsistencies of the other side of the aisle who want to give taxes to the rich and do not want to give equipment to the soldiers, but they want to break the backs of Americans. Vote ``no'' on this budget reconciliation and send us to victory in 2006 so we can take back America from these people who do not understand. Mr. Speaker, we have before us perhaps the most important piece of legislation that we will vote on all year, H.R. 4241, the Budget Reconciliation Spending Cuts Act. This $50 billion of spending cuts have turned everything we believe in as a country on its head. The Republicans are actually 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. In fact, many of these proposed cuts will actually hurt those affected by Katrina. Overall, the plan before the House will increase the deficit and the national debt. From a Homeland Security standpoint, H.R. 4241 proposes to cut funding for the COPS program by $480 million and to remove important funding for local firefighters by $215 million--cuts of 80 percent and 30 percent, respectively. As ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, I am outraged at the fact that its provisions seek to break the promise of putting an additional 2,000 border patrol agents on the job in 2006, as promised in landmark intelligence reforms passed late last year and endorsed by the 9/11 Commission. The budget provides funding for only 210 agents. Overall, the plan before the House will increase the deficit and the national debt. In the Homeland Security Committee, we completed a markup of a border security measure, H.R. 4312, that proposes to enhance the way our Department of Homeland Security protects our international borders and ports of entry. The cuts contained in the legislation on the Floor will render this measure a nullity if there are no resources available to execute its provisions. From a healthcare perspective, there are 45 million Americans living today without any health insurance at all, but this budget cuts $11.4 billion over 5 years from Medicaid, and $46 billion over 10 years. The budget includes a proposal to expand enrollment in high-deductible health savings accounts would actually increase the number of Americans without insurance by 350,000. It also includes language which allows States to increase premiums and decrease coverage to children. This bill decimates health care funding for children, the elderly, and people with disabilities and making it even harder for families to afford nursing home care. 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 children, 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 who are considering going to college, I want you to listen to this: this republican spending cut will place an added burden of $7.8 billion dollars directly on our students over the next five years. This is accomplished. through added fees of $4.8 billion, and increases of interest rates. A typical student borrowing money for college could pay up to $5,800 more. This is in the face of college costs up over 7 percent this past year alone. Allow me to cite some of the specific cuts I, and our constituents across the country, find so objectionable: Medicaid--The bill cuts Medicaid spending by$11.4 billion nationwide. Student Loans--The bill cuts spending on student loan programs by $14.3 billion over 5 years. Food Stamps--The bill imposes cuts to food stamps of $796 million over 5 years, affecting nearly 300,000 people. Child Support--The bill cuts $4.9 billion from child support programs over 5 years. Custodial parents will receive $7.1 billion less child support over 5 years and $21.3 billion less over 10 years. Foster Care--The bill cuts $397 million from foster care over 5 years. These are some big numbers, and we politicians love to throw around big numbers, but often times it is difficult to understand the true impact of what these numbers mean. Let me break some of these numbers down to what they will mean to my State of Texas, because the devil really is in the details for this legislation. One program the Republicans are trying to cut is Child support enforcement. It is said that for everyone $1 the government puts in to collecting money from de ad- beat dads, the family receives $4 back In Texas, this bill will cut $411 million from child support enforcement in the next 5 years. In Texas, this bill will cut $110.2 million from Elementary and Secondary Education. This breaks down to $52.8 million for education for the disadvantaged, $18.9 million for special education, and $34.7 million for school improvements. In Texas, this bill will cut $6.8 million in vocational and adult education--in other words, job training. In Texas, this bill will cut $5.9 million from Low Income Home Energy Assistance. This program helps poor families heat their homes, not forcing a family to choose between paying heat and groceries. This bill is projected to cut 3,600 recipients from this program next year. Nearly 600,000 people will lose the program nationwide. In Texas, this bill will cut nearly $1 billion from WIC, the Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children. Eighteen thousand recipients will be cut from this program in Texas. In Texas, this bill will cut $45.5 million in Children and Families Services, including Head Start and Services for Abused and Neglected Children; 2,000 children will be cut from this program next year. In Texas, 4,700 people will lose their housing vouchers as a result of cuts offered in this bill. In Texas, this program will cut $2.8 million from the Maternal and Child Health block grants, which provide money to support the efforts of our public health departments to reduce infant mortality, improve prenatal care for pregnant women, provide child health prevention services, and more. In Texas, we have 400,000 students borrowing money for school. For the typical student borrower, new fees and higher interest charges in this bill could cost each student as much as $5,800. 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 slashing funding towards those that are most vulnerable. And don't you be fooled. These spending cuts aren't meant to offset the costs of rebuilding the gulf coast, these spending cuts are meant to offset tax cuts that will benefit the rich. Mr. Speaker, we can not allow the burden of the $70 billion in tax cuts to be placed on the backs of our Nation's neediest families. 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. This is black and white. This cut hurts the children, it hurts the poor, it hurts the old and it hurts the young. I am strongly opposed to this legislation, and I implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against these unreasonable cuts.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will honor our Nation's veterans. But the budget reconciliation legislation that we present today will not honor our veterans, because their families will be impacted by the negative aspects of this legislation. $11.9 billion in cuts in Medicaid will impact the families of veterans. $50 billion cuts in Medicaid over 10 years will impact the families of veterans. $14.3 billion in student loan cuts will impact the children of veterans. And those National Guard and Reservists who came home after battling in Iraq to Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana will find that $7 billion has been cut from the most vulnerable, and their homes that have been destroyed will be impacted by this budget because there will be no money at the end to be able to provide for the restoration of their lives. This budget reconciliation legislation will not honor our veterans. We honor them tomorrow. Why do we not honor them today? We can do better.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

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

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the distinguished chairman for his support. Let me conclude by simply saying again I remind colleagues I hope that some day we will be able to discuss the Good Time Early Relief bill that speaks to the question of individuals languishing in Federal prisons who have been nonviolent and would welcome this discussion and this legislation. I am grateful for this amendment, and I ask my colleagues to support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 1751, the Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005. Before doing so, I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member of the House Judiciary Committee for their efforts on this bill. Let me briefly explain the thrust of my amendment. This amendment is only a small technical change to my original amendment that was adopted during the Full Committee Markup last week. In essence, the change would require the Attorney General to work, through the Office of Justice Programs, to make grants to the highest State courts in States participating in the threat assessment database program. The rationale for changing the language to make State Supreme Courts eligible for receiving grants for the creation of a threat assessment database is that the State courts are on the ground and have the best understanding of what type of threats are out there and where they are coming from. In addition: The Department of Justice has interpreted language giving ``grants to States'' as going directly to State executives (Governors) and they have sometimes bypassed the State courts. The State court administrating agencies (led by the State supreme courts) are in a better position to know about the kind of threats and attacks they experience in a given year. The State court administrating agencies are in a better position to know how to respond to attacks and develop procedures to counter threats to the State courts. If the grants go to the State executive, there is a chance that money expended under this program will go to another part of the State budget such as roads or education, not court security. I respectfully request that my amendment be made in order. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his very wise amendment. He comes from a region that has suffered an enormous amount of border violence. But his local officials, in working with the gentleman, has brought this to the Nation's attention. This amendment will protect witnesses who I think are the crux of solving some of these heinous crimes. I have supported amendments such as this, which include language in legislation that I have which deals with rewarding informants in order to get them to tell the facts that would allow for busting drug cartels and others who are perpetrating violence. This is a wise amendment, and I am happy to support it.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Let me simply say that I think we will continue to have discussions as relates to mandatory minimums. I think this bill has great purpose; I think it is important, however, for us to raise those issues. I will conclude by saying that we have a long way to go in the criminal justice system, and I hope that we will also bring to the floor of the House this whole issue of early release for those who are languishing in prisons. I hope the Good Time Early Release bill for nonviolent prisoners in our Federal prisons who are over 40 years old will have an opportunity for full debate, because they all go hand-in- hand.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the ranking member and the chairman of the full committee and the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee to allow the amendment that I secured that has to do with providing courts the opportunity to establish a threat assessment database similar to that of U.S. Marshals. This provides our courts hands-on immediate information in order to determine the threats that are waged against these particular courts. This simple amendment, rather than include the attorney, in essence, the change of this amendment would require the Attorney General to work through the Office of Justice Programs to make grants to the highest State courts in States participating in the Threat Assessment Database program.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. It is, I think, a very clear statement to make that we have faced extensive violence in our courts in recent times. The problem of violence and threats against judges, court officials, employees, witnesses, and victims is not a new one, but one that is growing rapidly. Recent events, including the killing of a Fulton County judge and other court personnel in Atlanta, the murders of United States district judge Joan Lefkow's family members outside Chicago, Illinois, and the murders immediately outside the Tyler, Texas, courthouse have underscored the increasing significance of the problem. According to the Administrative Office of United States Courts, there are almost 700 threats a year made against Federal judges; and in numerous cases, Federal judges have had security details assigned to them for fear of attack by members of violent gangs, drug organizations and disgruntled litigants. With such tragic incidents, Mr. Chairman, we are in collaboration, if you will, on H.R. 1751, at least the premise, the Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005. I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman, for their collaborative efforts, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), my colleague, a former judge, and I guess one would say once a judge always a judge, who has taken the leadership on this issue. None of us would step away from the purpose and the necessity of this legislation. In fact, I am very gratified to have secured an amendment that will allow State courts to establish a threat assessment database similar to that of the U.S. Marshals where they will be able to determine the threat status or situation against a respective court, and then, of course, to hopefully have an amendment that would pass that would provide grants to the highest State courts to be able to disseminate those moneys to create that database and that threat assessment database. In addition, I would say that this hard work and commitment of Democratic members on the committee have also now provided for offers of grants to State courts so they can make meaningful enhancements to courtroom safety and security. It provides the U.S. Marshal Service with an additional $100 million over the course of the next 5 years to increase ongoing investigations and expand the protective services it currently offers to members of the Federal judiciary. It authorizes the Attorney General to establish a grant program for States to establish threat assessment databases. Even with these valuable improvements, however, the bill still suffers from a number of fatal flaws, specifically its inclusion of 16 mandatory minimum sentences and its establishment of one new death- penalty-eligible offense. Let me comment briefly on those mandatory sentences. Mandatory minimum penalties have been studied extensively; and the vast majority of available research clearly indicates that they do not, in many instances, work. Among many other things, they have been shown to distort the sentencing process to discriminate against minorities in their application and to waste valuable taxpayer money. But the real emphasis is, although we are here today to protect our court systems and our court officials and our law enforcement officials, we are also here to recognize the discretion necessary for our courts; and in many instances, the judicial conference itself has indicated its desire to have more discretion in sentencing. The Judicial Conference of the United States would see the impact of mandatory minimum sentences on individual cases, as well as on the criminal justice system as a whole, and has expressed its deep opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing over a dozen times to Congress, noting that these sentences severely distort and damage the Federal sentencing system. Yes, we must have deterrence, and I have supported enhancements of penalties, adding more time for individuals to serve; but at the same time, we must allow the courts to make that determination. If heinous acts against our Federal courts have been perpetrated, then that judge hearing that particular case would then have the discretion to yield or to render, along with a jury and a jury trial, the highest sentence; but the mandatory minimum would not be there in place of a judge's discretion. As I was saying, the Federal sentencing system, the Judicial Conference has said, and the mandatory sentencing undermine the sentencing guideline regimen established by Congress to promote fairness and proportionality and destroy honesty in sentencing by encouraging charge and fact plea bargains. In fact, in a recent letter to members of the Crime Subcommittee regarding H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005, the conference noted that mandatory minimum sentences create the opposite of their intended effect. Far from fostering certainty in punishment, mandatory minimums result in unwarranted sentencing disparity, and mandatory minimums treat dissimilar offenders in a similar manner, although those offenders can be quite different with respect to the seriousness of their conduct or their danger to society. So I would suggest that we are united around the necessity of this legislation. We must protect our courts and those officials. I might add that I hope that we will have further discussion about lawyers who are engaged in the practice of law in cases where they come under particular threats, whether it is in particular the prosecutor who is covered by this or defense lawyers and other lawyers who engage in cases which generate threats against their lives. We might consider hearings that would discuss that propensity. I might also say that the inconsistent and arbitrary nature of mandatory minimum sentences is made readily apparent by a quick analysis of section 2 of the bill. Section 2 establishes a 1-year mandatory minimum with 10-year maximum criminal penalty for assaulting the immediate family member of a law enforcement officer or judge, if the assault results in bodily injury. However, just a few lines later in the same section, an identical criminal penalty is established for a simple threat. So, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that as we support this legislation that we also take note of some of the inconsistencies that might warrant consideration as this bill makes its way through the House, through the Senate and, of course, conference. On the issue of the death penalty, let me suggest these few thoughts. In creating a new death-penalty-eligible offense for anyone convicted of killing a federally funded public safety officer, there is no disagreement in the value of our public safety officer. It is just whether or not in addition to such an offense of death penalty, whether or not a substitute of life imprisonment without parole could have equally been used. Expansion of the use of the Federal death penalty in the current environment seems to warrant consideration. The public is clearly rethinking the appropriateness of the death penalty in general due to the evidence that it is ineffective in deterring crime and is racially discriminatory and is more often than not found to be erroneously applied. I know that for a fact in a recent case we had in Texas, Frances Newton, a young woman accused of killing her children and her husband, a horrific and heinous crime, certainly one would suggest that she warrants the ultimate penalty. However, unfortunately, in petitioning to get a new trial on the basis of real definitive new evidence, the courts would not consider such; and, of course, Frances Newton has gone to her death. I believe that she has gone to her death with raising the question of whether or not she was, in fact, innocent or guilty. In a 23-year comprehensive study of death penalties, 68 percent were found to be erroneously applied. So it is not surprising that 119 people sentenced to death for murder over the past 12 years been completely exonerated of those crimes. This is a good bill. It would have been even better if we had considered life without parole and considered the viability or the necessity of creating a new eligibility for the death penalty. I would ask my colleagues to consider this legislation. Let me begin by saying that I strongly support the need to protect judges and court officials from threats and violence. Despite this fact, I do have major concerns with this bill. For example, H.R. 1751 proposes to add 16 new mandatory minimum sentences to the current criminal code. Mandatory minimum penalties have been studied extensively and the vast majority of available research clearly indicates that they do not work. Among other things, they have been shown to distort the sentencing process, to discriminate against minorities in their application, and to waste valuable taxpayer money. The Judicial Conference of the United States, which sees the impact of mandatory minimum sentences on individual cases as well as on the criminal justice system as a whole, has expressed its deep opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing over a dozen times to Congress, noting that these sentences ``severely distort and damage the Federal sentencing system . . . undermine the Sentencing Guideline regimen'' established by Congress to promote fairness and proportionality, and ``destroy honesty in sentencing by encouraging charge and fact plea bargains.'' In fact, in a recent letter to Members of the Crime Subcommittee regarding H.R. 1279, the ``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005,'' the Conference noted that mandatory minimum sentences create ``the opposite of their intended effect.'' Far from fostering certainty in punishment, mandatory minimums result in unwarranted sentencing disparity. Mandatory minimums treat dissimilar offenders in a similar manner, although those offenders can be quite different with respect to the seriousness of their conduct or their danger to society. The inconsistent and arbitrary nature of mandatory minimum sentences is made readily apparent by a quick analysis of section 2 of the bill. Section 2 establishes a one year mandatory minimum (with a 10 year maximum criminal penalty) for assaulting the immediate family member of a law enforcement officer or judge--if the assault results in bodily injury. However, just a few lines later in the same section, an identical criminal penalty is established for a simple threat. Thus, the same section of the bill makes two completely different actions, with considerably varying outcomes, subject to the same term of imprisonment. Furthermore, H.R. 1751 unwisely creates a new death penalty eligible offense for anyone convicted of killing a federally funded public safety officer. Expansion of the use of the federal death penalty in the current environment is patently unwarranted. The public is clearly rethinking the appropriateness of the death penalty, in general, due to the evidence that it is ineffective in deterring crime, is racially discriminatory, and is more often than not found to be erroneously applied. In a 23-year comprehensive study of death penalties, 68 percent were found to be erroneously applied. So, it is not surprising that 119 people sentenced to death for murder over the past 12 years have been completely exonerated of those crimes. Nor is it surprising with that such a lackluster record of death penalty administrations that several states have abolished the death penalty. For example, Connecticut has not executed anyone in 45 years. Without a doubt, the increasing numbers of innocent people released from death row illustrates the fallibility of the current system. Last year, a University of Michigan study identified 199 murder exonerations since 1989, 73 of them in capital cases. Moreover, the same study found that death row inmates represent a quarter of 1 percent of the prison population but 22 percent of the exonerated. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the Judiciary Committee for the wisdom of this motion, and I applaud the joining by the chairman of the full committee and offer an explanation for the reason our colleagues should join us in supporting this motion to instruct, and frame it in the context of the crisis of the recent weeks, asking Congress to accept its responsibility to investigate the CIA leaks and now to investigate further the leaking of the CIA sites, some call it sites of torture, incarceration, of individuals around the world who have been charged or are alleged to have committed acts of terrorism. It is important now to speak to the American people and argue that this motion to instruct does simply one thing. It now brings the American people into the focus of being the priority of the actions of this Congress. Yes, the PATRIOT Act in some minds has offered to provide us more protection. There were aspects of the PATRIOT Act that I did support. The original writing was a bipartisan product. Unfortunately, the ultimate product was not as bipartisan. But what is bipartisan is our responsibility to protect the American people. The 4-year sunset gives us that opportunity so that we can begin in 4 years to assess whether authorizing secret intelligence, going into libraries and getting a list of your library books helps or hurts the American people; whether the authorizing of a blank wiretap helps or hurts the American people; whether or not the lone wolf, where you can be one individual, not part of a terrorist organization or an association or to be part of a large massive group, but one individual who may be part of, words may have suggested that they are giving some comfort to those whose views we disagree with can be hauled in as a terrorist. This sunset allows us to protect the American people. Many of us are familiar with the recent film that said ``Good Night and Good Luck.'' It reminded us of the days of the McCarthy era when no one seemed to want to rise to support the rights of the American people. I ask my colleagues to support this motion to instruct and sunset in 4 years so Congress can have the ability to protect the rights of the American people. General Leave

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member, and I do thank the chairman. This is an interesting mix of a committee, the State, Justice, Commerce and related agencies; and I acknowledge that the amount is up to $4.9 billion from the request of $4.7 billion. Let me quickly point out some areas that I wish we had more money, but I am grateful and want to emphasize the value and this is, of course, NOAA that played a pivotal role and could play an even greater role as we begin to see climatic changes and see storm surges create the devastation of the gulf coast. This is an important agency and the monies included certainly are welcome and arguably, I hope, we will see additional dollars. The $1.3 billion for international peacekeeping certainly is valuable, and I hope that the emphasis is on peacekeeping. I would hope that some of those dollars could be used in transitioning our military out of Iraq and putting in peacekeeping forces that would combine with our allies over this crisis that we have. I am grateful that NASA is funded. In times of trouble, I know that we look to agencies like this, but I am grateful for that funding and also for the National Science Foundation and, in particular, the small business. What I do want to bring to my colleagues' attention are two points. One, I am sorry that we did not include the language that would prohibit the FBI under the PATRIOT Act from accessing library circulation records. And I hope we can fix that. I really do. After the backdrop of the national security letters, we know that the FBI, we have a great deal of respect for them and their homeland security role; but we need the protection of civil liberties as well. I would also say to my good friend, one of the issues that I have been studying for a number of years is, if you will, the population of elderly prisoners who are in the Federal prisons. They are nonviolent. They are in there for nonviolent offenses. And we have been working on what we call the Good Time Early Release program that would release individuals over the age of 40 to 45 on good behavior. And I believe that this is an issue that is long overdue. I hope that we can work on authorization, but also appropriations to look at this issue. I ask my colleagues to support the conference.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Key Points About Reconciliation: 1. All of these spending cuts will be used to offset tax cuts, not the costs of hurricane response or deficit reduction. 2. Spending cuts threaten vital services, including services for hurricane victims. 3. Even with these spending cuts, the Republican budget resolution still increases the deficit by more than $100 billion over five years. 4. Republicans reveal a double standard in proposing to offset hurricane costs but not war costs or tax cuts. Summary of Cuts: The $53.9 billion in cuts is $14.8 billion higher than the reconciliation cuts that the Senate is considering. The $53.9 billion in cuts marks a 56 percent increase from the $34.7 billion in reconciled spending cuts included in this year's budget resolution. The budget cuts do not offset spending for hurricane reconstruction-- they go towards offsetting $106 billion in tax cuts. Why does republican leadership insist on offsetting the cost of rebuilding damage from Katrina, but not the cost rebuilding Iraq? The objectionable cuts threaten vital services that people depend on: 1. Medicaid--The bill cuts Medicaid spending by $11.9 billion. a. $8.8 billion will fall upon beneficiaries in the form of increases in cost-sharing and premiums. b. ``Flexibility'' that will allow states to cut benefit packages for certain individuals. c. Provisions that will make it harder for some seniors to access needed long-term care. 2. Student Loans--The bill cuts spending on student loan programs by $14.3 billion over five years. a. Primarily through increases in the interest rates and fees that students pay as well as some reductions in subsidies to lenders. b. At a time when college costs are rising faster than inflation, the Committee is making the largest cut in the history of the student loan programs. 3. Food Stamps--The legislation imposes cuts to food stamps of $844 million over five years (2006-2010). a. Savings are achieved by adopting the President's proposal to limit categorical eligibility for food stamps to TANF recipients and increasing the in-country waiting period for legal immigrants to seven years. Under current law, 44 percent of those eligible for food stamps do not participate in the program. Changes such as these may mean even fewer vulnerable children and working families who qualify for nutrition benefits will actually receive them. 4. Children-- a. The legislation cuts $4.9 billion from child support programs over five years. i. This cut will reduce states' capacity to establish and enforce child support orders. Custodial parents will receive $7.1 billion less child support over five years and $21.3 billion less over ten years. b. The Committee cut $397 million from foster care over five years by limiting children's eligibility for federally funded foster care payments. i. The committee saved another $180 million by limiting circumstances under which states can receive federal funding for services provided to children.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago, many heard my colleagues join in a full discussion on the very important debate that we will engage in this coming week regarding the Budget Reconciliation Act. Frankly, I wish we could go back to the days of old of this institution when you could have a thorough debate. The Founding Fathers established this august body, some 13 colonies; and when they engaged in a debate, it was just that: it was a thorough analysis. It was a long, extended analysis of the issue at hand. I imagine that might have been the setting in the Constitutional Convention when we established this Nation and we premised it on democracy. One day of debate certainly does not equal the moment of importance to be voting on what we call a budget reconciliation bill when so many lives will be impacted. Just a few minutes ago, I hung up from a call with my local authorities who were speaking to me about the enormous mounting need for resources in the gulf region. We know how generous Americans have been, but it is important to note that States like Texas, Alabama, and Louisiana are still trying to work with the many Hurricane Katrina survivors, our neighbors on the east coast and Florida, impacted by Wilma, and now our neighbors to the north impacted by this terrible tornado in Indiana and Kentucky. It says that we must be empathetic and sympathetic and our budget reconciliation has to address the idea of being willing to give people, not a hand out, but a hand up. Well, Mr. Speaker I do not see how we can possibly do that under the heavy burden of between $70 billion and $200 billion in tax cuts. It just does not work, the sacrifice that our soldiers are making in the week of the veterans celebration, commemoration, so many veterans who have come home from Iraq who are now in need of hospital care and counseling and jobs. As we honor them this Friday, what sense does it make to be able to say to these veterans who may ultimately either want to be able to send their young people, their children, to school because so many of them are Reservists, that we would in this day, one day, raid student aid? The single largest cut to student aid will occur if this budget passes on Thursday, $14 billion, $14.33 billion cut from student aid, $7.8 billion in new charges on student aid for parent-borrowers. Those are the same parents who are seeing their salaries go down, who are seeing a consolidation of their companies and, therefore, layoffs, who are seeing a lack of increase in their salaries, who have not seen an increase in the minimum wage for years. We cannot afford this kind of raid on the Treasury so that students who are only seeking an opportunity for a hand up and not a handout are going to be the victims of this budget reconciliation. Might I also suggest that we have better priorities than to give tax cuts to the 1 percent richest in America. We have better priorities than to provide for a $200 billion tax cut that takes place in 2006. We can document that tax cuts do not energize the economy. We can document that it is jobs, that it is the investment in the building of jobs. It will be the building of homes in the gulf region, creating opportunities for American workers. It will be, in fact, the investment in students that will be the creation of jobs, not an average tax cut through 2010 without sunsets, this multibillion dollar tax cut that we can see and the income groups that will get it, the top 1% income earners in America. The amount of the tax cut here shows more than $87,000, going to the richest Americans. This is the kind of difficulty that we will face in this debate, and frankly, I believe that we can wait on those tax cuts. What else we can wait on, Mr. Speaker, is the raid on Medicaid, because Medicaid will experience $12 billion in cuts over 5 years, $47.7 billion in cuts in Medicaid over 10 years. We believe, as Democrats, that there should be no cuts. So the message today is, let us do this in a bipartisan manner. This is no time to undercut America with cuts that will not save America. It will only hurt America. And, frankly, in the many constituencies that I have engaged in across America, not just Texas, we have nursing homes that are going to suffer, senior citizens that are going to suffer. What about the 5-year look-back on a senior citizen to be able to be eligible for Medicaid and that particular senior citizen is destitute right now? We are going to force them to look back 5 years where there may have been a death, that their partner, their husband or their wife, may have died, and their income may have dropped drastically and it does not show that. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think we can do better. Something is not right and we can do better. Let us defeat the budget reconciliation. Let us work on behalf of the American people and the American young people.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, something is not right. When you look at the budget reconciliation act and you look at the terrible devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma and the impact in the Gulf region, and you see the impact on schools like Xavier and Dillard and Tulane and Loyola, and then Texas Southern University in Texas that has taken over 600 hurricane Katrina students, along with the University of Houston, and we are attempting to cause our students billions of dollars in aid in the Budget Reconciliation Act, something is not right. Something is not right when small and disadvantaged businesses cannot even participate in the rebuild after Hurricane Katrina. Something is not right when large corporations are blocking the opportunities for small businesses to be engaged. The Budget Reconciliation Act is not a problem solver. It creates problems. How can you put the burden of the deficits created by House Republicans and others on the backs of students who are attempting to achieve an education? Something is not right when we are cutting billions of dollars of student aid.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time, and I remain very appreciative of his long-standing interest and support on these important issues dealing with children. Let me thank the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for his work on this issue and working, of course, as he has indicated, in a bipartisan way with his constituents back home. I think it is important to note that those of us who are on this floor and our colleagues obviously have a great concern for our children. So this reporting of the truth about the calamity and the concern about the foster care system in America should not be taken personally. We should all be moving toward trying to improve the system. And I rise in support of the Fair Access Foster Care Act of 2005 simply because it is a procedural change that allows a broader response to the needs of our foster care children. I happened to have worked in Houston with an outreach committee cochaired by myself and former Congressman Mike Andrews, who used to be a member of the Ways and Means Committee; and we worked on recruitment of foster parents, providing foster parents with more resources. And this was a decade or so ago. Unfortunately, in 2005 we have the same concerns dealing with our foster care system. It is, in fact, broken to a certain extent, and the Fair Access Foster Care Act of 2005 will at least provide the access to not-for-profits to be able to channel the care of foster children, therapeutic care, how important that is, counseling and psychologists and psychiatrists, to build these lives. But we cannot, Mr. Speaker, deny the fact that more resources are not needed in recruitment, more resources are not needed to give foster parents relaxation, R&R, so that they can come back home to take care of these children. More resources are needed in keeping siblings together, and, of course, as my colleague from the great State of Washington said, more resources are needed to stand in the way of child abuse and neglect. Might I cite for the Members an article that says ``Record High Numbers of Children Reported in Foster Care.'' This article reports the fact that these numbers are growing and growing and growing. Let me also say that we have seen over the course of 2 months one natural disaster after another: Hurricane Rita, Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Wilma, and the terrible tornado in Kentucky and Indiana. In Hurricane Katrina alone, the statistics show that 35 percent of those impacted by Hurricane Katrina will be children. One of the things that we fail to recite and repeat on the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker, 1,000-plus individuals died in Hurricane Katrina. Many of them are the parents of children now still living with relatives or children that are missing. And the very fact that we have ignored that dilemma shows that downstream we are going to be facing huge numbers of children needing foster care. In my own congressional district, we have thousands of Hurricane Katrina survivors. Many of the family members are there taking care of other people's children or their relative's children. So the foster care concept or the structure of foster care unfortunately is a safety net for children who are without any supervision or not having their needs being taken care of because of the family dissolution and other problems. This is an important step to fix the problem to add more people into the system, but this does not, Mr. Speaker, answer the total question of building a foster care system to aid those who suffer from neglect and helping out children in these terrible times. Mr. Speaker, I speak today in support of S. 1894, the Fair Access Foster Care Act of 2005. Therapeutic foster care is foster care for children with special medical, psychological, emotional, and social needs. These children need comprehensive support and attention, requiring a great deal of commitment and sacrifice from foster care parents. Prior to the placement of a child, a potential therapeutic foster care parent must complete a certification process that involves a background check, a training program, and at least two homestudies. Generally therapeutic foster care children are not permitted to attend daycare and require ``line of sight'' supervision. That is, therapeutic foster care children must be in view of the foster parents at all times, except when attending school and other approved activities. Recruiting parents to provide therapeutic foster care is a never- ending job. There are always children waiting for a match to be found. Therapeutic foster care children stay in crisis shelters for the transition period, adding a great deal of stress to their lives. Since 1992, IV-E funds from Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have gone to partially fund both for-profit and nonprofit therapeutic foster care providers. The problem we are facing is that recently, the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS) realized that due to a technicality, for-profit agencies are not eligible to receive IV-E funds from HHS. In addition, other states have come to similar realizations and made arrangements to avoid noncompliance. Unfortunately, some states are not even aware of this discrimination. S. 1894 amends the United States code to allow all therapeutic foster care agencies to receive maintenance payments from the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that any costs associated with this legislation would be insignificant. S. 1894 would amend the United States code to allow all therapeutic foster care agencies to receive maintenance payments from the United States Department of Health and Human Services. The Congressional Budget Office has indicated that any costs associated with this legislation would be insignificant. In closing, there are over 500,000 children in foster care today. A large number of these children require therapeutic care. The business model of for-profit agencies should not prohibit Title IV-E maintenance cost reimbursement. Now is not the time to prevent highly qualified agencies from placing these children in safe homes.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his continued steadfast leadership on the issues of democracy and empowerment, and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her insightfulness and the interest of this particular legislation. I rise as well to give my support to this legislation which provides for the encouragement and the support of Israel acceding to the Organisation For Economic Co-operation and Development. And as I do so, might I associate myself with the words of my colleague from California and denounce, as well, the words of tyranny and disgrace offered by the Iranian President on extinguishing or exterminating both the people and the nation of Israel. I would think that this particular legislation speaks to rewarding those who are advocating for democracy and independence, and that is what Israel stands for. I would hope in Iran that the good people of Iran, the people who believe in freedom, the freedom fighters, those who are supporting the enhancement of the working and middle class, who believe in the expansion of the intelligentsia, will again speak inside of Iran against such devastating language. In this instance, the OECD recommends economic democracy, if you will, and Israel is already a high-powered and technologically advanced society with a thriving economy that will add to the mission of OECD. The World Bank ranks Israel among the 25 countries in which it is easiest to do business. In 2003 the World Economic Forum ranked Israel 20th out of 102 countries in its growth competitive index, and the World Economic Forum's technology index ranked Israel 9 before Canada, which is 11; Norway, 13; Germany, 14; the United Kingdom, 16; and the Netherlands, 18. Israel is carrying out far-reaching economic reforms on the OECD's recommendation with respect to taxes, labor, competition, capital markets, pension funds, energy, infrastructures, communications and transport. And I believe the important aspect of what Israel is doing is, in the region, it provides for a stabilizing force of democracy and an economic arm of democracy helping its Mid East neighbors to join as well along the pathway of democracy and economic improvement. And so I believe this is a very important legislative statement for us to move forward in encouraging the admission of Israel into the OECD. And as well, I think it says again that we are standing alongside of Israel in its attempt to embrace all who want to follow the pathway of democracy. Might I say that I hope that we will also have this impact on the Palestinians as they work toward democracy, and this shared influence will impact the region positively. Likewise, as I close, let me say that we hope that the President of Iran will find his moral compass to cease such horrible and atrocious language that would suggest the elimination of a country that promotes democracy and cares for its people, like Israel. Israel shares a commitment to democratic government and the market economy, and that is the foundation of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and this legislation should be passed. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 38, ``Expressing support for the accession of Israel to the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD).'' Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the Israeli economy has been steadily transformed from an economy supported by farmers on hillsides to a technologically advanced and services-based economy. Trade liberalization, abolition of exchange controls, adoption of modern corporate governance rules and intellectual property protection enhancement have led to the establishment of a healthy economic environment ripe for domestic and foreign investment. Encouragement to high-tech industries and a wide network of international commitments have reinforced the beneficial effects. Israel has been trying to join the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD) since 2000, when it met the OECD's membership requirements relating to industrial and per-capita product criteria. Membership in the OECD would strengthen Israel's status on the global market and within international financial institutions, lowering the risk factor on foreign loans to Israel. Israel's economic and technological standing could potentially benefit OECD member countries in the science and technology, including high-technology, sectors. Israel is already a high powered, technologically advanced society with a thriving economy that will add to the mission of the OECD. The World Bank ranks Israel among the 25 countries in which it is easiest to do business. In 2003, the World Economic Forum ranked Israel 20th out of 102 countries in its Growth Competitiveness Index, and the World Economic Forum's Technology Index ranked Israel 9th, before Canada (11th), Norway (13th), Germany (14th), the United Kingdom (16th), and the Netherlands (18th). Israel is carrying out far reaching economic reforms based on the OECD's recommendations with respect to taxes, labor, competition, capital markets, pension funds, energy, infrastructures, communications, and transport. I support H. Res. 38 for the foregoing reasons, and I appeal to my colleagues to follow suit.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 444, Gynecological Resolution for Advancement of Ovarian Cancer Education. Unfortunately, ovarian cancer is a serious and under- recognized threat to women's health. According to recent studies: Ovarian cancer, the deadliest of the gynecologic cancers, is the fourth leading cause of cancer death among women living in the U.S. Ovarian cancer occurs in 1 out of 57 women. It is expected that 22,220 women will be diagnosed with the disease in 2005. An estimated 16,210 American women will die from ovarian cancer in 2005. All females are at risk for ovarian cancer. Fortunately, ovarian cancer is very treatable when it is detected early, but the vast majority of cases are not diagnosed until the cancer has spread beyond the ovaries. Ovarian cancer may be difficult to diagnose because symptoms are sometimes subtle and may be easily confused with those of other diseases. In cases where ovarian cancer is detected before it has spread beyond the ovaries, more than 94 percent of women will survive longer than five years. Only 19 percent of ovarian cancer cases in the U.S. are diagnosed in the early stages. The chances for five-year survival for an advanced stage diagnosis is approximately 29 percent. The overall 5-year survival rate for all stages is 44 percent. It is important that we create additional public awareness of ovarian cancer by educating doctors and women about the disease. By doing this we can save lives. Currently, studies show that most people do not know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. Many include, abdominal pressure, bloating, or discomfort; nausea, indigestion, or gas; constipation, diarrhea, or frequent urination; abnormal bleeding; unusual fatigue; unexplained weight loss or gain; shortness of breath. Symptoms are subtle, persistent, and usually increase over time. Early recognition of symptoms is the best way to save women's lives. Without increased education about ovarian cancer, many women and their doctors will continue to ignore or misinterpret the symptoms of the disease. Recognition of women who are at higher risk for developing ovarian cancer is also important. Risk factors include: increasing age, personal or family history of ovarian, breast, or colon cancer, and not bearing a child. Ninety percent of women diagnosed do not have a family history that puts them at a higher risk for ovarian cancer. In closing let say that research on ovarian cancer is drastically under-funded relative to its high mortality rate. In 2002, the NCI allocated only about one-fifth as much money to ovarian cancer research ($93.5 million) as to breast cancer research ($522.6 million), and one- third as much as to prostate cancer research ($278.4 million), two diseases whose mortality rates are proportionally extremely lower than ovarian cancer. Early detection of ovarian cancer is possible. In a national study done by Dr. Barbara Goff of ovarian cancer patients, 95 percent of women had experienced symptoms prior to their diagnosis. We need national awareness among the medical community and among women themselves that ovarian cancer is not a ``silent disease'' the label it was given years ago--there are symptoms that can lead to early diagnosis when the disease is beatable and treatable. Yet, each and every day women with this disease are treated for incorrect conditions in the pelvic and abdominal region, with a full 30 percent being treated for the incorrect condition before receiving the eventual diagnosis of ovarian cancer Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I hope that as this Congress, particularly the other body, begins to proceed with their hearings on Judge Alito, that no predecisions will be made. I, frankly, believe that this is one of the most important confirmation processes that we will see in our lifetimes, for it has the possibility of altering the Court drastically to one position versus another. For any Member of this body or Congress to suggest that there may not be a need for a filibuster to me is suggesting that there is no need for principles. The legacy or the history of Judge Alito is of many different kinds, many different decisions. My view is that his nomination and confirmation will alter this Court and not make it the balanced Court that Americans have come to believe in. So I would warn those who would automatically suggest that a filibuster is not appropriate. Hearings are appropriate and maybe an up-or-down vote ultimately, but it may be that a filibuster is appropriate to save the United States Supreme Court.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for the time. I am very pleased to join my colleagues who are aware of the need to fix an issue that is broken. I join the chairman of this committee and thank the gentlewoman for her leadership, and I am glad to be an original cosponsor. Mr. Chairman, the reason we are on the floor today is that the Supreme Court, some would say rightly so, relied upon State law in Connecticut that allowed for the taking of private property for economic development. In essence, a public entity sanctioned private developers in taking private property for an economic enhancement. I am here to say that the fifth amendment's due process and the protection of property rights, to the extent that we protect those who cannot speak for themselves, should allow this Congress to fix the problem. I am also concerned that this very tool will be utilized to go into communities, poor communities, and have them succumb, if you will, to untoward and unwelcomed investment or development without their input and without the opportunity to build communities that would embrace all economic levels. The Kelo decision needs to be fixed by this Congress, and I welcome this legislation so that we can fix it and provide due process to all. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the base bill before the Committee of the Whole today, H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005. It pleases me to join the Gentlemen, Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers in supporting this legislation, H.R. 4128, just as I was enthusiastic about co-sponsoring the resolution introduced by the Gentleman on the Floor of the House on June 30, 2005 that denounces the holding of the Supreme Court of the United States in Kelo v. City of New London. The Supreme Court, with its five-member majority, made a wrong decision and ratified the unconstitutional acts of a local government, the City of New London, Connecticut. The bill before this body rejects the act of the Supreme Court majority in giving these elected officials carte blanche to abuse the rights of the property owners in that case. Our highest court should stop the violation of constitutional rights. Our job is to address whether or not government can decide that there is a public purpose for a taking of private property and thereby make it so. There should exist better protection for the individual with less economic power--the individual that has only his or her land as an asset. The Framers of the Constitution were careful in addressing that issue, careful in the sense they wanted to make sure that the ruling powers that be could not come in and say, ``I am going to take your property.'' That was not what the Framers envisioned free America. A recently published law journal note stated our dilemma quite well: ``But still more unsettling to many than the notion that property might be taken for an obvious general public benefit is the suggestion that this power might be used to transfer private property for another private owner's profit, along with all the traditional rights that permit sale, use, rental, disposition, and other choices of fee simple ownership. Seemingly, if property can be forcibly passed from one private owner to another, `public use' is a phrase with no meaning and no end.'' ``If property can be forcibly passed from one private owner to another, `public use' is a phrase with no meaning and no end.'' This legislation allows us as legislators to draw a thicker line of demarcation between private property and property that is truly intended for public use. The threshold must be higher for the ownership rights of individuals to be usurped--when the underlying objective is merely to engorge the pockets of developers. I would hope that my colleagues will support me in the amendment that the Rules Committee made in order Mr. Chairman, as No. 12. Kelo held ``economic development'' to be a ``public use'' under the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause. The Takings Clause states that ``nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.'' In the 1990's, a state agency declared that New London, CT was a ``distressed municipality'' after its unemployment numbers hit double the rate in the rest of Connecticut. The holding by the Supreme Court purported to defer to the city's judgment and that the development would be a ``catalyst to the area's rejuvenation.'' The land use situation in the areas most affected by Hurricane Katrina presents the situation that is most ripe for eminent domain takings under the guise of ``economic development.'' My amendment seeks to add the legislative intent to H.R. 4128 that the law seeks to put the people first even in the face of post-disaster reconstruction. I thank the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for his support of this amendment. It is critical that we continue the spirit of bi-partisanship that was started with the resolution disapproving the Kelo decision, of which I was an original co-sponsor, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, H.R. 3135. New Orleans will be the center of a reconstruction project that will have a price tag in excess of $200 billion. Eminent domain will play a major role in the local governments' ability to assemble properties to carry out their plans--whether the residents like it or not. NAACP representative Hillary Shelton stated that ``the eminent domain process mostly targets racial and ethnic minorities because cities often want to redevelop areas with low property values and because minorities have less political clout and are less able to fight back.'' My amendment seeks to clarify that, in redefining the boundaries of the federal government's Taking power, unfair practices will not be tolerated and that the rights of property owners will be given the highest regard. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Committee colleagues support this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and it lays further precedent for the victims of Hurricanes Rita and Wilma. I thank the chairman for accepting it, and I yield back my time.

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