Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Motion to Instruct Conferees to accept the Senate position to provide an additional $1.5 billion for Veteran's Medical care under H.R. 2361 the Interior Appropriations Bill. This motion to instruct will remedy the shortfall in veterans' health care for this year. Clearly, we have an obligation to our veterans that is not being met and can not go another day allowing this deficiency in Veteran's Medical care to continue. The sad fact is that it has been 33 days since the Bush Administration acknowledged a $1 billion shortfall in Veteran's Medical care for FY 2005. Every day we see more and more veterans turned away and health care rationed across the country because the VA lacks the resources it needs to care for veterans. Every day we don't act, is another day that a veteran who bravely served our Nation is shortchanged. To remedy this situation more than three weeks ago, the Senate unanimously passed a $1.5 billion bill. But the amount offered by House Republicans did not match that passed in the Senate, meaning money has not gotten to VA medical facilities and veterans will continue to wait in lines for health care. It has been nearly one month since this shortfall was first acknowledged, and yet Republicans continue to fail our veterans. Veterans and this Nation as a whole can not wait another day for this shortfall to be addressed; waiting any longer would be a travesty. The truly sad facts demonstrate that the shortfall in veterans health care funding has resulted in some VA medical facilities no longer scheduling appointments for veterans, others not filling vacancies of medical and nursing staff, and others having to close operating rooms or not replacing basic medical equipment, such as hospital beds. Right now, there are more than 50,000 waiting in line for medical appointments, with more than 100,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan seeking health care. But instead of remedying this situation as quickly as possible, Republicans continue to reject proposals that would give veterans the resources they so desperately need. This spring, Democrats attempted to add $1.2 billion for veterans' health care on the $82 billion Iraqi supplemental. And last September, Democrats sought to provide a $2.5 billion increase over the Bush budget for veterans' health care. Over the last month, House Republicans have voted four times to block consideration of amendments offered by Democrats to add the needed funds for VA health care. It is time that we as a body unite to defend those brave Americans who risked their lives to defend our great nation. I urge all Members to support the Motion to Instruct.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as we did just 2 weeks ago and then just 4 days ago on behalf of the people of London to offer them our sympathy for the tragedy of another terrorist attack, I rise today to offer my sympathy to the people of Egypt, who have experienced an enormous tragedy over the last couple of days. Militant terrorists have terrorized a tourist area where Americans and many others from around the world come in harmony to enjoy summer vacation. This should tell us that we are united and should be united in the war on terror. The war on terror does not have a face, and it does not discriminate. It does not distinguish. It is attacking people of goodwill around the world. My sympathies to President Mubarak, who stood fast and said that, as the terrorists acted in Egypt, they were going to find them and bring them to justice. This is the kind of war on terror that we need to join hands with people from around the world. We are not losing the battle, but we need all of the help that we possibly can get; and our focus should be united around those terrorists who do not have country, do not have mind, do not have care, and are attacking people from everywhere all over the world. We need to stand united against the war on terror.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, again, let me emphasize, as my colleagues have done, the very, very clear bipartisanship of this committee. And let me specifically thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the chairman, the subcommittee chairman, and the ranking member of the subcommittee for their work in this area. Let me close by simply suggesting and reading that collectively blacks and Hispanics and other ethnic groups, the latter includes American Indians and Alaskan Natives, constitute 24 percent of the U.S. population but only 7 percent of the total. My good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) emphasizes that these universities are diverse. And so out of an investment of added, if you will, support, we will diversify the base of scientists which will include women, minority women, African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans and others who have been, if you will, in the lesser numbers of these particular disciplines. I ask that this amendment be considered in conference. I thank the chairman for working with me and hoping that we can work through conference to build these numbers up. I thank the gentleman for that. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn to further work in conference.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for his leadership. I thank the chairman for the tone of collegiality and purpose that he sets in this committee. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), chairman of the subcommittee, for his renewed vigor on the idea of space, and certainly the leadership of the ranking member of the subcommittee for his forceful support of science and the environment. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3070 allows America to dream, but at the same time it allows America to generate results. I am gratified to rise in enthusiastic support of this legislation because it is a compilation of the views and interests of a wide range of those of us who are committed to a forceful and determined vision for science in America. It is not limited to the vision of space, although we in Houston understand that though we heard the words ``Houston, there is a problem,'' we now know ``Houston, we can dream.'' I live amongst astronauts and scientists who have for decades committed themselves to the science of space and the results that come about through that. They are brave men and women and families, who every day rally around their astronauts and allow them to do things that others of us simply dream to do. This legislation captures that spirit, but it also is a commonsense initiative. For example, I am gratified, as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) expressed, through his leadership we have firewalls between science and human space flight so that we do have the dollars necessary to set aside for science, building up our very poor resources and engineers and physicists and chemists and biologists and at the same time we have this commitment to human space flight. For example, we are able to give a long-term commitment to this project. Funding for fiscal year 2006 is about $6.5 billion, which is approximately $15 million more than the President's request. We go on to authorize it in the years to come to give us a sense of consistency, which I think is extremely important. Might I for a moment say that I will be supporting the manager's amendment, and I appreciate what the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) had to do on the International Space Station; however, I want the space station to be able to house six persons and disappointed if Dr. Griffin will pull back on that, but I am gratified that this amendment, the manager's amendment, asks for proof as to why that cannot be done. That is a constructive way to look at that problem of downsizing the space station, which I think does not serve the program very well. Let me also say that I am very pleased because of the work of the ranking member in the subcommittee, as we have worked together on this issue, concerning the constituents who live around airports; and I have in my congressional district the Houston International Airport, one of the number one airports, or one of the largest airports in the Nation, that we have in this document the ability to provide research on noise levels so that the noise levels of airports will not go beyond the contents of this particular area, so that from the research that will be in this legislation, the word shall go out to all those who live around airports, because we know that populations have grown around airports, that they might be free at least from the sound of those airplanes taking off. Let me quickly conclude by saying that I am grateful that in this particular legislation I have amendments that provide for a report on how much money is spent on safety, how important that is as we launch our discovery. Also, a new safety commission, which I will talk about more extensively, dealing with the International Space Station that will in this legislation as well, and finally an amendment that gives us equal access to education programs that provide for those new engineers. I think this is a good bill. I ask my colleagues to support it. I rise as a vigorous supporter of this NASA Authorization bill, which I am proud to say, passed by a unanimous vote of the Science Committee. Let me thank Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Gordon for their outstanding work in making this consensus legislation that takes into consideration all points of view. NASA is at a very pivotal moment in its history and therefore it is the responsibility of this Congress to ensure that the future of NASA is one of continued progress. After the tragic Colombia Space Shuttle accident the Science Committee and this Congress were forced to reevaluate NASA's purpose. I have stated that safety must be the number one priority of NASA; however this should not deter NASA from pushing the boundaries of technology and discovery. I feel confident that this Authorization addresses both safety and discovery in a comprehensive manner. I have been supportive of President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration because I firmly believe that the investment we make today in science and exploration will pay large dividends in the future. Similarly, I do not want to put a cap on the frontiers of our discovery, NASA should aim high and continue to push our nation at the forefront of space exploration. The President has stated that the fundamental goal of his directive for the Nation's space exploration program is ``. . . to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program.'' I could not agree more with that statement and I believe this Authorization finally gives more detail and purpose to the overall mission. This bill authorizes funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007. Funding for fiscal year 2006 is $16.471 billion, which is approximately $15 million more than the President's request and the same as House Appropriations. For fiscal year 2007, the bill authorizes $16.962 billion, which is the same as the President's request. This legislation also directs NASA to strive to return Americans to the Moon no later than 2020, launch a Crew Exploration Vehicle as close to 2010 as possible, and conduct research on the impacts of space on the human body to enable long- duration space exploration. These provisions give more shape to the President Vision for Space Exploration. I am also very pleased that many of my amendments regarding safety and equal access to NASA education programs are written into this legislation. The first amendment I advocated for requires that NASA report how much money is used for safety activities on a yearly basis. This provision is designed to ensure the safety of NASA personnel through governmental transparency. It is important to examine whether proper resources are being allocated towards ensuring the safety of our NASA personnel. My amendment addresses how the money is allocated and how much is going specifically to address safety concerns. In addition, the Science Committee included my second amendment which calls for an independent Presidentially-appointed commission to investigate safety aboard the ISS. This amendment was introduced in the form of H.R. 4522, the International Space Station Independent Safety Commission Act of 2004 which I introduced in the 108th Congress. This vital piece of legislation can potentially make all the difference for the international crew that is stationed aboard the ISS. It is one of our most important NASA programs and therefore we must ensure that all safety precautions have been met. My final amendment that was included was meant to ensure Equal Access to NASA's Education Programs, in which the Administrator shall strive to ensure equal access for minority and economically disadvantaged students to NASA's Education programs. Space exploration is one the most amazing things we have been able to do, and such enthusiasm for exploratory ventures should continue for generations. By striving to include minority and disadvantaged students in NASA Education Programs, we are opening a truly remarkable career to those who might have missed it. In sum, this legislation is both comprehensive and provides a strong blueprint for NASA to follow. We as a Congress must approve this legislation and once again recommit ourselves to space exploration. Truly, we as a nation have come a long way in the area of space exploration since President John F. Kennedy set the course for our Nation when he stated in a speech at Rice University in 1962: We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of preeminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war . . . The great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said because it is there. Well space is there, and we're going to climb it. And the moon and the planets are there. And new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And therefore, as we set sail, we ask God's blessing, on the most hazardous, and dangerous, and greatest adventure, on which man has ever embarked. I hope that we can look back to today as another step in this grand journey for exploration.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) for his support and for his leadership on the issue. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and I thank the gentlewoman very much for the long-standing commitment and the legislative initiatives that she has had in creating equal opportunity access of the sciences for our students in America.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. And let me just thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the ranking member, for their leadership on this issue; my colleagues as well, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), and the entire Science Committee that have worked extensively on this issue. My amendment is to restore funds to Historically Black Colleges under the NASA education program and to Hispanic Serving Colleges under the NASA education program. This amendment specifically would add a funding level of $69.2 million for fiscal year 2006 and $72.2 million for fiscal year 2007. My amendment would also restore funding for Hispanic Serving Institutions under NASA education programs in the amount of $46.4 million fiscal year 2006 and $47.4 million fiscal year 2007. Let me first of all again acknowledge the underlying bill to have included my amendment dealing with equal access to NASA's education programs in which the administrator shall strive to ensure equal access to education by minorities. Might I give you a very small example. In the opportunity to visit NASA last week on the launch of the new Discovery, I met a young lady who I had not seen for a number of years. It was a number of years ago where I recommended that she attend a NASA launch, an African American young woman in an environmental science program, Ph.D. program at Texas Southern University in Houston, Texas. Lo and behold, when I went there she came up to me and introduced herself and said, I am the young lady that you allowed to go to a launch. Now I have a Ph.D. in environmental sciences. I am affiliated with NASA and I am writing a proposal to enhance the affiliation with Texas Southern University. This works, Mr. Chairman. The funding of these colleges work. The greatest producer of scientists are those who, in fact, come from Historically Black Colleges. And I read into the Record these numbers: for S and E graduates, scientists, female in the United States only 835,000. White students, 2 million-plus. Black students 121,000; Hispanics 120,000. We need to pass this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment, which would restore funding for historically Black colleges and universities, HBCUs, under NASA education programs to the fiscal year 2004 funding level of $69.2 million for fiscal year 2006 and $71.2 million for fiscal year 2007. My amendment would also restore funding for Hispanic serving institutions under NASA education programs in the amount of $46.4 million for fiscal year 2006 and $47.4 million for fiscal year 2007. Unfortunately, we do not have nearly enough minority representation in the fields of science and engineering. Minorities represent only a small proportion of scientists and engineers in the United States. Collectively, Blacks, Hispanics, and other ethnic groups--the latter includes American Indian/Alaskan Natives--constituted 24 percent of the total U.S. population and only 7 percent of the total science and engineering workforce in 1999. Blacks and Hispanics each accounted for about 3 percent of scientists and engineers, and other ethnic groups represented less than 0.5 percent. The fact is that this year HBCUs face a $13 million cut in their allotment from NASA education funds. Clearly, this money could make a significant difference in the future diversity of the science community. For most of America's history, African-Americans who received a college education could only get it from an HBCU. Today, HBCUs remain one of the surest ways for an African-American, or student of any race, to receive a high quality education. In 1998, 29 percent of the African-Americans who received science and engineering bachelor's degrees earned them at HBCUs. Seven of the top eleven producers of African-American baccalaureates in engineering were HBCUs, including No. 1 North Carolina A&T State University. The top three producers of African-American baccalaureates in health professions--No. 1 Southern University and A&M College, No. 2 Florida A&M University, and No. 3 Howard University--were HBCUs. The 12 top producers of African-American baccalaureates in the physical sciences, including No. 1 Xavier University of Louisiana, were all HBCUs. Hispanic serving institutions, HSIs, have also suffered dramatic cuts because of lower funding this year. Despite the fact that about one- third of Hispanics who earned science and engineering bachelor's degrees did so at HSIs. According to the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, Hispanics are historically underrepresented in the areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. HSIs receive only half the Federal funding per student, on average, according to every other degree-granting institution. Indeed it seems sadly clear that HSIs are a long way from Federal funding parity with other institutions of higher learning. I hope every Member of this body can agree on the importance of HBCUs and HSIs and I hope you will support my amendment to restore their funding to a proper level.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. I think it is appropriate again to acknowledge both the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), in helping me construct both this idea and this vision. At the same time, I want to acknowledge our ranking member of the subcommittee and of course the chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I speak in soft tones because this is a very serious issue, inasmuch as I think we learned a very definitive lesson after first Challenger and then Columbia. I started out by saying that this legislation helps America to dream, but I also mentioned the famous words ``Houston, we've got a problem.'' Of course, we now know how we can fix the problem. I have worked on this committee to ensure that there is a safety vehicle, and I am gratified that this legislation includes my legislation for an independent Presidentially appointed commission to investigate safety aboard the International Space Station. This amendment was introduced earlier into H.R. 4522 in 2004, and this vital piece of legislation can potentially make the difference regarding safety for the international space crew. The amendment I offer today is one that will protect the human resource. It may be called whistleblower legislation; but in actuality it is legislation that will expand and protect human space flight, for it protects employees who do raise or have raised concerns about a potentially catastrophic risk to health or safety. This issue was raised by the Columbia Space Shuttle Accident Investigation Board as part of the problem at NASA because employees often felt intimidated by raising safety concerns. This is a sense of Congress that will allow us to have a placeholder, if you will, as this bill goes to conference, in that we will have and be able to utilize draft language which will create a safe reporting board where NASA employees and contractors can go safely to report potentially catastrophic health or safety concerns that may lead to the loss of a craft or a crew. Mr. Chairman, when we send brave Americans into space, we also send their families and loved ones. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude, but we owe them our commitment to never doing anything to our knowledge that would make this unsafe. Reports after the tragic Columbia Space Shuttle accident indicates that this bill may serve a vital role in improving communications at NASA, protecting workers, and averting catastrophic accidents in the future. It would rapidly screen such disclosures, and either report them directly to the administrator or reject them as noneligible. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I thank the distinguished gentleman from Colorado very much. Let me simply close by saying that this need for such a safety vehicle for the employees to protect themselves was documented on page 169 of the Gehman Report that said there was a broken culture of safety. Mr. Chairman, I believe we have gone miles ahead of this report and have really constructed a safety firewall, if you will, for the employees. This amendment, added to this legislation and working through conference, will make it clear you are protected, let us know what is going on so we can save lives and continue our vision and our dream of sending men and women into space. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment, which offers protection for whistleblowers at NASA who raise concerns about safety. This amendment would require the NASA Administrator to transmit to the House Committee on Science and the Senate Committee on Commerce, a plan describing steps NASA will take to protect employees who do raise or have raised concerns about a potentially catastrophic risk to health or safety. This issue was raised by the Columbia Space Shuttle Accident Investigation Board as part of the problem at NASA because employees often felt intimidated from raising safety concerns. I hope that Chairman Boehlert will work with me to go further on this issue once this bill goes in to Conference. I have draft language which would create a ``Safe Reporting Board'' where NASA employees and contractors can go to report ``potentially catastrophic health or safety concerns'' that could lead to the loss of a craft or crew. Reports after the tragic Columbia space shuttle accident indicated that this bill may serve a vital role in improving communications at NASA, protecting workers, and averting catastrophe in the future. This Safety Reporting Board would rapidly screen such disclosures and either report them directly to the Administrator, or reject them as non-eligible--perhaps with a suggestion to seek redress through their union, OSHA representative, ombudsman, etc. Afterward, the Board would be tasked with keeping a registry of reporting workers and with dispute resolution in the event that the worker alleges retaliation by management. Coupling the reporting and anti-retaliation functions in one board should limit the scope of the board to truly vital issues, and make workers feel confident that their concerns will not be lost or buried in the bureaucracy of standard whistleblower or OSHA claims. The Board would include both NASA managers and non-managers, with diverse expertise, representing multiple Centers, and include an advocate for workers. Admiral Gehman and the Columbia Accident Investigation Board explained how fear of retaliation by management, has lead some engineers to stifle their own concerns about the safety and well-being of NASA missions and crew. Page 169 of their report gives great insight into the broken culture of safety at NASA that impeded the flow of critical information from engineers up to program managers. I quote: ``Further, when asked by investigators why they were not more vocal about their concerns, Debris Assessment Team members opined that by raising contrary points of view about Shuttle mission safety, they would be singled out for possible ridicule by their peers.'' That reaffirms to me that strong whistleblower protections do not just protect workers. They protect lines of communication and dialog that prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, and, in this case, might have saved lives. I believe strongly that my language will enhance whistleblower protections for the NASA workforce, to make sure that critical information is never lost due to intimidation or fear. This problem may have contributed to the loss of two Shuttles and 14 brave crewmembers already. Last year, an independent business consulting firm Behavioral Science Technology, Inc. reported that the problem persists at NASA even after the Columbia shuttle accident. Safety must be the number one priority of NASA and this amendment helps solve one of the biggest roadblocks we have remaining.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE

Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), a member of the Science Committee and as well a colleague from Houston, Texas. (Mr. AL GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership and for his support on this effort. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).

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

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there are many things in America that give us cause for celebration. I am delighted to rise today and salute the Boy Scouts of America that are celebrating the jamboree and to acknowledge the service that they give to all of America. I am a proud member of the Sam Houston Area Council Boy Scouts of America. I am a Silver Beaver, and I have an Eagle Scout as a young son. To all of those who have achieved as Boy Scouts in America, our future leaders, we congratulate them. We thank them very much for the service that they give. I am reminded of the old sign of Boy Scouts laying down a raincoat or jacket over the water to allow an elderly person to walk. It is symbolic of the service that they give. I hope as they enjoy the wonderment of this great Capitol of the United States and the fact that they are able to see those of us who serve in the United States Congress, working the democratic way, they will be emboldened and they will be infused with a sense of energy, of leadership, and that they will carry the message of the Boy Scouts with great honor and serve their country in a very honorable way. With that I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I wish them the very best. And I might see them out there. Boy Scouts equal America. God bless America, and God bless the Boy Scouts of America.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is my great pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), a former attorney general of the great State of Rhode Island.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and thank him for his constant moral compass on civil liberties and civil rights for the American people.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, let me first of all continue to remind my colleagues and remind America that juxtaposed along this debate today is an existing Bill of Rights that is embedded in our Constitution. It obviously says there is the right to a trial by jury, the right to due process, the right to association, the right to freedom of speech. So as we have been debating through the day, I appreciate the tone of my colleagues, because on both sides of the aisle we have raised concerns about overreach and over-breadth when it comes to denying or eliminating the rights and freedoms of Americans. Mr. Chairman, I would have hoped that we would have had the opportunity to debate an amendment on section 213 that would have sunsetted it; not eliminated it, but sunsetted it. I heard in earlier debates that none of these provisions have been found unconstitutional by Federal courts. Let me remind the chairman that this legislation is barely, barely, 3 years old. In fact, I would argue that it is not sufficient time to know the extensiveness of the over-breadth on this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I rise to compliment the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) for at least working to find some limitations on a section that allows the FBI to execute a search and seizure warrant, again in violation of one of our prime tenets of the Constitution, the fourth amendment, without notifying the owner for 6 months, if providing advance notice would interfere with the investigation. How broad can that be, to suggest if it is not where it would intrude on the investigation. Mr. Chairman, as a local sitting judge, I spent many a night, 11, 12 o'clock at night, hearing from undercover police officers who were in fact searching for a search warrant, one to be signed by this judge. I listened to probable cause statements, PC statements. I would argue vigorously that none of that took an excessive amount of time. The probing that was allowed at that time, I believe, was a good firewall to protect the rights, the innocent rights, of Americans. Last night we saw on the news media a recounting of a tragic incident that occurred with out-of-control bounty hunters, many times used by local law enforcement. This is not exactly the same issue; but upon going into a home or insisting that someone was someone who was not someone, a woman who was innocent was dragged down to the courthouse or to jail. Unfortunately, she called the police when the bounty hunter came and the police insisted she was the right person. She was not. That is just an example of what happens with overreach. So this particular amendment that requires reporting on an annual basis of the Administrative Office of the Courts to the Committees on the Judiciary in the House and Senate gives us a limited way for oversight, the number of search warrants during the reporting period and the number of delayed notices authorized in the period, indicating the adverse result that occasioned that delay, a mere bringing to the attention of those of us who have the responsibilities of oversight as to what is happening out there. The difficulty with this amendment, however, is it leaves us with no action, because section 213 does not have a sunset provision. Because it continues to exist, we then have no way to respond as to whether or not there is overreach. I emphasize to my colleagues, again, that we are all in the business of fighting terror. In the backdrop of the incidents in London 2 weeks ago and today, we recognize we are united around that issue. But I have never talked to any American who concedes they cannot balance their civil liberties and freedom with the idea of fighting in a war on terror. I would hope simply that we would have the opportunity to debate this further and recognize that this body has gone on record, particularly by its work in CJS funding, where we offered not to fund section 213. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment, but recognize the dilemma we are in.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I hope we can characterize this debate in the manner that it should be, particularly as we rise in the backdrop of the tragedy of London, England. Might I say that even though we would have preferred, many of us as Democrats, a lengthier time for debate in committee, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for the ongoing debate and allowing for amendments over a period of time to discuss the PATRIOT Act. It should be commented on that this is not a definition of patriotism, of who is more patriotic than the next person, for the underlying bill exists. But there also should be some concerns about limiting overreach and overbroadness, with Americans understanding one of the issues that we are debating today, and that is the very premise of civil liberties juxtaposed against the responsibility of fighting the war on terror. I would have hoped my colleagues could have fought the war on terror by enhancing and making sure that the agencies responsible for sharing intelligence are really doing that. We find that that is not the case. Whether it is the FBI, the CIA, or other counterterrorism groups, they can do a better job. That certainly helps to stop terrorist acts. Then, I would have hoped my colleagues would have supported an increased funding, which has not been done by the majority, on rail security and port security and, of course, the idea of insuring our buses and other public transportation modes. These are also components of making sure that we are safe. But the reason why we raise the question today about the PATRIOT Act is that 14 provisions are being made permanent. Mr. Chairman, even though it is a different story, the Voter Rights Act in 1965, which goes to the core of our democracy, was sunsetted; and it has to be reauthorized. We only argue that it is important to reauthorize or to sunset so that we can have these debates, so that the American people can understand the limitation of their rights or the enhancement of their rights. For example, I think my colleagues would be troubled by the fact that we know that the FBI could get any tangible record by a rubber stamp by what we call FISA and that the showing would only be relevance. I have signed probable cause warrants as a judge, and you have to ask hard questions when a policeman comes in late at night to go into your home. We also know that these items can be used against Americans, not just a foreign power, or the national security letters that the FBI can get financial, telephone, Internet, and consumer goods records relevant to intelligence investigations, not just against agents of foreign powers, but against Americans. Or what about the sneak-and-peek provision that allows someone to come into your home and take anything, of course, called search and seizure, without notice, suggesting that it is involved in an investigation, and most of you would not know, most of America would not know that this is not limited to terrorism. But it is far-reaching; it could be anyone. So the question on debate today, I hope that we can center it around the question of restraint, but yet be vigorous in our fight for the war on terror. I hope that we will have that opportunity, and I hope as well that in the amendment that I offer that we will be able to say that if you are impacted by a terrorist act, that you can sue and enforce your civil judgement, and I hope to have mutual support on that. 3 Mr. Chairman, I join my many colleagues, many victims of terrorism, and many victims of racial and religious profiling in opposing this legislation, H.R. 3199, for several reasons. First, we never have been given the facts necessary to fully evaluate the operation of the underlying bill, the USA PATRIOT Act. Second, there are numerous provisions in both the expiring and other sections of the PATRIOT Act that have little to do with combating terrorism, intrude on our privacy and civil liberties, and have been subject to repeated abuse and misuse by the Justice Department. Third, the legislation does nothing to address the many unilateral civil rights and civil liberties abuses by the administration since the September 11 attacks. Finally, the bill does not provide law enforcement with any additional real and meaningful tools necessary to help our Nation prevail in the war against terrorism. Since 2002, 389 communities and 7 States have passed resolutions opposing parts of the PATRIOT Act, representing over 62 million people. Additionally, numerous groups ranging the political spectrum have come forward to oppose certain sections of the PATRIOT Act and to demand that Congress conduct more oversight on its use, including the American Civil Liberties Union, American Conservative Union, American Immigration Lawyers Association, American Library Association, Center for Constitutional Rights, Center for Democracy and Technology, Common Cause, Free Congress Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, People for the American Way, and numerous groups concerned about immigrants' rights. I sit as Ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. Of particular concern to me are a number of immigration-related provisions that cast such a broad net to allow for the detention and deportation of people engaging in innocent associational activity and constitutionally protected speech and that permit the indefinite detention of immigrants and non-citizens who are not terrorists. Among these troubling provisions are those that: Authorize the Attorney General (AG) to arrest and detain non-citizens based on mere suspicion, and require that they remain in detention ``irrespective of any relief they may be eligible for or granted.'' (In order to grant someone relief from deportation, an immigration judge must find that the person is not a terrorist, a criminal, or someone who has engaged in fraud or misrepresentation.) When relief from deportation is granted, no person should be subject to continued detention based merely on the Attorney General's unproven suspicions. Require the AG to bring charges against a person who has been arrested and detained as a ``certified'' terrorist suspect within 7 days, but the law does not require that those charges be based on terrorism-related offenses. As a result, an alien can be treated as a terrorist suspect despite being charged with only a minor immigration violation, and may never have his or her day in court to prove otherwise. Make material support for groups that have not been officially designated as ``terrorist organizations'' a deportable offense. Under this law, people who make innocent donations to charitable organizations that are secretly tied to terrorist activities would be presumed guilty unless they can prove they are innocent. Restrictions on material support should be limited to those organizations that have officially been designated terrorist organizations. Deny legal permanent residents readmission to the U.S. based solely on speech protected by the First Amendment. The laws punish those who ``endorse,'' ``espouse,'' or ``persuade others to support terrorist activity or terrorist organizations.'' Rather than prohibiting speech that includes violence or criminal activity, these new grounds of inadmissibility punish speech that ``undermines the United States' efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorist activity.'' This language is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and will undeniably have a chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech. Authorize the AG and the Secretary of State to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and block any noncitizen who belongs to them from entering the country. Under this provision, the mere payment of membership dues is a deportable offense. This vague and overly broad language constitutes guilt by association. Our laws should punish people who commit crimes, not punish people based on their beliefs or associations. In addition, the current administration has taken some deeply troubling steps since September 11. Along with supporting the USA PATRIOT Act, it has initiated new policies and practices that negate fundamental due process protections and jeopardize basic civil liberties for non-citizens in the United States. These constitutionally dubious initiatives undermine our historical commitment to the fair treatment of every individual before the law and do not enhance our security. Issued without Congressional consultation or approval, these new measures include regulations that increase secrecy, limit accountability, and erode important due process principles that set our Nation apart from other counties. I co-sponsored the Civil Liberties Restoration Act (CLRA), reintroduced from the 108th Congress by Representatives Howard Berman (D-CA) and William Delahunt (D-MA), that seeks to roll back some of these egregious post-9/11 policies and to strike an appropriate balance between security needs and liberty interests. The CLRA would secure due process protections and civil liberties for non-citizens in the U.S., enhance the effectiveness of our nation's enforcement activities, restore the confidence of immigrant communities in the fairness of our Government, and facilitate our efforts at promoting human rights and democracy around the world. While every step must be taken to protect the American public from further terrorist acts, our government must not trample on the Constitution in the process and on those basic rights and protections that make American democracy so unique. My ``safe havens'' amendment that was made in order by the Committee on Rules relates to the civil forfeiture provision of 18 U.S.C. 981 and would add a section that would allow civil plaintiffs to attach judgments to collect compensory damages for which a terrorist organization has been adjudged liable. It seeks to allow victims of terrorism who obtain civil judgment for damages caused in connection with the acts to attach foreign or domestic assets held by the United States Government under 18 U.S.C. 981(G). Section 981(G) calls for the forfeiture of all assets, foreign or domestic, of any individual, entity, or organization that has engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism against the United States, citizens or residents of the United States. The legislation, H.R. 3199, as drafted, fails to deal with the current limitation on the ability to enforce civil judgments by victims and family members of victims of terrorist offenses. There are several examples of how the current Administration has sought to bar victims from satisfying judgments obtained against the government of Iran, for example. In the Sobero case, a U.S. national was beheaded by Abu Sayyaf, an Al-Qaeda affiliate, leaving his children fatherless. The Administration responded to this incident by sending 1,000 Special Forces officers to track down the perpetrators, and the eldest child of the victim was invited to the State of the Union Address. Abu Sayyaf's funds have been seized and are held by the U.S. Treasury at this time. The family of the victim should have access to those funds, at the very least, at the President's discretion. Similarly, the Administration barred the Iran hostages that were held from 1979-1981 from satisfying their judgment against Iran. In 2000, the party filed a suit against Iran under the terrorist State exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. While a federal district court held Iran to be liable, the U.S. Government intervened and argued that the cause should be dismissed because Iran had not been designated a terrorist state at the time of the hostage incident and because of the Algiers Accords--that led to the release of the hostages, which required the U.S. to bar the adjudication of suits arising from the incident. As a result, those hostages received no compensation for their suffering. Similarly, American servicemen who were harmed in a Libyan sponsored bombing of the La Belle disco in Germany were obstructed from obtaining justice for the terrorist acts they suffered. While victims of the attack pursued settlement of their claims against the Libyan government, the Administration lifted sanctions against Libya without requiring as a condition the determination of all claims of American victims of terrorism. As a result of this action, Libya abandoned all talks with the claimants. Furthermore, because Libya was no longer considered a state sponsor of terrorism, the American servicemen and women and their families were left without recourse to obtain justice. The La Belle victims received no compensation for their suffering. In addition, a group of American prisoners who were tortured in Iraq during the Persian Gulf war were barred from collecting their judgment from the Iraqi government. Although the 17 veterans won their case in the District Court of the District of Columbia, the Administration argued that the Iraqi assets should remain frozen in a U.S. bank account to aid in the reconstruction of Iraq. Claiming that the judgment should be overturned, the Administration deems that rebuilding Iraq is more important than recompensing the suffering of fighter pilots who, during the 12-year imprisonment, suffered beatings, burns, and threats of dismemberment. Finally, the World Trade Center victims were barred from obtaining judgment against the Iraqi government. In their claim against the Iraqi government, the victims were awarded $64 million against Iraq in connection with the September 2001 attacks. However, they were rebuffed in their efforts to attach the vested Iraqi assets. While the judgment was sound, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's finding that the Iraqi assets, now transferred to the U.S. Treasury, were protected by U.S. sovereign immunity and were unavailable for judicial attachment. While the PATRIOT Act may not deserve all of the ridicule that is heaped against it, there is little doubt that the legislation has been repeatedly and seriously misused by the Justice Department. Consider the following: It's been used more than 150 times to secretly search an individual's home, with nearly 90 percent of those cases having had nothing to do with terrorism. It was used against Brandon Mayfield, an innocent Muslim American, to tap his phones, seize his property, copy his computer, spy on his children, and take his DNA, all without his knowledge. It's been used to deny, on account of his political beliefs, the admission to the United States of a Swiss citizen and prominent Muslim Scholar to teach at the Notre Dame University. It's been used to unconstitutionally coerce an internet service provider to divulge information about e-mail activity and web surfing on its system, and then to gag the provider from even disclosing the abuse to the public. Because of gag restrictions, we will never know how many times its been used to obtain reading records from library and book stores, but we do know that libraries have been solicited by the Department of Justice--voluntarily or under threat of the PATRIOT Act--for reader information on more than 200 occasions since September 11. It's been used to charge, detain and prosecute a Muslim student in Idaho for posting Internet website links to objectionable materials, even though the same links were available on the U.S. Government's web site. Even worse than the PATRIOT Act has been the unilateral abuse of power by the Administration. Since September 11, our government has detained and verbally and physically abused thousands of immigrants without time limit, for unknown and unspecified reasons, and target tens of thousands of Arab-Americans for intensive interrogations and immigration screenings. All this serves to accomplish is to alienate Muslim and Arab Americans--the key groups to fighting terrorism in our country--who see a Justice Department that has institutionalized racial and ethnic profiling, without the benefit of a single terrorism conviction. Nor it is helpful when our government condones the torture of prisoners at home and abroad, authorizes the monitoring of mosques and religious sties without any indication of criminal activity, and detains scores of individuals as material witnesses because it does not have evidence to indict them. This makes our citizens less safe not more safe, and undermines our role as a beacon of democracy and freedom. Right now, H.R. 3199 is the most appropriate and timely vehicle in which to address this issue and allow U.S. victims of terrorism to obtain justice from terrorist-supporting or terrorist-housing nations. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this legislation and ask my colleagues work to negotiate real fixes to the sunsetted provisions.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume and would just note that I am attempting to bring it up at this time and discuss it, at the same time I am looking to work with my chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), so that we can move this forward. I might also add that the amendment is now Jackson-Lee-Poe. Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join many of my colleagues in strongly opposing the restrictive rule set forth on H.R. 3199, the ``USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005.'' As you know, in light of the world we live in now, this is a very important piece of legislation. Having such a rule truly goes too far and limits the protections of the American people. There were many important and relevant amendments that were not ruled in order and I believe this could prove to be detrimental in the end. I must also express my dismay with the fact an amendment by my good friend, Mr. Conyers, was not ruled in order. This amendment, which centers on rail and port security, should have been allowed in. Both rail and port security are areas we as a country need to focus more attention on particularly after what took place in London 2 weeks ago and apparently another incident has taken place this morning. Let me take a moment to discuss an important amendment of mine that was not ruled in order. My amendment 141, dealing with racial profiling, would have required the Inspector General to appoint an official to produce a report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees showing a statistical breakdown of the race, nationality, or ethnic background of the subject of orders issued by the Court under Section 107. Every day, across the country, people of color are the victims of racial profiling and law enforcement brutality. Skin color and national origin are seen by some law enforcement agents as a cause for suspicion and a reason to violate people's rights. As a matter of policy and law, this body must use this very clear opportunity to set the record straight with respect to exercising good faith law enforcement practices. This amendment would have made that sentiment a reality. Before closing, I am pleased to see that my ``Safe Haven'' amendment was ruled in order. This amendment seeks to allow the attachment of property and the enforcement of a judgment against a judgment debtor that has engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism under the ``forfeiture clause'' of 18 U.S.C. 981. The legislation, as drafted, fails to deal with the current limitation on the ability to enforce civil judgments by victims and family members of victims of terrorist offenses. There are several examples of how the current administration has sought to bar victims from satisfying judgments obtained against the Government of Iran, for example. The administration barred the Iran hostages that were held from 1979-1981 from satisfying their judgment against Iran. In 2000, the party filed a suit against Iran under the terrorist State exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act. While a Federal district court held Iran to be liable, the U.S. Government intervened and argued that the case should be dismissed because Iran had not been designated a terrorist state at the time of the hostage incident and because of the Algiers Accords--that led to the release of the hostages, which required the U.S. to bar the adjudication of suits arising from that incident. As a result, those hostages received no compensation for their suffering. The text of the amendment previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows: At the end of the resolution add the following new sections: ``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution the amendment specified in section 3 shall be in order as though printed after the amendment numbered 20 in the report of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Sanders of Vermont or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. ``Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as follows: At the end of section 8 add the following new subsection: (e) Library and Bookseller Records.--Section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ``(g)(1) No application may be made under this section with either the purpose or effect of searching for, or seizing from, a bookseller or library documentary materials (except for records of Internet use) that contain personally identifiable information concerning a patron of a bookseller or library. ``(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as precluding a physical search for documentary materials referred to in paragraph (1) under other provisions of law, including under section 303. ``(3) In this subsection: ``(A) The term `bookseller' means any person or entity engaged in the sale, rental or delivery of books, journals, magazines or other similar forms of communication in print or digitally. ``(B) The term `library' has the meaning given that term under section 213(2) of the Library Services and Technology Act (20 U.S.C. 9122(2)) whose services include access to the Internet, books, journals, magazines, newspapers, or other similar forms of communication in print or digitally to patrons for their use, review, examination or circulation. ``(C) The term `patron' means any purchaser, renter, borrower, user or subscriber of goods or services from a library or bookseller. ``(D) The term `documentary materials' means any document, tape, or other communication created by a bookseller or library in connection with print or digital dissemination of a book, journal, magazine, newspaper, or other similar form of communication. ``(E) The term `personally identifiable information' includes information that identifies a person as having used, requested or obtained specific reading materials or services from a bookseller or library.''.