Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think the American people should be told why so many of us are rising to the floor even before the budget reconciliation proposal comes to this floor. It is because, what is the choice or the choice that is being made by Republicans? Is it that they are willing to give a $70 billion tax cut, rather than spend dollars on education, rather than spend dollars on health care, rather than spend dollars on easing the pain of senior citizens? The interesting aspect that I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues is that there is a pending possibility of a veto because our colleagues in the Senate have been able to find some relief for the $10 billion Medicaid cut. Their proposal has to do with taking away the $10 billion cushion that has been established by the Medicare drug law. They want to take those dollars and have it to pay for the large cut of $10 or $11 billion that is coming out of this budget, out of Medicaid. Is it not ridiculous to spend $70 billion on tax cuts, borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, and we are going to get a veto by the President of the United States if we try to save the $10 billion for those seniors who need the money in Medicaid? Vote against the budget reconciliation when it comes to the floor.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I cannot thank you enough, and I would ask your kind indulgence if I could reclaim my time to put these items in the Record, and I would like to yield a moment to the gentlewoman from California, but let me just say this. The chairman is so very right. Let me make these points. It is legislation to, in fact, make a very pronounced statement that we are very much watching and seeking to protect the Hurricane Katrina survivors from unreasonable taking of property away from them for economic development or for private use. Let me share this paragraph: 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 government's ability to assemble properties to carry out their plans, whether residents like it or not. The NAACP, which the chairman cited in another debate, stated that the eminent domain process mostly targets, in many instances, racial and ethnic minorities because cities often want to redevelop areas with low property values because minorities have less political clout and are less able to fight back. That is one aspect, but the rural community and the surrounding areas in New Orleans and Gulfport and other areas are equally victims, and so this amendment speaks to the wholeness of the region that will be under attack for economic development. Might I close by these words: ``South-of-Boston residents, especially those in coastal towns, need to confront the nasty implications of the recent Supreme Court decision in a post-Katrina era. If a Category 5 hurricane wipes houses from Houghs Neck, Minot, Humarock, Marion, or Mattapoisett, might not the remaining citizens take kindly to an offer to replace the houses with a resort hotel?'' I want to remind my colleagues that the eminent domain theory came when the British soldiers wanted to place their soldiers in American homes or colonial homes, and so this has the underpinnings of a long history. This is an important step for us to take for the Katrina survivors, and I thank the chairman for supporting it. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005, that has been reported by the Committee on Rules, #12 as printed in the Congressional Record and captioned as Jackso.177. This legislation seeks to curtail the decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London on June 23, 2005. 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.'' To lay the foundation for the relevance of my amendment, I cite an article in the Tulsa World: The situation in New London is a time-extended version of the crisis in New Orleans . . . New Orleans saw its demise in the course of days, not decades. There was no choice but to create a package of initiatives that would bring the private sector in on the rebuilding effort. In some areas, eminent domain may be the only answer. The urgency of government planning, however, is offset by the fact that the first contracts have gone out to some of the usual suspects-- namely, corporations with strong ties to the administration In Washington. 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 my colleagues support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Might I just for my colleagues read very briefly the language of this amendment, and I hope that we can join in a bipartisan manner in the spirit of this underlying legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the proposed legislation ``To designate the Federal building located at 333 Mt. Elliott Street in Detroit, Michigan, as the `Rosa Parks Federal Building'.'' More than 50 years ago, on December 1, 1955, Rosa Parks boarded her normal bus home and sat down in one of the ``colored'' aisles toward the back of the bus. Soon, the bus began to fill, and Rosa was ordered to vacate her seat to accommodate the white passengers. She simply but stubbornly refused. This peaceful act of protest sparked a citywide boycott of the bus system by the African American community. Men, women and children of Montgomery, Alabama refrained from riding the bus and instead either walked, rode their bikes or carpooled to work. In an impressive show of strength and courage, the boycott endured for over a year, and people across the nation joined with those in Montgomery. After 381 days, the City bus line finally relented and desegregated the buses. Four days after the initial incident on the bus, a young man stood up in front of a large audience, having just been appointed as the head of the boycott: ``There comes a time,'' the man said, ``that people get tired. We are here this evening to say to those who have mistreated us for so long, that we are tired, tired of being segregated and humiliated, tired of being kicked about by the brutal feet of oppression.'' The name of that young man spurred to action by Rosa Parks was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Rosa was found guilty that very same day of breaking the city's segregation law. It was over 50 years ago that Rosa Parks chose to peacefully but willfully stand up--or rather sit down--against the abhorrent laws that segregated this country. Let us honor and celebrate what Rosa Louise Parks helped this country accomplish half a century ago by urging for this federal building be named in her honor. But let us also remember that her fight is not over. Let this building, the ``Rosa Parks Federal Building,'' stand as a pillar of remembrance for this and future generations. Let this building always remind us of the battle she fought for freedom and equality, and the battles still being fought here and across the world today. I support the proposed resolution for the foregoing reasons, and I urge my colleagues to follow suit.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my fallen heroes, Sergeant Michael Tremain Robinson, who died October 25, 2005, of injuries suffered in Samarra, Iraq while serving in the war. He was only 28 years old. He died at Brooke Army Medical Center, but he suffered his injuries on October 17 when a bomb exploded near a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. We also know that he was known as a humble and quiet spirit, a wonderful medic. He was called Doc Bob. His Aunt Alma Newsom; his wife, Tanya; his baby son, Xavier; his mother, Barbara Booker; his father, Michael Robinson; grandfather, Simmie Newsom; and his grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. William Robinson, all mourn the loss of this quiet giant, this young man who believed in his country and went back for his second tour of duty. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate to honor these fallen heroes, 2,000- plus and growing. In his name, as he is now buried and gone home to his maker, may he rest in peace. But I ask this Congress, this House and Senate in his name to begin to open up and to hold the hearings to determine why we went to Iraq, to treat him as the hero that he was and also so that his family may know the truth. He took his duty seriously; he was an outstanding and passionate medic and a great American. I pay tribute and finality to Sergeant Michael Tremain Robinson, and my pledge to you is to find the truth.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my focused remarks, I would like to join my colleague from Ohio, Congresswoman Kaptur, and ask the same questions of FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security. Having just toured the region in Texas and having been in part of Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and now Hurricane Rita, we now are fully aware of the Department of Defense leaving behind people who are in essence homeless. In the city of Houston, we expect that some 44,000 to 50,000 individuals now housed in hotel rooms will be subsequently evicted because of the time running out. All of these individuals have been hard-working, tax-paying Americans who are now looking not for a hand out, but a hand up. We cannot seem to get FEMA and all of the good works that many of the individual FEMA staff persons have done to recognize that we have a crisis and that we need to engage in some of the catastrophic solutions. That means finding trailers across America wherever they might be. Do not wait and tell us that you cannot find them because they are not manufactured when there are places across America housing or holding various facilities that could be moved. You cannot tell us that you cannot use some of the military bases that have been designated for closing. So I join my colleague, and we will hopefully join in a sense of Congress that will ask FEMA and Homeland Security to move expeditiously to house the thousands of individuals who are not yet housed. Let me now suggest that as we look to the tragedy in America that some of our citizens have fallen on hard times, might I lift again our praises and respect for the men and women on the front lines in Iraq and, of course, Afghanistan. We have always said when we have come to the floor to raise a question about the Iraq war that this is completely separate from our respect for the men and women who have offered their lives and certainly offered their service on behalf of this country. But it is important, as we have passed this enormous milestone, to be able to again remind America, and of course our colleagues, on the negative impact and negative results of this war. For each number, a face and family. The front page of our local newspaper, we are reading the names of Jonathan David Rozier, Adolfo C. Carballo, Pedro Contreras, Andrew Houghton, Dexter Kimble, and William M. Amundson. Those are just a few names and pictures on the front page. As well, might I again cite the young man who is buried in my congressional district, Sergeant Michael Robinson. It is important now, as the American public begins to look for some answers, both to the President and the United States Congress, that we fulfill our duty and our obligation to give them the answers. I think the action of the Senate today, led by the minority leader, Senator Reid, was, in fact, a very positive step. It was a step toward telling the truth: what and how was the intelligence used, and how was it represented to the United States Congress for a decision to be made statutorily, by a vote on this floor, not a constitutional vote, to move toward Iraq. Now, it is obviously true that the American public wants to find solutions; but as we find solutions, we must be keenly aware of finding out the truth. It is important as well to be able to go back and understand how this Congress was able to do its job effectively or not effectively because of the representations and misrepresentations that were made by the administration and others. So I am calling upon this Congress to do the right thing. Whether we establish a bipartisan select committee to investigate the cooked intelligence to be able to find out the truth or whether or not we instruct a number of our jurisdictional committees to hold hearings, we should begin our work. Doing this work on the past, on how the representations were made and how the ultimate decisions were made does not in any way take away the responsibility that we have for a successful exit strategy for our men and women to be able to come home. We understand that the American people are serious people. They understand as well that we have responsibilities, and I know that many are concerned about any precipitous action; but we do need a deliberative approach to be able to find a way to bring our young men and women home. My deepest sympathy to the families who have lost loved ones on the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan. This country will be forever indebted to you. And that is why in these names we promise you that we will find out the truth so that America, as she moves forward to defend herself in years to come, will have the respect and as well the success that is deserving of the military and the people of the United States of America.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman and the distinguished gentlewoman for their comments. This is a moment in history today that it seems that we simply pause. This morning we did a good thing. We passed a resolution allowing an American icon to lie in state, Rosa Parks. Now, just a few hours after that vote, we are here on the floor. Really, as I listened to my two distinguished colleagues for this very thoughtful discussion, we are looking at a constitutional breach in the system of government. I sat as a member of the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment hearings of President William Jefferson Clinton; and, of course, as many of the Members know, we argued vigorously this issue. We argued that his objections were not a governmental action. That was the distinction that we made on this whole question of whether or not the government itself was being fractured. Today we now have, and, again, one is innocent until proven guilty, a fractured government, five counts against an individual with an ongoing investigation that suggests a number of fractures in the system that go to the very points of this discussion: one, did government officials not tell the truth? Two, did government officials not tell the truth to Members of the United States Congress? Three, on the basis of those nontruths, did the United States Congress take a vote to make a determination ultimately to go to war? And in the course of going to war, did we not see the loss of lives of 2,000 of our brave young men and women and some thousands of injured bodies that now lie in hospitals languishing? And in the course of this expose that the gentleman has now offered, in holding up the indictment, he has enunciated a chronological schedule that shows that over and over again there was repetitiveness in the government, in this instance, the White House, denying that key staff members knew nothing of the pronouncement that an undercover CIA agent was who she was and who she was related to; and now we are finding out about allegations and now an indictment, which we all know is not a conviction and there is a lesser standard through the grand jury and its level of being able to indict. But there is an indictment that I assume will now go forward, that there are now suggestions and allegations that not only were there nontruths being told but that they were woven into the infrastructure of the closest levels of government, including the President of the United States of America. I will simply say this: those very difficult days of sending this body through an impeachment proceeding brought us almost to the brink of governmental collapse. The American people were concerned. The world was concerned. This institutional body was concerned. Those of us who had such great respect for this body being respected for when it moved, it moved on truth and standing. I would argue to this day that the impeachment proceedings went beyond the jurisdiction of this body because we used a nongovernmental act for a governmental action, which was impeachment. In this instance I am going to leave with this question: What will this body now do to accept our, if you will, institutional responsibility to ask the questions, whether the Constitution has been breached and whether or not, in fact, there are fractures in government now that our investigatory hearings need to begin in order to heal or to reform those fractures? I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida and the gentleman from Ohio, certainly States that have had firsthand constitutional breaches as we have looked at elections of 2000 and 2004, for their presentation on the floor and allowing me to come over from my office watching them during this moment in history that requires our study and our consideration.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, whether it is appropriate to object and reserve the right to object, of course I am not objecting. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California for yielding to me. And might I offer how grand it is in a time such as this to have her appropriately placed in such a leadership role. Her role tracks the specialness of this day and the reason we stand, which is to honor a woman of greatness, Rosa Parks, and to support the resolution of the Senate that asked of this body the opportunity for her to lie in honor. I am very proud to have been an original cosponsor of the House resolution, authored by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), but we are even more gratified to be able to take the Senate resolution agreed to by the Senate last evening and place it at the desk for its agreement. I too want to focus as much on her life and legacy as I do on this resolution, because even as we speak in glorified terms on the floor of the House, I know that there will be the sense of wondering about the interpretation of lying in honor and the reason thereof. So many of us in our lifetime have had the privilege of weaving in and out of the life of Rosa Parks, either by being mere beneficiaries in the academic institutions that we have been able to journey through or in the sheer presence by being alongside of her or with her. I am honored in my adult life to have had her come through the United States Congress to be in meetings with her and, with a smile on my face, to even have a picture taken with Rosa Parks. I say that because these are small measures of the association that many of us have had, but we treasure it because of the enormity of her life. So the reason I think this resolution is so key is because rather than call her a hero or shero, she is iconic. This is a singular moment in history that really stopped the world because we will be asked, she is lying in state and there are a number of others, what is the precedent being set? So I want to classify this as iconic. When Rosa Parks sat down, the world stopped. America was no longer the America as we knew it, the fact that it was a single, very petite woman with not a large voice but a smiling spirit that stopped the wheels of segregation in America. They were churning. They were violent. They were intimidating. They were very frightening. They were inhibiting. They were stopping the Bill of Rights. And Rosa Parks felt that she too born in America, yet two- thirds of a person as a slave, she thought it was appropriate for her to be able to acknowledge the fact that colored people, black people, Negro people no longer needed to take the back of the bus, the back of America, the back of the rights, the back of the Constitution, the back of the Bill of Rights. And it was Rosa Parks who sat down and challenged that bus driver, who may have been on that day, December 1, simply a bus driver in Montgomery, Alabama; but he stood as the sheer brick wall of segregation in America that we had not been able to pierce. But yet that day sprung forth this Montgomery improvement association and the complete boycotting for some 300-plus days, the litigation, civil rights litigation, that ultimately resulted in the breaking of the segregation of buses and accommodation in Montgomery, Alabama, that then led to the journey toward the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as my colleague has mentioned, and the 1965 Voter Rights Act that occurred and broke open through her singular act the wall that had stopped America from being America, by dividing us through the heinous divisiveness of race. Now, race still matters in America. But where we are today, 40 and 50 years past, the act that she created put us where we are today. That is why this resolution should be categorized as iconic, signaling a single moment in history that so very few of us can ever account for. And let me just say these few remarks. I feel a kinship with her because I worked for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference during the time that she was a board member, during the life span of Dr. Ralph David Abernathy, shortly after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. I served on the Select Committee of Assassinations in this House as a young lawyer, investigating the assassinations of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and President John F. Kennedy, two catastrophic American tragedies that impacted the lives of those of us who lived at that time. For anyone who lived, we asked the question whether America could survive. But we were comforted by the fact that a lady named Rosa Parks still lived and carried forward that simpleness and simplicity that if I could stop America in her tracks and change her from a segregated divisive and unruly kid, if you will, then we could survive and overcome these catastrophic events. So today I rise in support of this resolution alongside the story of her very important history. But I rise because it is a glorious day in this body, a historic day, that an African American woman, known most of her life as a colored woman, whose ancestors came first from the bottom of the belly of a slave boat, can now lie in honor because Members of Congress from the bowels of the Deep South, of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, where the segregation line was drawn, will in unanimous consent agree that she should lie in state because we will agree that her singular action was one that moved America to the part of America that we would hope that she could be. And we move this day to honor her and make this final commitment that we have not arrived yet. We are not yet finished. The job is not yet done. To Rosa Parks, as she rests in peace, may it be our commitment that we will continue to fight and continue to agitate nonviolently until America, yes, America, reaches her promise. May you rest in peace, my sister, Rosa Parks.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this past week, we saw the numbers mounting of deceased soldiers who have died on the battlefield in the war in Iraq. That number now reaches 2,000. We saw the memorial services, the funeral services for the soldier that represented that number. As we watch a number of activities occurring with respect to Federal criminal proceedings, we know that the justice system will proceed on its own. But I call now for the United States Congress and the leadership of this Congress to begin investigatory hearings as to the origins of the Iraq war. Where did the intelligence come from? Who made the decisions? Was the intelligence forced? Was it represented to be the truth? We have a constitutional responsibility to determine what representations were made to the United States Congress and whether or not those representations were true and whether or not we made the decision based upon truth. I call for the investigations now.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for the bipartisan cooperation and collaboration that has been shown by this motion to instruct and the acceptance of it. The bad news as it relates to foreign operations that seems to trickle into the American system is that we spend so much money for foreign operations and, therefore, are not addressing the domestic crises that we face. I think this bipartisan effort truly speaks to the fact that what we do and how we reach out in our collaborative work around the world, issues of democracy, issues dealing with tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV-AIDS, issues of constructing and helping in ways of creating a world friendship, is crucial to the domestic tranquility of America. As I have worked with Ambassador Holbrooke who has cited the vast growing, although we have made strides, devastation of HIV-AIDS, the impact on children, the number of orphans that are facing life alone because of the loss of one or two parents, there is, I think, no level of giving that would be too much to try and face up to this terrible devastation. This accepting of the motion to instruct relates to that. But I rise today to raise an additional concern, and I know this bill is not addressing it as we speak, but because of the difficulties that we have had with Hurricane Katrina and now Wilma and certainly Rita, and the eyes of Americans focused, if you will, on those tragedies, the eyes of America focused on the tragedies in Iraq and the constant bombing and the loss of 2,000 soldiers, it sometimes steers our attention away from the earthquake in the South Asian region, impacting Afghanistan to some extent, India, and Pakistan. We know there are 79,000 dead from the earthquake. I would hope we would be able to prepare a supplemental to address those questions. We know there are appropriations for Pakistan and the South Asian region in this particular bill, but not enough due to the loss of life and the complete elimination of towns and villages. I have met with many from the Pakistan-American community, doctors who are attempting to be of help, the Indian embassy that is helping as well; but focused resources are going to be crucial. We know that the world family is looking at the kinds of resources that are needed, but we need the donor community joined with the United States to be part of this very important effort. We know that the United States has given $50 million. It is not enough. I have asked that we raise this question with the donor community so those dollars can continue to mount. Here are the reasons why: certainly we know the medical crisis is going to be ongoing. But as I said earlier, major cities have been wiped out. People are living in tents, those who can get tents. There is a lack of food, lack of water, and a lack of how the government will rebuild the infrastructure. We realize it is in the Kashmir area, and that is a very difficult area. It is a difficult area politically and as it relates to the conflict, and so it is imperative that that area be rebuilt quickly and the infrastructure be brought into that area. I ask my colleagues to support the motion to instruct, as I do. I want to again applaud the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee. I look forward to working with both of them on ways we can provide a more expedited and certainly a higher level of assistance; and, of course, I ask for the Secretary of State, Secretary Rice, and the President of the United States to consider requesting more dollars for assistance. I ask my colleagues to support the motion to instruct.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, and I thank my good friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Smith). There are many opportunities that we have to agree. I believe in his unabiding commitment to the integrity to the judicial system. That is why I rise to quote him when he says that there is a premise that we all deserve justice and that justice, in essence, should not be denied. He agrees with that, and I agree with that. Frankly, however, this legislation is not merely a denial of justice. It is an obliteration, a complete destruction of justice. It is interesting in the backdrop of the United States promoting democratization in Iraq, challenging Iran, and now with the proceedings against Saddam Hussein and the very basis of our dependence upon a fair and impartial judicial system that will allow lawyers to be able to petition for their client or defend their client, that we would stand here on the floor of the House today and in essence create the lawsuit elimination legislation rather than the suggestion that we are preventing abuse. Let me tell you what this legislation intends to do. This legislation intends to ride roughshod over States' rights, forcing State courts to enact burdensome procedures and even stripping their jurisdiction over certain cases. That means that, in essence, it forces State judges within 30 days of a case being filed to conduct an extensive and lengthy pretrial hearing to determine whether Federal Rule 10 must be imposed. We already know that Federal Rule 11 has given the court system an effective tool to ensure, if you will, that if there is frivolous activity in the courthouse, or a lawyer files a frivolous case, that lawyer can be sanctioned. This now protects foreign corporations at the expense of consumers. Why? Because you may be able to sue in a State court, but the State court may not have jurisdiction over that foreign corporation, leaving the victim of products liability, the victim of a terrible heinous accident left without remedy in a State court. It makes sanctions mandatory rather than discretionary. It undermines the Federal judiciary system and the court system. It says to our judges that although you have gone to the highest litmus test, confirmation on the Federal bench, elections and bar scrutiny, we are telling you that we are going to pierce your courtroom and we are going to take away the rights of Rule 11 where you have discretion and we are going to simply tell you to throw a lawyer out. Then for myself as an African American and someone whose very existence is based upon the privileges that Thurgood Marshall had, and many other lawyers, to go into the courthouse, and at that time and era in the early 1940s and 1950s, speak language that could have been considered frivolous, I would suggest that just in a general sense, whether or not this particular legislation speaks particularly to that issue, there are many times in our history where lawyers may be considered frivolous because they are speaking a language that opposes society. The question of an equal education under Brown v. Topeka might have been frivolous. I do not want to have a Federal law that suggests that you cannot go into the courthouse. This bill allows judges to order individuals to reimburse litigation costs, including attorneys' fees, by specifically stating that reasonable attorneys' fees should be taken into account when assessing the amount of the sanction. That means that the poorer client is going to be thrown out. This is supposed to help small businesses. At the same time, it may be the small business that is a petitioner. They may think their case is legitimate. For example, what about this lawsuit for one business against another. That is frivolous lawsuits, when you had Enterprise, a very big company, filed a lawsuit against Rent-A-Wreck of America, a tiny rental company, and Hertz Corporation and threatened to file lawsuits against several other rental car companies that used the phrase, ``pick you up,'' claiming that ``We'll pick you up'' is Enterprise's slogan. Then there was a whole bunch of other lawsuits around who will pick you up, and who is not picking you up and why you are being picked up. We could label frivolous lawsuits across the board. It should be left to the judges in Rule 11. This legislation removes the safe harbor provision of the rule which allows an attorney a period of 21 days to withdraw an objectionable pleading. That undermines justice. Maybe the lawyer made a mistake and therefore we do not have that opportunity. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say this is a bill that has no basis in need, and we should unanimously defeat it. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the base bill before the Committee of the Whole H.R. 4571, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005 and state my support for the substitute offered by the Gentleman from as California, Mr. Schiff. As I mentioned during the Committee on the Judiciary's oversight hearing on this legislation during its iteration in the 108th Congress and reiterated in my statement for the markup, one of the main functions of the Congress before it passes legislation is to analyze potentially negative impact against the benefits that it might have on those affected. The base bill before the House today does not represent the product of careful analysis. In the case of H.R. 4571, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, the oversight functions of the Judiciary Committee allowed us to craft a bill that will protect those affected from negative impacts of the shield from liability that it proposes. This legislation required an overhaul in order to make it less of a misnomer--to reduce abuse rather than encourage it. The goal of the tort reform legislation is to allow businesses to externalize, or shift, some of the cost of the injuries they cause to others. Tort law always assigns liability to the party in the best position to prevent an injury in the most reasonable and fair manner. In looking at the disparate impact that the new tort reform laws will have on ethnic minority groups, it is unconscionable that the burden will be placed on these groups--that are in the worst position to bear the liability costs. When Congress considers pre-empting State laws, it must strike the appropriate balance between two competing values--local control and national uniformity. Local control is extremely important because we all believe, as did the Founders two centuries ago, that state governments are closer to the people and better able to assess local needs and desires. National uniformity is also an important consideration In federalism--Congress' exclusive jurisdiction over interstate commerce has allowed our economy to grow dramatically over the past 200 years. This legislation would reverse the changes to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, FRCP, that were made by the Judicial Conference in 1993 such that (1) sanctions against an attorney whose litigation tactics are determined to harass or cause unnecessary delay or cost or who has been determined to have made frivolous legal arguments or unwarranted factual assertions would become mandatory rather than discretionary to the court, (2) discovery-related activity would be included within the scope of the Rule, and (3) the Rule would be extended to state cases affecting interstate commerce so that if a state judge decides that a case affects interstate commerce, he or she must apply Rule 11 if violations are found. This legislation strips State and Federal judges of their discretion in the area of applying Rule 11 sanctions. Furthermore, it infringes States' rights by forcing state courts to apply the rule if interstate commerce is affected. Why is the discretion of the judge not sufficient in discerning whether Rule 11 sanctions should be assessed? If this legislation moves forward in this body, it will be important for us to find out its effect on indigent plaintiffs or those who must hire an attorney strictly on a contingent-fee basis. Because the application of Rule 11 would be mandatory, attorneys will pad their legal fees to account for the additional risk that they will have to incur in filing lawsuits and the fact that they will have no opportunity to withdraw the suit due to a mistake. Overall, this legislation will deter indigent plaintiffs from seeking counsel to file meritorious claims given the extremely high legal fees. Furthermore, H.R. 4571, as drafted, would allow corporations that perform sham and non-economic transactions in order to enjoy economic benefits in this country. Therefore, I planned to offer an amendment that would preclude these entities from so benefiting. The text of the amendment defined the term ``Benedict Arnold Corporation'' and proposed to prevent such companies from benefiting from the legal remedies that H.R. 4571 purports to offer. The ``Benedict Arnold Corporation'' refers to a company that, in bad faith, takes advantage loopholes in our tax code to establish bank accounts or to ship jobs abroad for the main purpose of tax avoidance. A tax-exempt group that monitors corporate influence called ``Citizen Works'' has compiled a list of 25 Fortune 500 Corporations that have the most offshore tax-haven subsidiaries. The percentage of increase in the number of tax havens held by these corporations since between 85.7 percent and 9,650 percent. This significant increase in the number of corporate tax havens is no coincidence when we look at the benefits that can be fund in doing sham business transactions. Some of these corporations are ``Benedict Arnolds'' because they have given up their American citizenship; however, they still conduct a substantial amount of their business in the United States and enjoy tax deductions of domestic corporations. Such an amendment would preclude these corporations from enjoying the benefit of mandatory attorney sanctions for a Rule 11 violation. By forcing these corporate entities to fully litigate matters brought helps to put their true corporate identity into light and discourages them from performing as many domestic transactions that may be actionable for a claimant. In the context of the Judiciary's consideration of the Terrorist Penalties Enhancement Act, H.R. 2934, my colleagues accepted an amendment that I offered that ensured that corporate felons were included in the list of individuals eligible for prosecution for committing terrorist offenses. The amendment that I would have offered for this bill has the same intent--to increase corporate accountability and to encourage corporate activity with integrity. I ask that my colleagues support the Substitute offered by Mr. Schiff and defeat the base bill. We must carefully consider the long-term implications that this bill, as drafted, will have on indigent claimants, the trial attorney community, and facilitation of corporate fraud.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I was listening to the gentleman framing the question, and the gentleman framed the question I think in the way that we should ask our colleagues for them to give us an answer. I think what the gentleman has suggested in his very detailed and eloquent presentation, there is a judicial system in place that is functioning and functional. We should take the Boy Scouts' oath, make your camp better than you found it. Therefore, if there are issues that we can improve in the judiciary, let us do it. But I am just looking at some information here that tells me that Federal litigation is, in fact, decreasing. A 2005 report issued by the U.S. Department of Justice says that the U.S. district courts in some areas, of course, fell 79 percent, fell 79 percent, the cases, the tort cases, between 1985 and 2003. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, tort actions in the U.S. district courts went down from 29 percent from 2002 to 2003, so it fell 28 percent. In addition, over the last 5 years, Federal civil filings have not only decreased 8 percent, but the prefilings that are personal injury cases has also declined. State litigation is decreasing. The numbers show they are decreasing. Lawsuit filings are decreasing. As I said, tort filings have declined 5 percent since 1993. Contract filings have declined. I do not particularly consider that a good omen. I would like people to legitimately feel they can go into the courts for their remedies. But the question is, it is not broken, and here we are putting heavier burdens on the court system that literally shuts the door closed to a number of individuals, and I think that is completely unacceptable for the responsibility of this Congress.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Houston Astros gave the State of Texas and the city of Houston one heck of a good ride. I just want to hold a little red card in my hand for lack of anything red this afternoon to be able to thank the Astros family, Drayton McLane, all of the players, the management, all the staff at Minute Maid Park, to be able to say a big thank you for a long, tedious season, but a hard- fought season. My hat is off. Congratulations to the Chicago White Sox. But our little team of 42 years for the first time in the history of the State of Texas took Texas to the World Series. Not only did we take Texas to the World Series, but being in my congressional district, the Minute Maid Park, the Astros are my constituents, among many others. We gave our community just a heck of a lot of joy, as you heard the buzz going around the children, the young people, the elderly, season ticket holders and others. I cannot thank the Astros enough. We still believe. We may not have made it this time around, but we still believe in the Houston Astros.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, while the Committee on Rules reported out a rule that made in order a substantive amendment offered by the Gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, I rise in opposition to it, H. Res. 508 because the legislation underlying is pernicious. As I mentioned during the Committee on the Judiciary's oversight hearing on this legislation during its first iteration in the 108th Congress and reiterated in my statement for the markup, one of the main functions of that body's oversight is to analyze potentially negative impact against the benefits that a legal process or piece of legislation will have on those affected. The base bill before the House today does not represent the product of careful analysis and therefore, it is critical that Members be given the ability to offer amendments to improve its provisions. In the case of H.R. 4571, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act the oversight functions of the Judiciary Committee allowed us to craft a bill that will protect those affected from negative impacts of the shield from liability that it proposes. This legislation requires an overhaul in order to make it less of a misnomer--to reduce abuse rather than encourage it. The goal of the tort reform legislation is to allow businesses to externalize, or shift, some of the cost of the injuries they cause to others. Tort law always assigns liability to the party in the best position to prevent an injury in the most reasonable and fair manner. In looking at the disparate impact that the new tort reform laws will have on ethnic minority groups, it is unconscionable that the burden will be placed on these groups--that are in the worst position to bear the liability costs. When Congress considers pre-empting state laws, it must strike the appropriate balance between two competing values--local control and national uniformity. Local control is extremely important because we all believe, as did the Founders two centuries ago, that State governments are closer to the people and better able to assess local needs and desires. National uniformity is also an important consideration in federalism--Congress' exclusive jurisdiction over interstate commerce has allowed our economy to grow dramatically over the past 200 years. This legislation would reverse the changes to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, FRCP, that were made by the Judicial Conference in 1993 such that (1) sanctions against an attorney whose litigation tactics are determined to harass or cause unnecessary delay or cost or who has been determined to have made frivolous legal arguments or unwarranted factual assertions would become mandatory rather than discretionary to the court, (2) discovery-related activity would be included within the scope of the Rule, and (3) the Rule would be extended to state cases affecting interstate commerce so that if a state judge decides that a case affects interstate commerce, he or she must apply Rule 11 if violations are found. This legislation strips State and Federal judges of their discretion in the area of applying Rule 11 sanctions. Furthermore, it infringes States' rights by forcing State courts to apply the rule if interstate commerce is affected. Why is the discretion of the judge not sufficient in discerning whether Rule 11 sanctions should be assessed? If this legislation moves forward in this body, it will be important for us to find out its effect on indigent plaintiffs or those who must hire an attorney strictly on a contingent--fee basis. Because the application of Rule 11 would be mandatory, attorneys will pad their legal fees to account for the additional risk that they will have to incur in filing lawsuits and the fact that they will have no opportunity to withdraw the suit due to a mistake. Overall, this legislation will deter indigent plaintiffs from seeking counsel to file meritorious claims given the extremely high legal fees. Furthermore, H.R. 4571, as drafted, would allow corporations that perform sham and non-economic transactions in order to enjoy economic benefits in this country . This is a bad rule that will have terrible implications on our legislative branch, and I ask that my colleagues to defeat the rule, defeat the bill, and support the Substitute offered by Mr. Schiff. We must carefully consider the long-term implications that this bill, as drafted, will have on indigent claimants, the trial attorney community, and facilitation of corporate fraud.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, all of us would like to claim a personal relationship with Rosa Parks. I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) for her leadership on the naming of this building, the timing and the ability for the legislation to make its way to the floor at this time to allow us to share our thoughts. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for his guiding hand, and certainly the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) as well, not only for her leadership, but also for the knowledge that she gives to this issue. I started by saying that we all would have liked to have had a personal relationship, but at least we can say that we had the opportunity to meet Rosa Parks. As we met her, we stood in awe as we have heard the words on the floor tonight, because, in fact, although she was a humble spirit, she was and continues to be larger than life. As we proceed to mourn her this weekend and through the coming months and weeks, there will be opportunities to name stamps after her and to seek ways of measuring the contributions that she made to America. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in the celebration. Let us not diminish the celebration of Rosa Parks and the role that she played in American history by any of the partisan politics that may take place. We are doing too much. Is this not enough? Because as the story is told, as we have already evidenced, she described herself as a simple seamstress. We realize that when she did sit down on that bus and she was arrested, there was no raising of the voice. There was a calmness. She simply told the bus driver she was not moving. I think the interesting thing for those of us who are trained as lawyers, she did not ask for her lawyer, but she asked for her pastor, Martin Luther King, a pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church. It symbolized the kind of woman that she was. But it also symbolized the passion that she had for civil rights and freedom in the NAACP and the fact that she wanted to create a movement, and a movement she created. But it was not just a movement. It was a thunderous sound across America that stood up and said no to the divisiveness and the horrific-ness of segregation and told America once and for all, as the only way that a seamstress with a mild manner could say, but like a mother, she said, you will not do this. You have been naughty, and now is the time to stop. For that I will be ever grateful, for I would not have been a graduate of an institution that I went to that was a majority institution. I would not have been able to go to law school had it not been for the courage of Rosa Parks, would not have been able to come out of the place where I lived, seen a greater day and a better opportunity, because we had, at that time, no thoughts of rising to the level of where we are today. So, Rosa Parks, may you rest in peace. We thank you for in that simple manner, quiet demeanor, but yet courageous stand, a big heart, a loving heart, be able to set the tone. As I close, let me join by saying, let us recommit ourselves to be a country that believes in one person, one vote, no barriers or obstructions to voting. No long lines, no bad balloting, no miscounts. No false registration. Let us do that in the name of Rosa Parks, and may she rest in peace.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 509 as reported out of the Committee on Rules last night relative to our debate of the GSE legislation, H.R. 1461. While many substantive amendments were made in order, the committee blocked what we undoubtedly consider one of the most substantive amendments that was offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Frank, the ranking member of the body from which the underlying measure was discharged. The gentleman's amendment would have removed language contained in the current manager's amendment that bars organizations with proven experience in mobilizing community support and resources--a nonpartisan initiative. In addition, the manager's amendment would constrain the ability of experienced faith-based and community-based organizations to successfully compete for the affordable housing funds that are proposed in the underlying bill. My district of Houston, TX, has a plethora of faith-based organizations that have plans that would provide much-needed affordable housing for the surrounding community. Our affordable housing stock has suffered for a long time, and I have been working steadfastly with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to facilitate the obtainment of opportunities by these groups. The nugatory provisions in the manager's amendment will contravene the hard work that I and many other Members have done to this end. While I applaud the effort made by the administration to remove barriers to full participation in Federal programs and funding faith- based entities, proposals such as the manager's amendment will bar these groups from access to this funding while for-profit agencies remain free to engage in the democratic process which is every American's birthright. This double-standard must be removed. It contravenes the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the manager's amendment because it is a deal breaker with those provisions and certainly because the conference of Catholic bishops has indicated that they want to build houses and participate in democracy too. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the instant legislation, H.R. 1461--especially insofar as it fails to remove the unfair and unreasonable language that provides that nonprofits will be prohibited from using their own funds to engage in nonpartisan voter registration and requires that housing be their primary purpose in order to receive funds. The Motion to Recommit made by Mr. Franks seeks to protect our faith- based entities that need these valuable dollars to provide affordable housing. Not only would the Gentleman's amendment have redeemed this legislation, but his Motion to Recommit would have removed language contained in the current Manager's Amendment that bars organizations with proven experience in mobilizing community support and resources--a nonpartisan initiative. In addition, the Manager's Amendment would constrain the ability of experienced faith-based and community-based organizations to successfully compete for the affordable housing funds that are proposed in the underlying bill. My District of Houston, Texas, has a plethora of faith-based organizations that have plans that would provide much-needed affordable housing for the surrounding community. Our affordable housing stock has suffered for a long time, and I have been working steadfastly with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to facilitate the obtainment of opportunities by these groups. The nugatory provisions in the Manager's Amendment will contravene the hard work that I and many other Members have done to this end. While I applaud the effort made by the administration to remove barriers to full participation in Federal programs and funding faith- based entities, proposals such as the Manager's Amendment will bar these groups from access to this funding while for-profit agencies remain free to engage in the same voter registration activities. This double-standard must be removed--it contravenes the spirit of the U.S. Constitution. Existing limits in H.R. 1461 on activities that qualify for affordable housing funds prevent abuse of this funding. Groups, many of which operate in my District of Houston sign certifications to receive Federal, State, and local government funds that prohibit diversion of program funds for political and lobbying purposes. There are multiple vehicles available to ensure that the new Affordable Housing Funds are protected from inappropriate use by grantees. Our faith-based groups need the proposed Affordable Housing Fund under H.R. 1461, especially in the devastated Gulf Coast region where hundreds of thousands of families have not been able to return to their homes. In such challenging times, it would be unfortunate if experienced faith-based organizations and nonprofits that have performed laudably in meeting the needs of these survivors would be barred from participation in funding that would help meet critical housing needs. Mr. Chairman, I support the legislation on the above limited basis.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding. I am moved by the gentleman's words. I want to thank him for this Special Order. I want to also thank him for wisdom more than his years at that time for the friendship and relationship that he established with Mrs. Parks and the fact that she served and honored all of the congressional staff by being a congressional staffer and working with him over the years. I want to point out a few items regarding Mrs. Parks and thank her so very much for the service that she has given. John Hope Franklin made a comment that I think is very telling of Rosa Parks: her prominence endures. And she did not strike a cord for African American women, but she struck a cord for Americans. And when we look at the fabric of history, American history, world history, and particularly focus on our history, there were certain volcanic historical incidents in America: the founding of Plymouth Rock, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, World War I, World War II, certainly different categories, and the beginning of the birth of the civil rights movement in the 20th century. No one can be more attributed to that than Rosa Parks. For those of us who are the beneficiaries of that simple act from a very diminutive woman, the act of refusing to adhere to an unjust law, we owe her an enormous debt of gratitude. For those of us who had the pleasure and opportunity of interfacing with her during her lifetime, simply as any one of us would acknowledge being in her presence, again we owe her a debt of gratitude. And, frankly, I think it is important to note that as she sat down on the bus, with intentions to be arrested, she set off a 300-day plus movement, boycott, march, walk, described by Dr. King in his words of watching one of the Montgomerians, if you will, citizens, walk back and forth, back and forth. Dr. King eventually asked that person who participated in the Montgomery Improvement Association was she not tired. And in her own words she said, My feet is tired, but my soul is rested. Rosa Parks set the tone and the movement to empower these citizens in Montgomery, Alabama to walk and walk and walk and walk. We should not ignore the fact that she was a trained member of the NAACP, and she will acknowledge that her courage, but also her training to accept that nonviolent approach to challenging an unjust law, came through that very effective NAACP training that was utilized across the deep South. For the NAACP was the first body politic on the ground that empowered Medgar Evers, and Rosa Parks, many others, Christy Adar in my hometown, to become the kind of leaders and pioneers in the civil rights movement. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise today to thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, for his voice and giving us the opportunity to speak, and to be able to say, as I close, for there are many of us who want to share in our commitment and purpose and our celebration of Rosa Parks, that, Mr. Speaker, you well know, and I might imagine that someone in your life has spoken to you and taught you and said words are not necessarily the best tribute. It has to be deeds. So I think we stand tonight, many of us, from the Congressional Black Caucus who happen to be Members of this Congress, to hopefully say to Rosa Parks, as she flies away, for that is a song we often sing in a home-going ceremony, she will fly away, flying up to heaven, is that we are committed to the reauthorization of the 1965 Voter Rights Act, we are committed to the voting rights of every single American, that every vote counts, we are committed to a Nation that respects the human dignity of each person, and we are committed to finally breaking the cycle of segregation, discrimination, and racism in this country. We owe Rosa Parks that commitment that we will forever be indebted to her by our words. Rosa Parks, will you please rest in peace, and I know that you will fly away.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I really wish that today we could exercise our conscience and vote without the interference of the National Rifle Association. I do believe in the second amendment, the Bill of Rights, that indicates that you are allowed to bear arms; but this legislation has nothing to do with the first or the second amendments, freedom of expression or the right to bear arms. More than 10 years ago, as a member of the Houston City Council, I passed the first gun safety legislation that held parents responsible for guns in their homes, that children were then able to take and cause a tragedy. I remember the physician of the Texas Medical Center, Texas Children's Hospital Emergency Room, coming and testifying. I remember a parent coming and holding a very limp child, a paraplegic. They stood before us and they said this is the result of a shooting by a gun by a child who got the gun because of an irresponsible parent. That has not stopped the State of Texas and hunters from going to hunt. In fact, it has been noted that it saved lives and saved dollars. Here we now have legislation with a blocked rule that suggests that no one can sue, no one can bring a suit of liability against gun manufacturers, and we are now suggesting that this is embedded in the likes and the hearts of the second amendment. Is it the second amendment that says to a Philadelphia mother who won a settlement of only $850,000 from a gun dealer who negligently sold multiple guns to a gun trafficker, a child found one of the guns on a street in Philadelphia and accidently shot the mother's 7-year-old son, is there some reason, Mr. Speaker, we should not have these kinds of lawsuits? Is there some reason, Mr. Speaker, that this now putting forward only a negligence per se exception will, in fact, disallow States like Arkansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, the citizens in those particular States cannot sue at all because they cannot meet the standard because there is no such standard as negligence per se? It is unfortunate that the amendments that we were prepared to offer were not accepted; and as presently written, H.R. 800 makes individuals who sell machine guns, semiautomatic weapons, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices immune from that lawsuit, the same kind of bill that we have here before us. In my own State of Texas, a San Antonio police officer named Hector Garza was brutally murdered when he responded to a family violence call. His assailant was armed with a MAC-10 semiautomatic pistol and AK-47 assault rifle. The shooter also murdered his wife and shot his uncle in the leg. Police Chief Al Phillips said that with the fire power the shooter possessed, the incident might have turned into a bloodbath and he could have killed multiple officers. This is wrong-headed and misdirected. It is time now for us to vote this legislation down. What a shame for the NRA to buy this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation, S. 397, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, just as I did with my colleagues in the case of H.R. 800 in the Judiciary Committee and H.R. 1036 during the 108th Congress. Just as in the case of the malignant Bankruptcy legislation, S. 256, that finessed itself to the House floor for consideration and then to passage into law, H.R. 1036 passed in Committee body last Congress without having given many members the opportunity to have very substantive amendments considered--shielded by ``parliamentary inquiry.'' So too did Members have very important proposals to improve this very troubled piece of legislation. S. 397, like its predecessor and House companion in the 108th Congress, seeks to shield irresponsible gun manufacturers, vendors, dealers, distributors, and importers from liability under the guise of protection from ``frivolous lawsuits.'' As the Democrats of this Committee stated quite eloquently in its ``Dissenting Views'' (108-59), courts around the country have recognized that precisely the types of cases that would be barred by this bill are grounded in well-accepted legal principles, including negligence, products liability, and public nuisance. These courts have held that those who make and sell guns--like all others in society--are obligated to use reasonable care in selling and designing their product, and that they may be liable for the foreseeable injurious consequences of their failure to do so even if those foreseeable consequences include unlawful conduct by third parties. This bill, if enacted, would nullify these decisions, rewriting and subverting the common law of those States, and then, only with respect to a particular industry. In the past iteration of this legislation, I offered an amendment that would exempt from the scope of the bill any lawsuit brought by a plaintiff who was harmed as the result of an unlawful transfer of a machine gun, semi-automatic assault weapon, or large capacity ammunition feeding device. The U.S. Code, in Section 922 of Title 18, makes it unlawful for a person from transfer or possess a machine gun, semi-automatic assault weapon, or large capacity ammunition feeding device. In addition, before the Committee on Rules earlier this week, I joined my colleague from California, Ms. Lofgren in offering an amendment captioned ``Lofgre_044,'' that proposes an additional exception to the definition of ``qualified civil liability action'' for law enforcement officers acting in that capacity. This legislation creates very overbroad prohibitions for civil lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms, and this amendment seeks to protect one of many classes of parties that might be aggrieved as a result of firearm use. While I do sit on the Committee on Homeland Security, one does not have to sit on this body to know that our first responders need and deserve protection from unintended situations. These men and women sit at the front line and are the first to act when our Nation is threatened. The de minimis effort that we as legislators can give is to protect legitimate claims filed by them in connection with the use of firearms. The amendment did not say that gun dealers should be liable simply because they sold a gun that was used in a crime, nor does it say that the families of all 297 officers shot to death between 1997 and 2001 should be able to recover. It simply stated that when a gun dealer sells 12 or 50 or 100 guns to a person who is clearly going to turn around and sell those guns on the street, that dealer should be held accountable. Now, the proponents of this bill may argue that the negligence per se exception protects police officers because it allows suits against dealers who violate other statutes, like the Brady Act. But that is simply not true. It would not have protected Mr. Lemongello, who brought his suit in a State that does not recognize the doctrine of negligence per se. I would also point out that this bill steps all over States' rights. As we've seen, with the Schiavo case and other tort reform efforts, the leadership of the House is all too eager to ignore principles of federalism when it suits their ideological needs. I believe that this bill is just another example of that principle. More than 30,000 gun deaths occur each year, so the almost blanket immunization from suit proposed in this legislation represents nothing more than an unwarranted and unjust special interest giveaway to the powerful gun lobby and a shameful attack on the legal rights of countless innocent victims of gun violence. Never before has a class of persons harmed by the dangerous conduct of others been wholly deprived of the right to legal recourse. The Lofgren-Jackson Lee amendment would have protected the right to sue for members of the law enforcement community along with their spouses or next of kin in the event of their wrongful death. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. As presently written, H.R. 800 makes those individuals who sell machine guns, semi-automatic weapons, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices immune from suit. It makes no sense that the sellers of weapons that have been banned by Congress can avoid civil liability when the guns they sell are used in crimes. Congress has enacted this ban on machine guns, semi-automatic assault weapons, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices for an obvious reason--these assault weapons are dangerous. The deadly characteristics of semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles was tragically illustrated in my home state of Texas. A San Antonio police officer named Hector Garza was brutally murdered when he responded to a family violence call. His assailant was armed with a Mac--10 semi-automatic pistol and an AK-47 assault rifle. The shooter also murdered his wife and shot his uncle in the leg. Police Chief Al Phillipus said that with the firepower the shooter possessed the incident ``might have turned into a bloodbath'' and he ``could have killed multiple officers.'' I will offer this amendment because the exceptions to the general ban on lawsuits against gun manufacturers and merchants is too narrow. One such narrow exception allows the victims of gun violence to sue a gun seller only if the gun purchaser is subsequently convicted of the gun- related crime. This exception is insulting to the victims of gun violence. It prioritizes the rights of negligent gun sellers and criminals before the rights of the victims of gun violence. H.R. 800 should be amended to allow the victims of gun violence to seek civil damages when there are allegations of wrongdoing. Under this amendment, the victims of gun violence will not have to wait for a criminal conviction in order to seek justice. To make those individuals who sell Congressionally banned machine guns, semi-automatic assault weapons, and large capacity ammunition feeding devices liable for their negligent acts. I also offer this amendment so that the victims of gun violence can seek civil damages prior to the conviction of the gun purchaser. In addition, I will offer an amendment that will exempt from the scope of the bill those lawsuits involving injury or death to minors under the age of 16. As presently written, S. 397 prohibits all civil lawsuits against gun manufacturers, dealers, distributors, and trade associations for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful gun use by the injured person or a third party. There are a few limited exceptions to the overall ban. However, none of the exceptions in the bill protects the rights of minors, or the parents of minors, to sue for civil damages when a minor is injured or killed by a gun that is negligently or recklessly manufactured or distributed. As it is presently written, a gun merchant could negligently or recklessly sell a gun to a criminal. That gun could then be used to seriously injure or kill a minor. Under S. 397, the negligent gun seller would be immune from any civil liability. It is absurd to deny the families of children killed or injured by the negligence or recklessness of gun distributors an opportunity to sue. At the very least, the victims of gun violence and their families deserve an opportunity to have their claims heard by a judge and jury. It is certainly foreseeable that some guns will accidentally fall into the hands of children and serious injuries or tragic deaths may result. Those gun distributors and sellers who fail to conduct adequate background checks, or fail to take other measures to ensure that guns to do not fall into criminal hands should not be free from liability. Gun merchants have a responsibility to conduct their business safely and protect the lives of children. When they fail to do so they should be held accountable in a court of law. Gun manufacturers and merchants should be liable in courts of law when their negligent acts result in the death or injury to a minor. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill, and the amendments that strive to make some improvements that will provide relief to parties that need protection were closed out without consideration. For the reasons above stated, I reject this legislation and I urge my colleagues to join me.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me mention that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) has a long and prominent history in knowing the laws of this Nation in his earlier life, and as well rendering them in the proper manner. And I want to follow the comments that you made about the amendments offered in the committee, and as well make mention of the fact of the kind of complete reckless, if you will, lacking of sensitivity, to putting forward real balanced legislation. In our dissenting views, the Democrats of this committee mentioned courts around the country, and by the way, there are views about gun safety across the aisle. But courts around the country have recognized that precisely the types of cases that would be barred by this bill are grounded in well-accepted legal principles, including negligence, products liability and public nuisance. These courts have held that those who make and sell guns, like all others in society, are obligated to use reasonable care in selling and designing their products and that they may be liable for foreseeable injurious consequences. The courts have answered this question. They have rejected frivolous lawsuits. And those that have merit they have accepted. I offered an amendment that would exempt from the scope of the bill any lawsuit brought by a plaintiff who was harmed as a result of an unlawful transfer of a machine gun, semi-automatic assault weapon, or large- capacity ammunition feeding device. These particular arms, illegal. And therefore the manufacturer does have some liability in it. And this latest offering of the bill, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) and myself offered a bill that would exempt law enforcement officers. This bill does not even exempt law enforcement officers. And even in this climate of homeland security, it is well known that our first responders need to be protected by the reckless use of machine guns and AK-47s. And this legislation turns a blind eye to reality. It turns a blind eye to the shooting of children. It turns a blind eye to the sniper in Washington, to the Philadelphia mother. I ask my colleagues to vote against this legislation. This is not the second amendment. This is the NRA free legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there are days that we can come to this floor and obviously raise issues of great concern to America and Americans. But I would like to think that we can also come to this floor and celebrate a joyous family of great ball players in a city that has longed for a winner in American baseball history. And, yes, founded in 1962, the Houston Astros have won the place to play in the World Series. And so I say: Go Astros. And I say thank you to a great city of fans, Houston, Texas, to the Drayton McLane family. Mr. and Mrs. McLane and their children have been a wonderful addition to Houston. They love their team, they love their city. To their staff, to the pitching staff like Clemens and Pettite and Oswalt. To Bagwell and Biggio. And, of course, to all the old players, or they will not want to be called old but to Enos Cabell and many others. We know that we have got a tough road ahead to go to the World Series, but who can beat a team who was down on Monday night and came back and won 5-1. All we can say is it is about family values. And when I say family values, it is about a family of players who are committed and dedicated to their tasks and who never gave up. Houstonians did not give up, Mr. Speaker, and so I am here this morning to say: Go Astros. Go Astros.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.