Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, let me, first of all, suggest that we owe a debt of gratitude to all of the volunteers across the country that have come in to places like Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and my own State of Texas. So this is not an expression of concern with disregard for the charity that has been shown by the throngs of volunteers. And, might I suggest, like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), that volunteers have come from everywhere without the question of whether or not they are immune or protected. I refer my colleagues to the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 which really crafts, I think, the latitude and the range of protection that makes sense. It provides immunity for volunteers serving nonprofit organizations and government entities, which include the likes of FEMA and the Red Cross and also the folks that come under that umbrella and the many nonprofits that exist. The idea that this legislation might, in fact, protect those who are grossly negligent seems flawed in several aspects. Even though the Attorney General of the State of Louisiana has now moved against this tragic circumstance with the loss of lives of a number of individuals in a particular nursing home, we do realize that this is now at a level of criminal charges, but suppose it was not. Certainly the American people and Louisianans and others would want that particular entity to be held liable for gross negligence, if you will, and they happen not to be, I assume, a nonprofit, so that they might be covered by this legislation for their gross negligence. What about the hospital? The facts will come out. Obviously, one cannot suggest guilt where one does not know all of the facts, but the facts will come out. But now it has been discovered, a number of bodies in a hospital in Louisiana, and that, too, may warrant consideration that this bill does not address. I would hope that in the rush to deal with the plaintiffs' bar, trial lawyers who have, in many instances, found justice where others could not on environmental issues, on medical malpractice issues, on issues dealing with occupational disasters that have caused injury to workers, that we would not be focused on that ``perceived problem'' versus the needs of people who are being served. We want the volunteers to be there. We want them to be protected, and we believe that we do have the protection. As I speak about this bill, might I also bring attention to a bill that I missed, Mr. Speaker, and I simply want to add my support to the 50th recognition of the Rosa Parks legislation that acknowledges her quest for justice by sitting down. I weave this into this debate because I think that it is relevant when we begin to talk about how Congress fixes problems. Rosa Parks certainly spread across the land a new idea of justice and the refusal, if you will, to be subjected to unfair and unjust laws. I pay tribute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and all of those who have spoken in support of what she did to change America, and I add my voice to the commemoration that was on the floor just previously. As I infuse back into the Katrina Volunteer Protection Act and mention the volunteers, one has to accept the time that they have to speak to important issues at hand. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), I offer today an important issue that speaks to the question of justice and, I assume as well, the thoughts of this body, and that is the unfair position that Frances Newton finds herself in, an African American woman, but a woman that is now on death row today, September 14, in Texas whose execution date is 6 p.m. central standard time. This Congress may have some cause, but this is now in the hands of the administration, the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court, and the governor of the State of Texas. If we do not act today, a woman who did not have effective counsel, whose counsel did not question one witness, whose counsel did not present one iota of evidence, who now has found that there were multiple weapons, who has a flawed DNA background in terms of this case and, likewise, who has protested and petitioned over and over again that she did not kill her children, will now go to her death. Whether or not this Congress has the power to instruct the Supreme Court of the United States, as we now hear the proceedings of Judge Roberts, we know that this body should be a body concerned about justice. I would wholly hope that those who can hear my voice will petition by way of their own way, their representatives, to ask the Solicitor General to petition on the side of the Innocence Project to allow the case to be reheard, a new trial to secure this evidence, to secure the ability to give Frances Newton a new trial of which she deserves. We cannot stand on the floor of the House today and talk about protecting volunteers, albeit I have the concerns as enunciated, and not suggest that we cannot protect the justice system. Frances Newton has protested and petitioned her innocence. She is a mother who says that she did not kill her children. The governor of the State of Texas has the power to give her a 30-day extension, and I would hope that our voices will be heard. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for their willingness to sign on to a letter asking for that petition to be heard, and I would ask other Members of Congress to do likewise. Mr. Speaker, I have expressed my views on the Katrina Volunteer Protection Act and I hope, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) said, that we could work on this together.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Resolution 208, recognizing the 50th anniversary of Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat on the bus and the subsequent desegregation of American society. Passage of this bill will not only recognize the important anniversary, but also reaffirm the United States' continuing commitment to the legacy of Rosa Parks and the civil rights movement as a whole. On December 1, 1954, 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 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, but also remember that her fight is not over. This anniversary reminds us of the battles against inequality and injustice still being fought here and across the world today. I support H. Con. Res. 208 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 know we will not forget, but I believe that as we make our way through confronting and addressing the pain of those who survived Hurricane Katrina, we should know all of the facts. Coming from Houston, let me say that one of the glaring tragedies that we will face are the large numbers of children that will be traumatically impacted by this disaster. In addition, we know that 300,000 to 400,000 of those children will remain homeless, and there are still lost children in Houston at the George R. Brown Convention Center and the Astrodome. This week I will be convening advocates for children from around the Nation to sit down and craft a strategy that can address these large numbers of children, not only today in their lives but long-term. These victims will be with us for a long time. We are grateful for the generosity of Americans; but even in their hope and their optimism, we must confront the long-term solutions to bring about a better quality of life and for them, the joy of life. Let us focus on the children. I welcome the thoughts of Americans and those who advocate for children to craft an agenda, a long-term strategy to help the children of the terrible Hurricane Katrina and terrible tragedy that has occurred for them and their families.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as we offer our sympathy and reflection today to the victims of 9/11, we stand here again looking at another horrific and unspeakable tragedy, Hurricane Katrina. The numbers are clear that the greatest victims will be children. Some 400 children are homeless, and we know that between one-third and a quarter of them will have a traumatic experience after the end of their journey through Hurricane Katrina. We know that 35 percent of them that experienced this terrible tragedy will have a severe mental illness, and we also know that there are 800 missing children that are now lost or presumed dead through Hurricane Katrina. I think it is important as we look toward more legislation bills and moving quickly to address the horribleness of this tragedy that we provide for a one-time grant assistance for the children who have been impacted by this hurricane and that legislation be drafted and passed by both bodies to secure their protection and that we provide a structure that will monitor these children through adulthood, through reaching the age of majority. We have heard from psychiatrists that say that the most vulnerable victims of this tragedy who will suffer a horrific experience will be our children. We must rally around them. It is imperative that this Congress work together to provide them with the financial, social, psychiatric, and, of course, family assistance that is necessary.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because of the grave and immediate need that exists. As a representative of Houston, Texas, where over 150,000 Katrina evacuees were received, I can say from first hand knowledge that this is truly only a first step toward what is necessary and emergent. This measure is an initial investment--a down payment--for a long-term relief package--that unfortunately has not yet been codified. Here we are, nine days after Hurricane Katrina devastated parts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. I want to thank Congressmen Jefferson and Thompson, who have displayed great courage and resolve to help their constituents through the aftermath of this natural disaster. In my Congressional District in Houston tens of thousands of evacuees are being sheltered and fed. In fact, Americans throughout this country are stepping up to help those affected by this disaster. It demonstrates that once again in our darkest hour that we have united as a Nation to help our brothers and sisters who now seek to rebuild their lives. Dollars spent through the Department of Defense must be re-channeled directly to the affected regions and people in order to provide relief in a timely manner. Furthermore, we must find steps to move forward immediately to help those affected by this disaster and to try to prevent such an ineffective response from taking place again. I plan to introduce a number of legislative measures that will seek to alleviate the suffering of the survivors of the most devastating natural disaster in modern American history. Hurricane Katrina has traumatized children on a frightening scale. According to the United Nations, as many as 400,000 children have been left homeless. The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) estimated that the greatest impact of the tragedy would be upon the young and that children make up between a third and a quarter of those affected by the catastrophe. Of an estimated 1.32 million people made homeless, there are around 300,000 to 400,000 children--most of whom will remain so for weeks or months! This is the impetus behind legislation I plan to introduce that would provide a one-time grant for relief programs that would serve these children. I along with my Judiciary colleagues led by Ranking Member Conyers will introduce legislation to protect the hundreds of thousands of families and small businesses financially devastated by Hurricane Katrina from being penalized by debtor provisions contained in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, scheduled to take effect on October 17, 2005. This legislation is based in part on an amendment I offered at the markup of the Bankruptcy bill. We expect a Senate counterpart to be introduced this week as well. We are concerned that just as survivors of Hurricane Katrina are beginning to rebuild their lives, the new bankruptcy law will result in a further and unintended financial whammy. Unfortunately, the new law is likely to have the consequence of preventing devastated families from being able to obtain relief from massive and unexpected new financial obligations they are incurring by forcing them to repay their debt with income they no longer have, but which is counted by the law. Our bill makes several important adjustments. First, it would specify that individuals who are victims of natural disasters, and who incurred a substantial portion of their debt as a result of that disaster, are not subject to the ``means test'' and therefore cannot be forced into burdensome repayment plans. Although the current law includes an exception to the means test if the debtor can demonstrate ``special circumstances,'' qualifying for such an exemption will be quite costly and burdensome, and require numerous detailed filings and legal certifications. This is the last thing a hurricane victim should need to worry about. Since the current bankruptcy law counts all income earned in the six months prior to the bankruptcy as part of future income, this means that hurricane victims who have lost their jobs will be considered high income debtors who are presumed to be abusing the bankruptcy system. This is obviously absurd; so our bill gives the hurricane victims an automatic carve out, as we already do for certain categories of veterans. The legislation we plan to introduce will prevent new bankruptcy provisions from having adverse and unintended consequences for the hundreds of thousands of individuals now facing financial ruin by providing needed flexibility for victims of natural disasters in bankruptcy proceedings. I also plan to introduce a bill that will provide tax breaks for individuals who take in evacuees into their home. These people are stepping up to provide shelter and relief to their fellow Americans, and I believe it is certainly proper to encourage this behavior through the implementation of tax breaks. In addition, I propose legislation that will grant a minimum of 20,000 two-year tenant-based housing assistance vouchers for Katrina's victims, together with transportation and relocation assistance to be used where necessary. These vouchers should be administered by local housing agencies presently administering HUD-funded Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher assistance, which are located in or near the areas hardest hit by Katrina. These agencies are already position to provide housing assistance and can play an extremely helpful role meeting the immediate housing needs of Katrina's victims. This legislation would also allow the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to issue a wide range of statutory and regulatory waivers in order to most effectively and flexibly utilize HUD resources to meet the needs of victims. Finally, I am calling for the establishment of a Commission to study the genesis of the devastation caused by the hurricane. We need a 9/11 style commission to know everything that took place. In addition, I am calling for the establishment of a position of an ombudsman for FEMA in order to provide proper oversight. Without a proper investigation, we cannot get all the answers and without the answers we can not provide the necessary legislation and oversight needed to try to prevent this kind of human suffering from happening again in the future. Mr. Chairman, the harm that has been incurred by the people of the many regions affected by the disaster--most of which could have been mitigated, will require many phases of rehabilitation. I support this legislation as an initial step.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask to be added as a sponsor of this legislation, and I have to ask before the gentleman finally closes it out, as a cosponsor.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan for the time. I might want to take a moment just to say that I cannot thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) enough for his commitment to education. I thank my good friend from Louisiana. It looks like we meet again, trying to improve the lives of so many that I know that you wish we in Texas were not housing, but we thank you so very much for sharing some of the very best people that we have ever had an opportunity to meet. I want to say that particularly because this legislation is the kind of legislation that I believe should be on the floor every single day as we move toward Thanksgiving. Just imagine what life will be like for these survivors. Thanksgiving, the Christmas holiday, religious holidays that are coming, and literally the town of New Orleans, Biloxi, and places in Alabama have been obliterated by this horrific tragedy. Many of us have spoken to the issues of an inquiry that we support to find out what happened and when. Many of us have spoken about issues dealing with first responders and why and when and how they could have performed. Many of us have discussed FEMA and discussed the idea of the impact of the military, but all of us are committed to the lives of the victims, those who live, those who have survived; and each step of the way we must move expeditiously to make them the focal point of this business of this Congress. We may disagree and my colleagues will see us vigorously disagree on the performance of this government, whether or not it collapsed, whether or not we should apologize to the American people; but today, we are going to continue to stand here and unite around a solution. The Katrina College Relief Act is that solution. It helps the very colleges that are impacted ultimately and the families. We know there are an array of universities in the region. I know of two in particular that impact my community, Dillard and Southern University in New Orleans. We are finding that my university, one of my universities, Texas Southern University, will be taking in students. The University of Houston will be taking in Tulane students, and others are finding their way across our cities and States across America. So giving the Secretary of Education authority to waive the amounts of student grants such as Pell and TRIO will be vital in terms of students who have to withdraw from school. Directing the Secretary of Education to immediately readjust how much these families are expected to pay will be vital toward continuing a child's education. Providing student borrowers who live in the affected areas with 6 months of deferment is vital for the survival of these families. Might I say that I hope we will come to the floor again dealing with the under-21 age group. We know that there are thousands of children in the Texas area, in the Houston area under the age of 15. We have visited in those respective shelters, late into the night, visiting with families, with babies as young as 1 month old, children who are 9 and 10, 13, 14, and 15, who are now living their lives in temporary housing and/or in shelters. There has to be a focus, possibly of a one-time grant, for the enormous impact on the children of this region, on the children of America. So this first step dealing with the Katrina College Relief Act, and I applaud the sponsors of this legislation, leaders of this legislation, is just one statement that we are focused on America's children and America's future and that, in fact, those located in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama and the impact regions have our attention. We will not only address the questions of education but we will also fix the provisions that will allow us to directly pay those victims so they can get housing under FEMA and Housing and Urban Development. This is a good start. It is a plus direction for us to take. It is a unifying direction for us to take; but Mr. Speaker, we have many miles to travel, and I would like to be able to offer ultimately legislation dealing with the children who have been impacted by Katrina.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana for his leadership, and of course, express our sympathy and concern for the people of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama; and I think the Congresswoman is an example of the outpouring of concern across the Nation, having received just recently a number of evacuees, survivors, into Washington, D.C. It is good to know that even people without votes can open their hearts and minds to this great and powerful, horrific incident that has occurred, a tragedy in our lives. Let me first of all say to the members the families, those survivors, evacuees, and those who have lost loved ones, we are, in fact, our brothers' and sisters' keepers; and through the last 5 days I have been reminded more of the Good Samaritan parable in the Bible than at any other time in my life. We can say that Americans have certainly been the Good Samaritans, but I do want to take this time to acknowledge Houstonians and the people of Texas. There has been such an outpouring of effort, volunteers coming from every walk of life, the mustering together of resources through the county, county judges and the mayor of the city of Houston. The pictures may not have been as pretty as we would have liked, but the immediate response of the Astrodome and the immediate response of the coming together of elected persons and now a facility in my congressional district, the George R. Brown Convention Center; and the thought that went into organizing this process was overwhelming. The local responding to the crying out of people who, as I walked through those aisles of cots and humanity, babies and elderly and the sickly and the strong, each and every one had a thank you on their lips and said that they still had hope. As they lay there, to each of them I asked the question, were you in water? I could not imagine a 1-month-old or twins who were 1 month old or toddlers or 9-year-olds or amputees who had been in water, but each one had a sense of hope. So to Houston, I want to give, if I could, the enormous gratitude of the American people because you had willing hands, and I might want to acknowledge that the pastors of that community, the religious community of all different faiths, they are on their job. Anyone who is asking the question where are the pastors, where are the religious leaders, they are there. We are hoping they will continue to be there at the will of the people, going in and nurturing and counseling and worshipping as they desire, not putting it on them, but as they desire. I encourage my community to allow all of the pastors into the areas where the people are desirous of them to come, but might I, as I offer sympathy, offer these points of concern. We have to have policies today emphasizing the reunification of families, and it is necessary in the emergency supplemental to have the technology that will unite all of the shelters across America so that families can be reunited. I look forward to working on that language that gives the technology and underwrites that cost for local communities. FEMA has to get more personnel on the ground. We cannot do it with 11 or 20. We must hire local officials, local people, and hire the victims or survivors. They can do it, and train the survivors to do the work that FEMA needs, the intake work, the counseling work or getting the information. We need to declare the area in this impact area a health crisis because we found E. coli. We have got to declare it a health crisis. We need assistance with law enforcement, and the children have got to have special emphasis, language in the emergency supplemental, that deals with the plight of children not getting the education, health care, not because it is a desire, but we need the capacity. Finally, might I say we are, in fact, our brothers' and sisters' keepers. We are the Good Samaritans, not by words but by deeds. An inquiry of commission is not finger-pointing; it is fact-finding so that America knows that the safety net of the Federal Government will never leave her abandoned. That is the crux of my advocacy and legislation on the inquiry; it is that America will never abandon her people. God bless all of those who are now surviving, and God bless those who have lost their loved ones.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time to address the House for 5 minutes.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I hope that as my colleagues have spoken now for almost an hour, the American people will understand the depth of passion and concern that we are now experiencing as Members of the United States Congress. In particular, I want to acknowledge the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for the devastation that they have experienced in their districts and simply suggest that this is not a question of ``I's'' and ``me's,'' but it is a time now for ``me's'' and, if you will, ``us's,'' a time for America to come together, and a time for us to stand steadfast and to be able to be the wind beneath the wings of those survivors. I will also say, Mr. Speaker, that it is not a time to shy away from the critical questions that need to be asked and answered. There are many people now today that had homes and had a sense of comfort and might now be sitting with their family around a television set, just finishing dinner, going out, coming back in. But, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is, they had a home. And unfortunately tonight, as we stand in this wonderful testament to democracy, we have Americans who have experienced a brutal and unending disaster in their lives. And so I come today most of all to offer my deepest sympathy for the ones who lost their lives, and my deepest expression of concern to the survivors. And they are survivors. For those of us who watched in utter shock the events of the last week, what an opportunity to come face to face in my own city of Houston with the survivors. What an opportunity to be able to see the greatest expression of charitable output, if you will, by the city of Houston and Harris County, as people worked day in and day out, first working with no road map, no structure on how to receive hundreds and hundreds of buses and thousands of people, almost 1,700 in one night, coming, individuals with the same clothing that they had on, suffering from overexposure, water, fear, trauma, individuals who had come from the Superdome and ultimately the Convention Center who thought they had been abandoned with no food, no water and no clothing and disaster amongst them. These individuals survived, and they came with a resilient spirit, and they buoyed the volunteers, and they buoyed the leadership of our city and Harris County. They worked to improve the conditions of the Dome, albeit as I walked and saw the throngs of people and sometimes the despair in senior citizens begging to go home, as they sat by the wheelchair of an elderly person, sitting with no clothing, people looking for their loved ones, holding up signs, where is my daughter, where is my son, my grandmother, my mother, my husband, my wife; doctors coming in in throngs from the medical center and all around the community; clothing being brought time after time. It was an amazing outpouring, but yet there was despair. But still, the volunteers in Houston kept meeting and meeting and meeting, recognizing that they could not give up as well. And now the George R. Brown Convention Center, opening its doors with people and wonderful sites for the children and libraries and the medical MASH unit. And we have gotten better, Mr. Speaker. We know how to do it now. And these are, in fact, our brothers and sisters. And, yes, there is something to the story of the Good Samaritan. We are, in fact, not doers of the deed, but we do it; and we understand what it means. But at the same time we rejoice that there are survivors, we must recognize that there must be an inquiry. And as we speak, I am writing legislation entitled the Katrina Inquiry Commission, because we remember the 9/11 Commission, and we are grateful for it. I am also associated with writing legislation that will drop tomorrow that provides relief for the survivors, so that if they are in bankruptcy, none of the benefits from the Federal Government can be used to discharge debts. We are also looking to provide more technology and working with FEMA right now for the technology to help speed up the reunification of families. We are asking for more personnel on the ground and more resources so that we can put FEMA personnel in units like the Prince Center on Jensen Drive, doing an excellent job, just open their doors and allow people in; the Thurgood Marshall Center is a school in the North Forest Independent School District; and St. Peter Clavier. Mr. Speaker, I know that we can do better for the children. We can do better for our community. But certainly America knows that we can do better in the future. But right now, as we work toward this, we must draw together. We must insist, as we work together in the Congressional Black Caucus, that the people know that we have not abandoned them. I rise tonight with my colleagues eight days after Hurricane Katrina devastated parts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. I want to especially thank Congressmen Jefferson and Thompson who have displayed great courage and resolve to help their constituents through the aftermath of this natural disaster. In my Congressional District in Houston tens of thousands of evacuees are being sheltered and fed. In fact, Americans throughout this country are stepping up to help those affected by this disaster. It demonstrates that once again in our darkest hour that we have united as a nation to help our brothers and sisters who now seek to rebuild their lives. As we stand here tonight in Congress we must find steps to move forward to help those affected by this disaster and to try to prevent such an ineffective response from taking place again. I plan to introduce a number of legislative measures that will seek to alleviate the suffering of the survivors of the most devastating natural disaster in modern American history. I along with my Judiciary colleagues led by Ranking Member Conyers will introduce legislation to protect the hundreds of thousands of families and small businesses financially devastated by Hurricane Katrina from being penalized by debtor provisions contained in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, scheduled to take effect on October 17, 2005. This legislation is based in part on an amendment I offered at the markup of the Bankruptcy bill. We expect a Senate counterpart to be introduced this week as well. We are concerned that just as survivors of Hurricane Katrina are beginning to rebuild their lives, the new bankruptcy law will result in a further and unintended financial whammy. Unfortunately, the new law is likely to have the consequence of preventing devastated families from being able to obtain relief from massive and unexpected new financial obligations they are incurring by forcing them to repay their debt with income they no longer have, but which is counted by the law. Our bill makes several important adjustments. First, it would specify that individuals who are victims of natural disasters, and who incurred a substantial portion of their debt as a result of that disaster, are not subject to the ``means test'' and therefore cannot be forced into burdensome repayment plans. Although the current law includes an exception to the means test if the debtor can demonstrate ``special circumstances,'' qualifying for such an exemption will be quite costly and burdensome, and require numerous detailed filings and legal certifications. This is the last thing a hurricane victim should need to worry about. Since the current bankruptcy law counts all income earned in the six months prior to the bankruptcy as part of future income, this means that hurricane victims who have lost their jobs will be considered high income debtors who are presumed to be abusing the bankruptcy system. This is obviously absurd; so our bill gives the hurricane victims an automatic carve out, as we already do for certain categories of veterans. Second, it would specify that disaster relief payments are not counted as part of income for purposes of calculating repayment plans. These are one time, limited payments, and should not result in a hurricane victim being treated as a high income debtor. Just as we excluded Social Security, compensation for victims of war crimes, and terrorism payments from current monthly income, we also should exclude these payments as part of the calculation of relevant income. Third, our bill would give the court the discretion to extend certain deadlines for businesses devastated by Hurricane Katrina, to insure that a business is not inadvertently forced to liquidate--and lay off workers--as a result of an arbitrary deadline. Other key provisions of our bill would: Exempt from the requirement of completing credit counseling and credit education in order to get a discharge debtors who cannot complete those requirements because of a natural disaster (a similar exemption is provided under the bankruptcy law for individuals serving in military combat zones and people who are disabled or incompetent); Exempt victims of natural disasters from the provisions of the new law that make it easier for landlords to lift the automatic stay and evict their tenants who are in bankruptcy; Exempt victims of natural disasters whose records are likely lost or destroyed from the more onerous paperwork and documentation requirements of the new law; and Provide additional filing options for debtors who have relocated or are otherwise unable due to a natural disaster to file in the venue designated by law. The legislation we plan to introduce will prevent new bankruptcy provisions from having adverse and unintended consequences for the hundreds of thousands of individuals now facing financial ruin by providing needed flexibility for victims of natural disasters in bankruptcy proceedings. I also plan to introduce a bill that will provide tax breaks for individuals who take in evacuees into their home. These people are stepping up to provide shelter and relief to their fellow Americans and I believe it is certainly proper to encourage this behavior through the implementation of tax breaks. In addition, I propose legislation that will grant a minimum of 20,000 two-year tenant-based housing assistance vouchers for Katrina's victims, together with transportation and relocation assistance to be used where necessary. These vouchers should be administered by local housing agencies presently administering HUD-funded Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher assistance, which are located in or near the areas hardest hit by Katrina. These agencies are already position to provide housing assistance and can play an extremely helpful role meeting the immediate housing needs of Katrina's victims. This legislation would also allow the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to issue a wide range of statutory and regulatory waivers in order to most effectively and flexibly utilize HUD resources to meet the needs of victims. Finally, I am calling for the establishment of a Commission to study the genesis of the devastation caused by the hurricane. We need a 9/11 style commission to know everything that took place. In addition, I am calling for the establishment of a position of an ombudsman for FEMA in order to provide proper oversight. Without a proper investigation we can not get all the answers and without the answers we can not provide the necessary legislation and oversight needed to try to prevent this kind of human suffering from happening again in the future.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3169, which would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to authorize the Secretary of Education to waive requirements for Pell Grant repayments if student withdrawals from institutions of higher education are due to disasters. This bill essentially provides aid to those students who have been displaced as a result of the devastating forces of Hurricane Katrina. In Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama thousands of students are no longer able to attend classes at universities such as Dillard, Xaiver, and the University of New Orleans. These universities have historically provided minorities the opportunity to receive a college education. Fortunately, universities such as Texas Southern, and the University of Houston are taking in displaced students so they can continue their education as we continue to address the many problems facing the victims of Hurricane Katrina. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3650, as we are all aware, much if not all of the Gulf Coast region has been flooded by the devastating forces of Hurricane Katrina. I personally spent 4 days in shelters in and around the Houston area, so I have first hand knowledge of the devastation this natural disaster has caused as well as what the evacuees are going through. In addition to the many problems that have resulted from the aftermath of this hurricane, many of the Federal courthouses in the region are flooded; thus, preventing countless civil and criminal cases from proceeding. Furthermore, many attorneys and court employees have been displaced, not only from their homes, but also from their jobs. H.R. 3650 would permit the circuit courts, district courts, magistrates, and bankruptcy courts to conduct proceedings outside their normal territorial jurisdictions in times of emergency. The bill further provides that jurors for civil cases may come from either the original or temporary jurisdiction of the court. With respect to criminal cases, the legislation preserves the Sixth Amendment rights of defendants by limiting the jury pool to the district where the crime is committed unless the defendant consents otherwise. While these are issues are important, the bill fails to address who would pay for the parties to the case to travel to the new location. Presumably because a public function is at issue, the government should pay such expenses. It would be untenable for the courts and prosecutors to travel at government expense while defendants are left to fend for themselves in times of disaster. There may be due process and Sixth Amendment violations if we force defendants to pay their own way to distant courthouses. In spite of my support for this bill, I hope the concerns I just mentioned can be worked out in the coming weeks as this bill moves forward. In closing, I strongly believe we must do much more to alleviate the effects of Hurricane Katrina. Thousands of people may be forced to seek bankruptcy protection but now will be subject to the onerous and creditor-friendly provisions of the newly-enacted bankruptcy law, including its means test. Victims of disasters and other tragedies should be exempt from such rigid requirements. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the United States is facing one of the most difficult challenges in its history, and I applaud the Congress for acting swiftly to introduce and pass H.R. 3645, a bill that will provide $10 billion in relief money to the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) to bring relief to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. As the Representative of the 18th Congressional District that includes Harris County, the local government that has given the most support to the displaced residents of New Orleans, LA, Alabama, and Mississippi, this supplemental appropriation has tremendous meaning and value. The Washington Post called the effect of Katrina ``[t]he largest displacement of Americans since the Civil War reverberated across the country from its starting point in New Orleans yesterday, as more than half a million people uprooted by Hurricane Katrina sought shelter, sustenance and the semblance of new lives.'' Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this appropriation because it is a very important first step to other very necessary ones to address the direct effects on Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana and the indirect effects on local governments that have stepped up to provide solace, safe haven, and hope such as my District of Houston, Texas and Harris County in particular. I would like to take this opportunity to applaud the City of Houston, its teams of first responders, and the compassionate taxpayers who exhibited leadership in spiritual, physical, and economic assistance to their brothers and sisters from Louisiana. I am disheartened by my colleagues among us who ask the question of what sense it makes to spend billions of dollars to rebuild a city that lies six feet below sea level. As leaders of the legislative branch of the federal government and as the people responsible for making policy, we must be very careful not to show insensitivity or the semblance of arrogance since our own family members or close friends are not among the sufferers of this historic tragedy. Today's Houston Chronicle reads ``Weary refugees grateful to arrive at resting place: The next step for many is finding family members.'' [1][1] Thousands of displaced persons--this time not in the context of Sudanese refugees but American refugees, have been bused and helicoptered from New Orleans to Houston's Reliant Astrodome where some are now abused, raped, and assaulted because many of these individuals no longer have hope. Ten billion dollars is hardly enough to restore lives that have been lost, medical records that float in what used to be New Orleans, or homes where memories were created. As a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I am pleased that, through the lessons learned from the attacks on 9/11, this Nation is at least well-versed on centralizing resources and manpower to respond as quickly and strongly as possible. Mr. Speaker, I support this very critical legislation, and I hope that my colleagues will show their compassion by joining in this support.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend Chairman Young and Ranking Member Oberstar, as well as the Subcommittee leadership for their hard work in crafting the underlying legislation. I consider the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the appointed Conferees for this bill to be a ``club'' of sorts, and it is in that vein that I commend them for the tremendous job appropriate funding for surface transportation projects and environmental mitigation projects of importance to every congressional district. Not only am I pleased that the Conference Report contains authorization and appropriations of $12.8 million for priority infrastructure and surface transportation projects in my District of Houston, Texas, but I am happy that other provisions provide for the investment of tax dollars for the creation of jobs, economic growth, and improved productivity. Mr. Speaker, the actions taken in this bill will be instrumental in moving forward with an expansion of transit service that is so greatly needed in the Houston area. I want to thank the entire Houston delegation and most importantly Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for her work on the earmark for Houston METRO. It is very important that we work together in a united fashion to improve mobility for the Nation's fourth largest city. I have worked for many years to help Houston METRO and am glad we can take the next big step in implementing valuable transportation and mobility improvements because of this bill. The Greater Houston area is subdivided into 6 counties: Chambers, Fort Bend, Liberty, Montgomery, Waller, and my District, Harris. Harris County contains the city of Houston and the largest concentration of people. In the year 2000, approximately 3.5 million people lived in Harris County alone--by far the most populous area. Over the next twenty years, the population of the Houston region will continue to grow. The Historic Fourth Ward in Houston is long overdue for major transportation improvements that have thankfully been addressed in earmarks contained within the Conference Report. The Fourth Ward emerged as Houston's most prominent African-American neighborhood when thousands of freed slaves flooded into the city after emancipation. These newcomers settled on the fringes of the third, fifth, and fourth wards. The Freedmentown area north of San Felipe and the streets west of downtown not only attracted the largest number of the new black residents but also housed the first black churches, schools, and political organizations. Several factors combined to facilitate the subsequent growth of the Fourth Ward's black community. I thank the Conferees for their hard work in retaining important project funding such as this. Continued improvement to Houston's and Texas' infrastructure will be the priority for me and my colleagues, and H.R. 3 represents a major advancement toward that goal. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I see that the staff of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the minority side, is still in place, and I see that they are representing the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and all of the very fine members of that committee. I see the gentleman from Alaska still remaining on the floor. I just simply wanted to add my appreciation for the elements of this transportation bill. I think it is important for those who are listening to understand that although we swiftly moved through the debate this morning, we will be better for the passage of this bill. Children will be encouraged to bike and walk to school, creating a healthier climate for Americans. A children's museum in Houston will now have a parking facility to allow the guests to come and children to play. Our neighborhoods will have better gradation and more access to hike and bike trails. We will be fixing the main street line in Houston, Texas. But, most importantly, we have made a commitment to jobs in America, creating some 45,000 jobs per increment of money in this transportation bill. This is the kind of message we want to send to America in a bipartisan manner, that the Transportation Committee in its bipartisanship, both the House and the Senate, has worked through a commitment to the mobility of Americans. Mr. Speaker, more environmental support could have been there, but we continued to work toward making America safer, making its transportation system better. Let me thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) for the addition, through other vehicles of dollars for Amtrak; but we must continue to support the safety of our transportation system, bus, train, airplane and, yes, walking, for America is safer and stronger when we are mobile.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member, and I thank him for his continued leadership on this issue. It looks as if this is deja vu. We have been at this table for a number of years, and I am delighted that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) cleared it up. When you have a daughter that is a lawyer, I know you have a great affection for lawyers. And I appreciate the fact that he recognizes that as physicians care for the sick, lawyers have to keep the doors of justice open. For that reason, if anyone gets up on the floor of the House and cites the number of lawsuits, 60 percent of the doctors being sued, that has nothing to do with those cases that prevailed. Most Americans understand the distinction between frivolous lawsuits and so does the court system. But, really, what this bill is premised on is absolutely false, and Americans should know that because I have heard from so many with so many tragic incidents, amputated legs, individuals at hospitals who have died not because of what they went into the hospital for but because they caught an infection in the hospital. But as it relates to insurance and low rates, let me cite a study that is the prevailing trend in America. A new study by the former insurance commissioner of Missouri, Jay Angoff, shows that insurance companies are gouging doctors. The study shows that insurance premiums are skyrocketing, while payouts have remained flat or in some cases even decreased. There is no evidence that we are making a dent with this medical malpractice oppressive legislation--oppressive legislation, in insurance rates. In particular, it is a shame that when you have a tragedy in your family, someone who lost their life because of negligence, and there are three defendants, the general trend is that you go against the defendant with the deepest pockets. That defendant who is well-situated will go against the others who contributed to that terrible tragedy. Now, this bill locks the door, closes out the bus driver, the teacher, the nurse's aid, the oil refinery worker, absolutely closes them out. It also denies children who are innocent, under 18, enhanced economic damages. That was my amendment, to take away that cap of 250,000, to take away that cap of 250,000 on noneconomic damages because we do not know long range with all these tables about what someone will be needing the rest of their life after they have been maimed, after they have been disabled, or after they have died and what their family will need. This is a tragic day because first of all this bill came to the floor with no committee work, no rules work of sorts, all amendments died; and we have failed. Herman Cole of Connecticut we have failed, whose wife slipped into a coma when in a procedure for a tubal ligation. Her blood pressure dropped dangerously and damagingly low and the doctor and anesthesiologist ignored the warning signs. What is he supposed to do? What is he supposed to do about his wife, Sadie, who is now in a vegetative state? This is a bad bill. I hope my colleagues will have enough courage to vote for those who have been injured and vote against special interest. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, the ``Medical Malpractice Bill.'' Not only is the overall bill bad, but the process in which the majority followed was flawed as well. This bill came straight to the floor and bypassed both committees of jurisdiction. This begs the question, ``what are the proponents of the bill so afraid of that they need to rush to the floor. Both the House Judiciary and Energy and Commerce Committees have been bypassed and this should not have been done on such an important piece of legislation. Given the new information that is available about the insurance industry gouging doctors, shouldn't the committees at least have had the opportunity to review the new information? Turning to the bill itself, it should be noted that this bill applies across the board to all cases, not just frivolous cases. It applies no matter how much merit a case has, or the extent of the misconduct of the hospital, doctor or drug company. The bill applies regardless of the severity of the injury. Those most hurt by the bill are the most catastrophically injured. In addition, it undermines our constitutional right to trial by jury. The bill limits the power and authority of jurors to decide cases based on the facts presented to them. Washington politicians should not be making these decisions--juries should. This legislation also reduces the accountability of hospitals, nursing homes, HMOs and drug companies. This will hurt patient safety. Patient safety must come first. We should be cracking down on the small number of doctors responsible for most of the malpractice. This will reduce both incidents of malpractice and lawsuits. Doctors and hospitals must be required to tell their patients or the patients' families when they know they have made a medical error, rather than allowing them to keep their mistakes secret. This bill completely ignores the insurance industry's major role in the high price of medical malpractice insurance premiums. We must protect the legal system and make it accessible for everyone seeking justice, accountability and adequate compensation for devastating injuries or death. In discussing the flaws of this bill, I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to mention some of the families who have survived medical malpractice. Kim and Ryan Bliss of Florida, whose 8\1/2\-month-old daughter died when the doctor inserted an adult IV in her jugular and caused an air bubble to go directly into her bloodstream. Herman Cole of Connecticut, whose wife slipped into a coma when, during a procedure for tubal ligation, her blood pressure dropped dangerously and damagingly low and the doctor and anesthesiologist ignored the warning signs. Herman's wife Sadie has been in a vegetative state ever since. Diane Meyer of Nevada, who was diagnosed with kidney stones and was sent home to pass them, despite the fact that one was too large and was poisoning her body from within. Doctors later discovered this but failed to call Diane, who then slipped into a coma and later had to have both legs amputated below the knee. Mark Unger of Oregon, whose mother was diagnosed with Burkitt's lymphoma in early 2001 and was injected with 1000 times more methotrexate than the appropriate dosage by a doctor who did not follow protocol. Mark's mother passed away in April 2001. John McCormack of Massachusetts, whose 13-month-old daughter died while awaiting surgery to repair a malfunctioning shunt in her skull, while the attending physician slept through repeated pages because his beeper was set to vibrate and didn't wake him, leaving two neurosurgery residents in charge of her care. Deborah Gillham of Maryland, who suffered injury when, during a routine laparoscopic procedure to look for a cyst on her left ovary, her physician punctured her colon. Before closing, let me take a moment to speak on two amendments I would have offered had the rule not been so restrictive. My first amendment would have eliminated one of the many egregious provisions in the bill. In essence, it would eliminate the one-size-fits-all limit on awards for non-economic loss (i.e. pain and suffering damages) of $250,000. Typically, such damages exceed $250,000 only in cases involving catastrophic injuries such as deafness, blindness, loss of limb or organ, paraplegia, severe brain damage or loss of reproductive capacity. Limiting patients' rights to sue for medical injuries would have virtually no impact on the affordability of malpractice coverage. States with little or no tort law restrictions experience the same insurance rates as states that have enacted tort restrictions. My second amendment also focused on the $250,000 cap for non-economic loss (i.e. pain and suffering damages). This amendment would have carved out an exception for plaintiffs or a person(s) representing a minor. In summary, the $250,000 cap for non-economic loss (i.e. and suffering damages) would not apply with respect to an injury to an individual who is under 18 years of age. Minors are more vulnerable in regards to injuries they suffer and the consequences of those injuries. Furthermore, the impacts of an injury suffered by a minor due to malpractice will be felt for a much longer time period than for an adult. This is especially true of children who suffer injuries at birth due to malpractice. These children will more likely have to suffer the consequences of these injuries for the rest of their lives.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for yielding me this time and for his leadership, as well as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) of the subcommittee, but let me particularly offer appreciation to the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member of the full committee for the hard work and dedication that they have offered, and also the spirit of the conference, which was open and allowed the full debate on what has been an enormously difficult challenge. This Congress has been swimming the difficult tides of negotiations in an effort to pass a comprehensive energy bill for a very long time, and I believe today that we have that comprehensive legislation. Always when we say comprehensive, we think perfect. It is not perfect. It is not the perfect storm. But it does give us a roadmap that we can follow. I happen to agree with the elimination of the ANWR provision and the elimination of the MTBE liability provision, but I do think there are enormous strides we have made in renewables. And I want to thank again the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) of the Committee on Science, of which I am a member. We did work on renewables. I am delighted that amendments that we had, and I offered, are in this legislation regarding biomass for minority farmers and ranchers and the utilization of fuel cells that will help the research on how we can be more energy-efficient. I am delighted to note that we will be working further on a 2-year study back to Congress for those areas offshore, Texas and Louisiana, where environmentally safe development is going on. Domestic development will now get a 2-year report from the Interior Department, which will give us a roadmap on how we can work. Mr. Speaker, this legislation also contains building standards to ensure that more of our buildings are environmentally safe or energy- efficient. So we have to have conservation as well as domestic development. As I indicated, we have some challenges in this legislation, but I do believe we have an effective roadmap. We also have some aspirations, and I look forward to working on developing a program to add geologists that can help us find good, safe energy resources, and I would hope my colleagues would vote ``aye'' for this very good roadmap for America. Mr. Speaker, let me first say thank you to Energy and Commerce Chairman Mr. Barton, and Ranking Minority Member Mr. Dingell for there hard and dedicated work on this important conference report. For several Congresses now, we have been swimming the difficult tides of negations in an effort to pass a comprehensive energy bill that would be beneficial to all Americans. I would like to thank as well Mr. Boucher, Mr. Ralph Hall, Mr. Boehlert, and Mr. Bart Gordon. While this report may not be perfect, it at least provides for no drilling and development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. In addition, the report has no MTBE liability clause. Despite this fact, I think it is important to work towards providing some protection for the States, and I look forward to working with Mr. Barton and Mr. Dingell in this effort. Further, under the report, there are no EPA restrictions with respect to the Clean Air Act. In addition, EPA can still regulate diesel fuel and certain Enron contracts will now be governed by FERC. Let me also note that I was able to obtain the following provisions in the report:

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, CAFTA or NAFTA? Most of the American people are confused about this debate on the floor of the House, and I say to my colleagues who will engage in a very limited debate somewhere toward midnight that this may be one of the more challenging votes of this Congress. It is a vote that calls upon your conscience, and I will simply say these few words: Once we vote for CAFTA, we will reinforce the child labor standards and laws and lack of laws in Central America. You will be sending the 3-year-olds, the 4- year-olds, the 5-year-olds into the hard labor of picking agricultural products with no supervision and no regulations whatsoever. My heart, my conscience refuses to allow me to vote for CAFTA, a free trade bill that will enslave the children of Central America. I will vote a resounding ``no,'' and I ask my corporate leaders in America to stand alongside of those of us who want the kind of trade bill that addresses the child slavery in Central America, forcing girls and boys to work without any, without any, hope and aspirations and the ability to survive. Vote ``no'' on CAFTA.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there is a dump in Nicaragua where 700 adults and children pick through fields of rotting garbage for scraps of food, metal and plastic to eat and sell. I want the American people to know that this is the trade agreement, 3,600 pages, 3,000-plus pages; not one statement is in this document that talks about protecting American jobs. Not one statement is in here that confirms that the language in the laws of labor in these particular nations refers to the children age 5 and 14 to work that are working in these dumps, that are picking up the trash in these dumps. There is no language in here about creating American jobs. There is no specific language in here that talks about the language of labor laws that would protect the children from these dumps. I say to you out of 3,000 pages, do you not think America deserves one line protecting their jobs? Do not you think the children of Central America deserve one specific line about keeping them from the damages of a dump in Central America? Vote against CAFTA. It does not protect American jobs, and it does not protect children. Mr. Speaker I rise in opposition to CAFTA though not without reservation. Increased Economic, social, and political ties with Central America are noble goals and ones for which we should strive. However, the facts behind the crafting of DR-CAFTA suggest that this is an irresponsible and rushed trade agreement. I can support an agreement that serves to support the interests of all parties at stake. By this standard, I have based my previous votes on free trade agreements, and by this standard I have decided to vote against CAFTA. While I do not doubt that several parts of the US economy will benefit from passage of this bill I shudder at the repercussions that will face many of our manufacturing industries. Increased trade with this region will lead to an increase in economic exchange and probably to overall job growth. I also recognize that overall job growth as a result of NAFTA in all likelihood exceeded job losses. However, trade agreements should not be judged by job loss and creation statistics alone. CAFTA will undoubtedly create more opportunities for exports to Central America and will produce more wealth, but where does that wealth go? Thousands of hard working Americans will lose their jobs under CAFTA. Will they benefit from the increased trade with Central America? The problem with wealth created through free trade agreements is the high probability it will not reach the average worker. The example of NAFTA proves this point. Some economic gains in both the Untied States and Mexico have made from NAFTA, but there is scant evidence as to the improvement of the livelihood of the average worker. The fact of the matter is that NAFTA has lead to neither improved working conditions in Mexico nor a windfall for higher paying jobs here in the U.S. Instead it has lead to more employer who pay their employees 5 dollars per day. There simply has not been enough effort on the part of the US or the Mexican government to ensure that the poor and middle classes benefited from the accord. Trade agreements should be implemented to increase the standing of both nations and help both all people. We must guarantee the protection of rights and wellbeing of the poor. Without this guarantee, we can not nor we will we make strides in fighting poverty. In the words of the Great Cesar Chavez, ``What is at stake is human dignity. If a man is not accorded respect he cannot respect himself and if he does not respect himself, he cannot demand it.'' When the lower classes have no power or support, they cannot stand up and fight for themselves. Poverty reduction must be a key factor in all trade agreements. The United States does not see such indept poverty. I have been to Honduras and Guatemala and have seen the pain and suffering of the masses. In Guatemala, over 75 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. In Nicaragua, the GDP per capita is $2,300. This sort of endemic poverty is far too common in the region. At the ``La Chureca'' (La--Chew-RAKE-aa) dump in Managua (mun-A-gwa), Nicaragua (knee-ka-Rah-gwa) about 700 adults and children pick through fields of rotting garbage for scraps of food, metal, and plastic to eat and sell. For these residents, the dump is home--one laden with disease and danger, broken bottles and old tires, cardboard- and-tin shacks, grazing cattle, circling buzzards, screeching bulldozers and smoke that often obscures the sun. This is poverty on a level most Americans have never seen. In order to fight this poverty, we must be committed to a comprehensive plan to help the poor. I would like to think that free trade agreements would alleviate poverty in third world nations, but unfortunately, the facts prove otherwise. Conditions in Mexico over the past 10 years demonstrate this fact quite succinctly. Since the passage of NAFTA, environmental problems along the border with Mexico have worsened, drug trafficking and violent crime in the border regions have increased, and violence against women has intensified. Ten years ago, there were few reports of rape and kidnappings of women in northern Mexico, today they are wide spread. These are not the indicia of progress. In order to ensure progress, we must establish a system of improved standards in education, labor, and environment, among others. In this regard, the DR-CAFTA fails drastically. The DR-CAFTA does not have sufficient labor protection provisions. This omission of labor standards will result in the continuation of awful and unconscionable labor conditions for both adults and children. What concerns me most is the use of child labor throughout the region. Child labor is an activity that must eradicated from of all comers of the world. The DR- CAFTA contains no provisions that would prevent or alleviate the use of child labor. The DR-CAFTA fails to enforce international labor standards set by the International Labor Organization. This will result in the continued use of child labor in the fields and factories of the signatory countries. With this agreement, many will make money on the backs of Central American children, literally. These Children will be our beast of burden. I cannot accept an agreement that allows others to increase their profits margins on the backs of children. These children should be in school getting educated, not toiling on a farm for 5 dollars a day under the hot Central American sun. It seems clear to me that under the current system of ``free trade to fight poverty,'' sufficient resources are not being used to help the poor. Businesses are often more interested in the bottom line then the bottom of society. Foreign governments are often far too eager to invite these companies into their nations. This is not the best manner to help fight poverty in the 3rd world. In order to fight poverty, we must insist on the resources used to protect the poor, not exploit them. We must insist on better labor and environmental standards in order to ensure that the poor also benefit from free trade agreements. Fair trade should be our paramount concern. Supporters of the bill have claimed that its passage is imperative for Central America and will be mutually beneficial to all parties. They also argue that since 80 percent of goods from the DR-CAFTA countries already enter the United States duty free as a result of the Caribbean Basin Initiative and on that basis we have no reason to fear job exportation to the region. They argue that if job exportation was to happen, it would have occurred all ready. Yet, they also argue that passage of the DR-CAFTA is imperative for Central American economies to succeed. It seems to me that while they use the 80 percent duty free number to quell fears of job exportation, they somehow forget it when they talk of the necessity of the agreement for Central America's economies. If the DR-CAFTA countries already import 80 percent of their goods duty free then they have already received most of the benefits of a free trade agreement! I am not opposed to allowing Central American nations to import many of their goods duty free. I believe that this number, 80 percent duty free importation, is a good number because it was designed to help alleviate poverty in the region. It has succeeded in doing so. Central America is far better off today then it was 20 years ago. Yet, this duty free access also means that it is not imperative for the US to pass this legislation. Since these countries already import 80 percent of goods duty free, the remaining 20 percent will not have such a dramatic effect. The USTR should have taken the success of the Caribbean Basin Initiative and used it to negotiate a fair and balanced trade agreement. Clearly, passage of this bill is not imperative to the economic well-being of Central America. So why were the USTR and the Bush administration so hasty in forcing execution and enactment of this agreement? Because of the success of the Caribbean Basin Initiative, we have the leeway to send this agreement back to the Bush Administration and ask that it not return until it has an agreement that genuinely benefits the poor and marginalized sectors of society both here in the United States and in Central America and the Dominican Republic. The DR-CAFTA is not a fair trade agreement. It is a mechanism to support business interests in the United States and Central America. In the United States, we have sufficient labor standards to accommodate business interests. Over the past 200 years, the labor movement in this country has fought diligently to provide us with these protections. In Central America, these safeguards exist on paper, but not in practice. When we submit to special interests in this situation, we forfeit work protections. Therefore, we must insist that our trade agreements contain more then an expansion of business interests, they must contain provisions that expand social and justice interests. We must ensure that trade agreements benefit all of the people, men and women, young and old. This agreement fails to meet these standards and therefore should not be supported.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) and the authors of this very, very strong legislation that has taken us more than a decade. To the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who have worked extremely hard on this issue, might I add my applause and congratulations. Might I, Mr. Chairman, to the distinguished chairman of the full committee just say one thing. Might I thank the many, many postal workers around America who have been there when you needed them and who have managed to do a major industry with less than a third of the personnel. They are to be congratulated. I thank you very much, and I thank you for your interest in discussing the issue of whistleblower protection for Federal employees in the context of considering H.R. 22 today. I do want to recognize that you have in the bill itself provisions dealing with the inspector general. Let me, first of all, say that I would have offered an amendment today, but I want the supporters of that amendment, those who have advocated for the No Fear Act that was passed by this body, legislation authored by myself and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and signed by the President, that my amendment would have tracked the No Fear Act, which would have established a Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Board pilot program within the Postal Service to monitor and enforce claims of abuse that would call for congressional review after 3 years. There is a grave need for such a body not only within the Postal Service, but in every Federal agency given the poor implementation of the No Fear Act. This public law is known as Public Law 107-174. I understand that the legislation as currently drafted contains, as I said, several new provisions that would protect Federal employees and minorities such as the antikickback provisions, increase oversight functions for the inspector general, and a study of the Board of Governors of the number of contracts awarded to women and minority contractors. I applaud the gentleman for this. My real point is that the No Fear Act has been slowly implemented. There are people in the government, workers in the government that we respect for their service wanting us to give oversight on the No Fear Legislation. I would like to work with the gentlemen as they go through conference, and as we go forward to ensure that this particular legislation is implemented, and enhanced civil rights are given to federal employees and our fine postal workers have the whistleblower protection and as well their civil liberties and civil rights are also protected. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the H.R. 22. It is important that it was brought through Committee and to the Floor for expeditious consideration. I have an amendment that was made in order that would seek to address the very critical issue of slow implementation of Public Law No. 107-174, the No FEAR Act (5 U.S.C. 2301) and provide avenues of relief for the many federal employees who continue to complain of workplace civil rights abuse. My amendment would establish a Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Board Pilot Program within the Postal Service to monitor and enforce claims of abuse that will call for congressional review after three years. There is a grave need for such a body--not only within the Postal Service but in every federal agency, given the poor implementation of the No FEAR Act. I joined Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member John Conyers in authorizing the Notification and Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002, or No Fear Act, that was signed into law by President Bush on May 15, 2002. This legislation was passed in order to bring immediate relief to federal government employees who have suffered from civil rights or other abuse in the workplace. The product that we have before us today has many highlights. For the Postal Service, it provides the ratemaking flexibility and incentives needed to operate as an efficient business. For businesses, it provides the rate stability, fair competition rules, financial transparency, and procurement protections needed to predict costs and operate on a level playing field. For consumers, it preserves universal service, maintains high quality standards, and eliminates unfair mailing costs so that they have an affordable and reliable means of communication. For workers, it protects collective bargaining and offers whistle-blower protections that are needed to ensure safe employment. For taxpayers, it ensures the viability of a national asset and removes the threat of a tax-payer bailout of the Postal Service due to financial insolvency. These provisions, I am sure, will go a long way toward helping the Postal Service to better serve its customers, compete fairly with the mailing industry, and contribute to our nation. In addition, I am pleased that the bill requires a study of the number of contracts with women, minorities, and small businesses and that it protects our domestic airlines from outsourcing of jobs to foreign air carriers. Nevertheless, the issue of slow implementation of No FEAR remains a tremendous problem that I hope the Chairman, Ranking Member, and the members of the Committee on Government Reform will pursue both as this bill goes to Conference and in hearing forum. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 22 and hope that the Chairman, Ranking Member, and the Conferees on this bill will address the issues that I presented with my amendment, and I hope that both the Committee on Government Reform as well as that of the Judiciary will hold oversight hearings on the implementation of the No Fear Act, and I yield back. It is critical that we use opportunities such as is afforded today to address the slow implementation of the No Fear Act. I yield back.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time. First of all, I cannot thank the ranking member and the chairman of the full committee, and the ranking member of the subcommittee and chairman of the subcommittee enough for such a thoughtful piece of legislation. But with respect to this amendment, might I say the composition of this board and the representation of one union member is what you call consensus and what you call cooperation. Just listening to the leadership of my local union, the letter carriers, with the President, President Prissy Grace, and the American Postal Workers Union, as well as the Postmaster General in my congressional district, Ms. Green, they have had a working relationship that can be exhibited by the structure in which this particular legislation allows: representation of the workers, the workers who are committed to delivering the mail, rain or shine. I think that to eliminate this particular position really eliminates the voice of the workers. We are already saying that we are committed to the work ethic of the postal workers in the postal system. This is a reform and reformation of the postal system for the better, to make them efficient, to make them productive, and to serve the American people. Having their work represented on this board serves the American people, and I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, a day or two ago, I rose on the floor of the House to welcome the Boy Scouts of America to their jamboree that they hold every 4 years. As a member of the Board of Directors of the Sam Houston Area Boy Scouts in my hometown of Houston, Texas, Houston-Galveston Council, I rise today to offer my deepest sympathy to the Boy Scouts of America family due to the loss of four scout leaders who died in an electrical accident in Virginia during the course of putting up some of the equipment for the young men who were about to participate in the jamboree right after their noontime service. I know that the Boy Scouts are, in fact, a family. This is an enormous tragedy. Just as their scout oath reminds them of their commitment to their country and their God and the honor that they have, I know that they will draw together as a family and be united in their empathy and sympathy with the family members of their lost scout leaders. I wish for them the very best as they continue their jamboree, and my greatest sympathy to those who lost their lives. As well, I know that the Boy Scouts will continue to serve in their communities around the Nation and continue to serve America, for they are young outstanding leaders that have come here to the United States Capital to begin to learn and recommit themselves to their values and to service.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 525. This bill, introduced by the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson, Committee Chairman John Boehner, Small Business Committee Ranking Member Nydia Velazquez and Albert Wynn, would allow small businesses to join together through association health plans, AHPs, to purchase health insurance for their workers at a lower cost. The measure would increase small businesses' bargaining power with health care providers, give them freedom from costly State- mandated benefit packages, and lower their overhead costs by as much as 30 percent. This is a benefit that many large corporations like GM and Ford already enjoy because of their larger economies of scale. Furthermore, this bill expressly prohibits discrimination by requiring that all employers who are association members are eligible for participation, all geographically available coverage options are made available upon request to eligible employers, and eligible individuals cannot be excluded from enrolling because of health status. Premium contribution rates for any particular small employer cannot be based on the health status or claims experience of plan participants or beneficiaries or on the type of business or industry in which the employer is engaged. The measure makes clear that AHPs must comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA, which prohibits group health plans from excluding high-risk individuals with high claims experience. Thus, it will not be possible for AHPs to ``cherry pick'' because sick or high risk-groups or individuals cannot be denied coverage. The bill prohibits AHPs from charging higher rates for sicker individuals or groups within the plan, except to the extent already allowed under the relevant State rating law. While I support all of these positive aspects of the bill, I do have concerns with other areas. Due to this fact, I also stand today to support the Kind/Andrews substitute. This substitute would strengthen the larger goal of the legislation which is to lower health care cost for workers. The substitute does this by providing small employers the same access to health benefits as Federal employees. Under the substitute, the Department of Labor will establish a Small Employer Health Benefits Plan, SEHB, similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, FEHB. The States also may establish State small employer health pools. In addition, the substitute offers coverage to all small employers and their employees. In essence, all employers with fewer than 100 employees during the previous calendar year shall be eligible to apply for coverage under SEHB. Employers must offer coverage to all employees who have completed 3 months of service. Employees working less than full-time are eligible for pro rata coverage. Furthermore, the substitute also minimizes adverse selection. This is done by requiring the Secretary to establish an initial open enrollment period and thereafter an annual enrollment period. One of the most important things achieved by the substitute is the fact that is uses State-licensed insurers without preempting State laws. It also provides a minimum benefit package similar to Federal employees, i.e., all participating insurers must offer benefits similar to the benefits offered under the four largest FEHB health plans. As I close, I would hope that the differences I have mentioned are reconciled as this bill moves to conference.