Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate this morning, now, 2 weeks to the date, that we again offer our sympathy to the people of England and particularly the City of London. Today we will rise to the floor to again discuss and debate ways of securing this land. But I feel that as Americans we know each other. We understand rhetoric versus action. It saddens me to stand here and to acknowledge that Democrats over the last years and myself as a member of the Homeland Security Committee have joined those leaders of this issue, that we have asked repeatedly for actual resources to ensure the Nation's railroads and light rail systems and bus systems, the very systems that our tourists who come to this capital of the United States utilize every single day. And time after time after time after time we have been rebuked, rejected and ignored by the Republican majority when it comes to giving resources to protecting the Nation's rail system. Yet we can give high taxes, but we cannot protect those who need to be protected. We need to do something and we need to do it now.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. Modification to Amendment No. 15 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment to be brought up be as modified.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume; and, as I indicated, this amendment is offered by myself and my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe). I thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin for his cooperation in working to have this amendment be included in the final legislation as it is a sense of Congress amendment that I think makes a very important statement. The proposal 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 compensatory damages for which a terrorist organization has been adjudged liable and from the pool of assets that have been forfeited under section 981. This is distinctive, Mr. Chairman, because this pertains to circumstances of terrorism but not necessarily in circumstances when we are at war. My amendment seeks to allow victims of terrorism who obtain civil judgments 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. Section 981(G) calls for the forfeiture of all assets, foreign or domestic, of any individual entity or organization that is engaged in planning or perpetrating any act of domestic or international terrorism. As we look at H.R. 3199, the PATRIOT Act, it misses the opportunity to in fact allow victims to satisfy judgments. That is the key. For example, the Sobero case, where the gentleman from Riverside, California, was beheaded by Abu Sayyaf, leaving his children fatherless. The administration responded to this incident by sending a thousand Special Forces officers to track down the perpetrators, yet the family of this decreased could not claim any compensation for the tragedy that occurred. The same thing occurred with the Iran hostages, which many of us are familiar with, but are my colleagues aware of the situation with our American servicemen who were harmed in the Libyan-sponsored bombing of the La Belle disco in Germany? They were obstructed from being able to enforce judgments that they received against the terrorist-sponsored attack and the attack that was sponsored by Libya. In addition, a group of American prisoners tortured in Iraq during the Persian Gulf War were barred from collecting their judgment from the Iraqi government. I do believe in conference we will have the opportunity to vet this and to work with all the parties concerned to finally bring some relief on this issue. Many Members have attempted to bring about relief in special claims for their particular individual constituents in their particular jurisdictions. Fortunately, in the opportunity we have today, by including this sense of Congress in the PATRIOT Act we will finally get both our debate and we will get action. Mr. Chairman, I bring attention as well to the World Trade Center bombing victims who were barred from obtaining judgments against the Iraqi government. In their claim against the Iraqi Government, the victims were awarded $64 million against Iraq in connection with the September 20, 2001, attack. However, they were rebuffed in their efforts to attach the vested Iraqi assets. While the judgment rendered 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. One major problem that frustrates the objective of my amendment is the fact that information is not publicly available regarding the amount and or kind of civil forfeitures made to date. So this amendment will allow the full discussion by a sense of Congress of what would be the right process to proceed, balancing the needs of the government, balancing the needs of the victims of terrorism, balancing the question of justice, and, yes, balancing the responsible actions under the PATRIOT Act, protecting us against terrorism but then, when we are victims of terrorism, to give us the opportunity for relief. I would hope my colleagues would support this amendment so we can carry this forward into conference and be able to provide the kind of leadership necessary for the throngs of victims, those who have already suffered, and we hope not, but for those who may suffer in the future. I would say that absent this public disclosure of this very substantial information; that is; about the assets, it is very difficult for compensation even to be requested. So I think that we will have an opportunity to address these concerns, balance the needs of the government in its need to protect certain information, and give relief to many Americans.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that has been made in order by the Committee on Rules, Jackson-Lee No. 42. This proposal 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 and from the pool of assets that have been forfeited under Section 981. My amendment 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, Guillermo Sobero of Riverside County, CA, 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 case should be dismissed because Iran had not been designated a terrorist state at the time of the hostage incident and because of the Algiers Accords--that led to the release of the hostages, which required the U.S. to bar the adjudication of suits arising from that incident. As a result, those hostages received no compensation for their suffering. Similarly, American servicemen who were harmed in a Libyan sponsored bombing of the La Belle disco in Germany were obstructed from obtaining justice for the terrorist acts they suffered. While victims of the attack pursued settlement of their claims against the Libyan government, the Administration lifted sanctions against Libya without requiring as a condition the determination of all claims of American victims of terrorism. As a result of this action, Libya abandoned all talks with the claimants. Furthermore, because Libya was no longer considered a state sponsor of terrorism, the American 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 deemed that the Reconstruction effort was more important than recompensing the suffering of fighter pilots who, during their 12 year imprisonment, suffered beatings, burns, and threats of dismemberment. Finally, the World Trade Center bombing 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 rendered 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. One major problem that frustrates the objective of my amendment is the fact that information is not publicly available regarding the amount and/or kind of civil forfeitures made to date. The Executive Branch of our Government has suggested that it has no duty to disclose either the identity of the parties who own civilly forfeited property or the amounts forfeited to date. Absent public disclosure of this very substantive information, it is very difficult for compensation to even be requested--let alone expected for victims of horrific acts of terrorism. 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. The Jackson-Lee Amendment protects terror victims' rights. Domestic and international terrorism should not be facilitated by barring successful plaintiff-victims from enforcing valid judgments. In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me thank the chairman of the full committee and the ranking member and the ranking member of the subcommittee for their leadership on this whole entire issue of protecting Americans against terrorism and including in that protection of their civil liberties. This amendment will not only protect Americans against the dangers of life and limb and the loss of life, but give them relief in our courts. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment sponsored by myself and my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a sense of Congress amendment to provide relief to Americans victimized by terrorism. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, my colleague just before me indicated the crisis that we have in America where a young man is sent off four times to Iraq and not able to see his family. Well, maybe the young soldier that I buried the other day, Nathaniel Parker, who got liver disease in Iraq and died languishing in one of our military hospitals, or maybe the tragedy of 70 who died after a suicide explosion there are crises that we should be focusing on. Then, of course, our friends on the other side of the aisle want to insist that Americans change their basic infrastructure pension, that is, Social Security. We know that whatever plan they have is going to cut America's benefits. In fact, middle-class Americans will have their benefits cut 40 percent. Social Security should not be privatized. It can be fixed. It can be extended. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did it in 1983. Women most of all will be hurt. More than 24 million women receive Social Security. So I say to my colleagues here in the House, the Democrats realize that a faulty plan is no plan on Social Security. A faulty plan on the war is no plan. Let us get together and solve America's problems.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman very much for yielding me this time and for his leadership and passion on this issue. I thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), for really giving us the opportunity to have a full flush, if you will, a full discussion on this matter. It would be certainly somewhat untoward to suggest that one would rise to not applaud some of the good works that we find at Guantanamo Bay, but I think it is important that we try to turn on the lights and get out of the dark tunnel on this whole issue of why many of us want to bring to the attention of the American people the element of Guantanamo Bay that needs to be reformed and that we need to be concerned about. Let me again add my applause to the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) for the delegation they led to Guantanamo Bay just a few weeks ago, and which I was part of. I was able to see over the time the improvements, the physical improvements, Mr. Chairman, that in fact resources from the United States through the leadership of our then- chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), were able to provide for those detainees and for those particular soldiers. It does not go to the question of why we are on the floor today to the fact that the accommodations have been rebuilt, the training of those soldiers has been improved, the dining apparently has improved to the extent that the detainees like American food. That is not the issue. The accommodations, whether they are four star or five star is not really the issue that we are debating. I also acknowledge the work of General Hood and his commitment to the professionalizing of that staff. I always am reminded of a phrase my grandmother shared with me, somewhat biblical: for those who are failing to remember the past, they are doomed to repeat it. I stand here today to suggest we must not close our eyes on the concerns many of us have about Guantanamo Bay, whether or not we happen to be opponents of the Iraq war. And for once I am going to say, for the millions of Americans who are questioning the rightness of the Iraq war, the rightness of the premise of the Iraq war, we are not going to allow you to demonize our patriotism. We are not going to stand here and accept the fact that because we raise constitutional questions there is something wrong with our patriotism. There is something in the fifth amendment that says that you are due liberty and due process on the right of life and liberty. There is something to that. My good friend stood here and said that an amputee that we nursed back to health was sent back to do harm. None of us who understand the law would in any way concede that we should have let him out. But the problem is that we have no system of justice that allows us to indict, to try and to convict and to detain. That is what the American people need to understand. We have individuals there that have had no process, no opportunity for the intervention of the courts, no opportunity for appeal, and no opportunity for us to convict and try and hold. And when I say convict, I mean indict, try, and hold. So the report that just came out and was just issued that we need to understand, written in the article on July 14, unfortunately, we have not gotten to the source. We are holding young recruits or young Reservists as, if you will, responsible for Abu Ghraib, when we know one of the chief designers of that was Secretary Rumsfeld, who signed the document that allowed them to do that kind of interrogating of one of the 9/11 bombers, if you will. It is important for the American people to know that all of these people here are not related to 9/11 per se. They may be Taliban members. They may have been gathered up in a big sweep in Afghanistan, young kids who came in at 17 and now are 21. So there needs to be a process by which we deal with this. I finish on this: the Geneva Convention, which we ignore, says: ``Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, is outlawed.'' We need to understand that we can detain people properly, we can have due process, and we can have indictments and we can have convictions; but we cannot have what is going on in Guantanamo Bay that leads to an Abu Ghraib. We must understand that we are better than that.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) that I am very grateful that we have been able to resurrect this debate and utilize it in the tone that I think is appropriate for the American people and as well the people in Iraq who are simply seeking peace and opportunity. As I stand here today, I mourn the loss of almost 2,000 of our loved ones who bravely took the oath and the willingness to sacrifice their life for this country. To the veterans who have come home from world wars and other wars and conflicts, we thank you. But it is appropriate today that we debate this question; and my good friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), I know has a good intention of establishing a policy dealing with Iraq. I wish we had done that as the time came for that war to be launched. I believe it is appropriate to reinforce the fact that we are standing here all as patriots who love this Nation and would defend her. But the Iraqi people deserve our debate today, and they deserve it because we need to know we can do better. A limitation on transferring power, in fact, is something that we should be concerned about. If we have a goal, a time certain, which many of us believe is the appropriate way to go, you then can move the Iraqi nationals and the Iraqi Armed Forces toward a goal. We will not have the consternation of wondering whether the presence of the United States military, even though we know terrorists exist, continue to agitate because of their presence, even though they are there to help. It is important to realize that Members who want a time certain are no less patriotic, but they want to guide this process of a policy that seems to have gone awry. We want to save lives. We want to train Iraqi forces, but the tragedy of the explosion of a gas tank that killed almost a hundred is something that is continuing that we want to see stopped. And the American people want answers from the United States Congress. And so I think this debate is too short. I wish other amendments could have been made in order so we can find an orderly manner to handle this. I offered a suggestion to put our troops on the border back in 2002, 50,000 of them. Saddam was so weak that I know he could have toppled. But we did not go that route. So we have to find an exit strategy now for success and to be able to, if you will, provide an opportunity for our troops to come home as heroes and for the Iraqi people to live in freedom.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 363 I was unavoidably detained on official business. Had I been present I would have voted aye. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 364 I was detained on official business. Had I been present I would have voted aye. Mr. Speaker, on July 11, 2005 on rollcall vote No. 363, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, As Amended for H. Con. Res. 168, Condemning the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for the abductions and continued captivity of citizens of the Republic of Korea and Japan as acts of terrorism and gross violations of human rights; I would have voted ``yea.'' On July 11, 2005 on rollcall vote No. 364, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H. Res. 333, Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Weekend of Prayer and Reflection for Darfur, Sudan; I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this morning I was honored to hear Prime Minister Singh talk about the empowerment of women and democracy in India. I rise today to celebrate women's suffrage here in the United States. We too believe, from long-standing history, of the value and importance of the empowerment of women. That is why women like Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony are pioneers on the battlefield of democracy and voting. We also recognize Sojourna Truth, who started her life as an abolitionist of slavery, but stood alongside these women fighting for women's suffrage. We look forward to having her statue added along with the outstanding women here in the United States Capitol honored for their early history as Susan B. Anthony, as Lucretia Mott, as Elizabeth Cady Stanton. We hope to have Sojourna Truth's own statue here in our United States Capitol. Today, I honor those women and recognize that we in the United States Congress must continue to fight for the reauthorization of the Voter Rights Act of 1965 and salute those women who first understood that out of empowerment for women come change and opportunity.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise to address H.R. 2601, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007. This legislation is far reaching and will have a broad impact on the direction of our foreign policy. I hope that this Authorization Act will serve as an instrument for international cooperation, instead of the Administration's current policy of antagonizing the international community. This Authorization Act funds the Department of State at virtually the same level as the Administration's request, representing a substantial increase from FY2005. Minor cuts to the request were made to substantially increase funds for refugee protection and to increase funding for the Asia Foundation. This bill funds international broadcasting, international exchanges, U.S. dues for international organizations, U.N. peacekeeping, and the National Endowment for Democracy at the FY2006 request level. To be specific, this bill authorizes $10.8 billion in 2006 and $10 billion in 2007 for the Department of State, international broadcasting activities, international assistance programs, and related agencies. The bill includes the following authorization levels: $3.77 billion for FY06 and $3.89 billion for FY07 for Diplomatic and Consular programs; $1.52 billion for FY06 and $1.55 billion for FY07 Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance, and $689 million in FY06 and $710 million in FY07 for worldwide security upgrades; $1.3 billion in FY06 and FY07 for contributions to international organizations; $955 million in FY06 and $985 million in FY07 for migration and refugee assistance; $661 million in FY06 for international broadcasting activities. I am heartened that this bill contains a number of Democratic initiatives that were either included by Chairman Hyde or were added by amendment in Committee. This bill funds virtually all of the President's requests for the State Department, including funding for embassy security and expanding the U.S. diplomatic corps. The bill includes provisions to strangle nuclear black markets; to provide an institutional framework for the promotion of democracy; and to provide the State Department with tools to confront the alarming spread of ballistic missiles. In addition, this legislation includes provisions related to creating a more formal structure for the promotion of democracy at the Department of State. It also requires a report on Administration strategy and efforts to advance democracy around the world, and it increases funding for the State Department's Human Rights and Democracy Fund, which currently faces a 20 percent decrease in the FY2006 budget request. It is my sincere hope that these provisions will actually take our talk of promoting democracy through peaceful means and make it a reality. I appreciate the fact that this Authorization includes a sense of Congress that the United States should render assistance to the efforts of the International Criminal Court to bring to justice persons accused of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity in Darfur, Sudan. However, this nation must do more to stop the genocide in Darfur. The genocidal regime in Sudan has left 2.5 million people displaced and at least 380,000 people dead in the Darfur. Due to increasing violence, 15,000 innocent civilians continue to die each month. Tragically, many of the women and young girls have been raped. In addition, water and food supplies have been completely destroyed making it impossible for many Sudanese to survive. Furthermore, under the U.S. Refugee Admission Program for FY05, up to 20,000 refugees from parts of Africa may be allowed to enter the U.S. As of May 31, 2005 there have been 10,326 persons allowed in the U.S. from Africa and only 1,190 of them have been Sudanese refugees. Truly, we have not gone as far as we can to aid these suffering people and end the genocide in Darfur. We can not allow the war in Iraq to divert us from this humanitarian crisis. As the world's most powerful nation we have an obligation to ensure that we do not turn a blind eye to those who are truly suffering. The war in Iraq continues unabated and yet this Administration finds the need to hide the true cost of this war from the American people. I wrote a letter to President Bush on Memorial Day along with my Congressional colleague to ask him to allow the public to once again view the flag draped coffins of our soldiers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice to their nation. I find it sad that this President has changed a long standing precedent of showing the flag draped coffins when they return to be buried here in the United States. This ceremony is a true sign of honor, which should be shared with the American people, both young and old as a reminder of the bravery of our Armed Forces. I truly hope that President Bush will change his policy and allow Americans to once again pay proper tribute to our fallen soldiers who we hold dear in our hearts. I am disappointed that this Authorization Act does not address the deteriorating situation in Haiti. I am also extremely disturbed by the role our own Administration has played in suppressing the voice of the people of Haiti. The Bush Administration has given tacit approval to the current Haitian government in their efforts to impose their regime. It is time for our Administration to play an active role in restoring real representative government in Haiti. We can not continue to turn a blind eye to the needs and desires of the Haitian people. The Haitian people were already suffering after the illegal overthrow of President Aristide and the subsequent unrest. Today they are faced with a new challenge of trying to hold their nation together in the face of an illegitimate and collapsing government. The United States must play the lead role in rebuilding the institutions and capabilities of the nation of Haiti. I am pleased that this Authorization contains support for famine relief in Ethiopia up to $4,000,000 for fiscal year 2006. Ethiopia is another nation in which we must support democracy and give the people reason to hope. Recently, the first official results from Ethiopia's disputed May elections show the ruling party and the opposition won roughly the same number of seats. The National Election Board said it was investigating allegations of fraud in up to 200 seats. The United States must support free and fair elections regardless of who may eventually win. I hope that all cases of election fraud will be properly investigated and that the final results will reflect the will of the Ethiopian people. It was an honor today to welcome such a distinguished guest as Prime Minister Singh to the United States Capitol. I am pleased to have signed a letter to Speaker Hastert requesting that the Prime Minister be able to address a joint session of Congress. I must say that the international development that I feel most positively about is the continued peace talks between Pakistan and India. I was heartened to see the effort made by Prime Minister Singh and President Musharraf in April, when they managed to turn a small visit to India to watch a cricket match into a three-day summit that yielded a series of agreements.Together these two nations agreed to set up a joint business council to improve trade and open more meeting points and travel routes for divided families along the Line of Control, which divides the region of Kashmir between India and Pakistan. Both Prime Minister Singh and President Musharraf declared that the peace process is now ``irreversible.'' In addition, they agreed that they would continue talks on Kashmir in ``a sincere and purposeful and forward-looking manner for a final settlement.'' It's due to this that I introduced H. Res. 272, the India-Pakistan Peace Resolution which recognizes the historic steps India and Pakistan have taken toward achieving bilateral peace. I am proud to say that this resolution passed through the International Relations Committee by unanimous consent. I have long advocated for the idea that both these great nations have much to offer and the promise of regional stability can only be in the interest of the United States. I do have concerns about China and especially its bid to purchase Unocal. I am satisfied that the House of Representatives recently voted to not approve any sale of Unocal to China based on national security grounds. In addition, the Chinese yuan continues to be undervalued in relation to the U.S. dollar.The yuan has been pegged to the dollar at an exchange rate of about 8.28 yuan for 14 years, a rate which gives China an unfair edge in the export market. At its current level, China's goods are very inexpensive relative to American products, which ultimately threaten U.S. jobs. I am not asking to close our relationship with China, but only to have some reasonableness in our dealings with them. This Foreign Relations Authorization Act addresses a number of international issues. However, I feel it does not go far enough on many vital international issues such as the genocide in Darfur and the deteriorating situation in Haiti. I hope that this Congress and this Administration will sincerely work to address these pressing international issues. Truly, those conflicts, which we ignore, will only be to the detriment of our Nation later.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me time. I think he realizes that some of us who have met with leadership from Colombia recognize that there are multiple problems, and certainly the resources needed to interdict drug traffickers responds to a series of those problems. So I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. But I hope as well in listening to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), that we also emphasize the impoverishment of that area. This week I met with the governor of the region that governs Afro- Colombians. It is a region very small, but well populated. In addition to these resources, they are, if you will, isolated by law enforcement to protect them against the drug cartels and violence. They are lacking in educational resources and health resources. I hope that we will have the opportunity to acknowledge the needs of Afro-Colombians, those who are descendents of the continent of Africa and former slaves. They want to work with the Colombian Government, but they need more resources. We in the United States can give them the strength and also the backbone and pressure to ask Colombia to provide them with more resources. Drug interdiction is needed and necessary, but we must stop the poverty for those who cannot survive. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment though not without reservation. Fighting the war on drugs is an important part of creating a safe and stable hemisphere and Mr. Burton must be thanked for his efforts to assist the Colombian government in fighting drug trafficking. Drug trafficking is the cause of many evils that befall upon our society. It creates violence and feeds off of the weakest members of society. We must take every effort to root out this heinous activity in all corners of the world. The Burton amendment will help to wage the war on drugs and will make it more difficult for Colombian drug traffickers to export their products. I support this amendment for those reasons, yet acknowledge that there is an entire other part of the war on drugs that we must face. Our anti-drug activities in the region must also take the shape of social development programs. We must insist that our actions in the war on drugs are not simply military programs, but social and economic as well. To truly win the war on drugs we must take action to help sectors of Colombian society most adversely affected. These communities; the poor, indigenous, and Afro-Colombians, are most often the worst affected from the violence associated with the drug trade. The social marginalization that these groups already face is exacerbated intensely by the conflict. In our course of action in the war on drugs we must be vigilant in maintaining support for the socially marginalized. We cannot accept the undue burden placed on these groups as an acceptable side effect of the Andean Counter-drug initiative. The current situation in regions where these groups reside is unacceptable. Choco, a province consisting of approximately 75 percent Afro-Colombian inhabitants, is perhaps the most adversely affected region of Colombia as a result of the armed conflict. In 2003 the region had the highest number of internally displaced persons in the country. As the only province with access to both the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans it has been a highly desirable location for drug traffickers. With little or no government presence in the region, its inhabitants have had virtually no means to halt this invasion of drug traffickers. I recently met with Mr. Julio Ibarguen, Governor of Choco, and he could not emphasize enough the necessity of more assistance to the Afro-Colombian population. The Afro-Colombian population was already impoverished, marginalized, and discriminated against. Governor Ibarguen illustrated how the conflict worsened this already horrible situation. The Afro-Colombian community has literally been decimated by the armed conflict and has been forcibly dispersed through Colombia. Those who have remained in Choco are faced with little or no access to healthcare, education, or law enforcement. Approximately 80 percent of Afro-Colombians live in extreme poverty. In the war on drugs, Afro-Colombians have become the forgotten victims of the conflict. We must strive to ensure that their plight is not overshadowed by our efforts to eradicate drug trafficking. We must insist that the U.S. government provide more aid to Afro-Colombian regions. American resources must be used to help alleviate the pain and suffering on the part of Afro-Colombians and provide them access to a better, more stable, livelihood. Members of Congress should take an active role in working with their Colombian counterparts and must convince the Colombian government that the United States is interested in the well-being of Colombia's minority populations. During this time of conflict and distress for Afro-Colombians, the United States must be vigilant in providing support and assistance. I support the Burton amendment because it assists the Colombian government in fighting the war on drugs. We must take our commitment to fight this war, and match it with a commitment to support the victims of the Colombian Conflict. Attention must be paid to Afro-Colombian populations so that they receive the aid they deserve. We must use our resources to fight drugs and poverty, corruption and racism, and insurgency and bigotry.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise to oppose the Hyde Amendment to add the text of H.R. 2745, the U.N. Reform Act of 2005 to the underlying bill. This legislation sends the signal to the world that our Nation has a disdain for the United Nations and I for one can not support that idea. There are many instances in which the U.N. has been instrumental in furthering U.S. foreign policy objectives. In the past year alone, the U.N. helped organize parliamentary elections in Iraq, reconstruction efforts following the Indian Ocean tsunami, and helped mediate the withdrawal of Syrian armed forces from Lebanon. A reformed U.N. could be even more complementary to U.S. interests abroad, but only if the U.S. does not alienate other Member States and create animosity in the process. The inflexibility of the Hyde legislation would create resentment among Member States, and the automatic withholding of dues would cripple the institution. Chairman Hyde's unilateral approach to U.N. reform promises to thwart the growing international consensus for reform, which will be addressed by at least 174 nations at the September Summit in New York. We need a more flexible approach which does not dictate unrealistic deadlines for changes or threaten automatic withholding of dues, will achieve U.S. goals without causing widespread resentment among Member States whose support we depend on. The Hyde bill on U.N. reform contains many serious flaws which if implemented would not be welcome by the international community. Peacekeeping is one such area where this bill contains deeply flawed logic. The Hyde bill points to peacekeeping reforms that everyone agrees are needed. These reforms are in fact endorsed by the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations and in most cases, these reforms are already underway to address recent concerns raised about sexual exploitation and abuse in peacekeeping missions. However, the Hyde bill says that starting this fall, the U.S. must prevent the expansion of existing missions or the creation of any new U.N. peacekeeping missions until all specified reforms are completed and certified by the Secretary of State. The truth is that some of these requirements simply cannot be met by the fall, true reform takes time. Reforms will require careful implementation at the U.N. as well as by the 100-plus troop contributing countries, and in some cases will require additional U.N. staff and funding which of course is not provided by this legislation. And yet, the Hyde bill will likely prevent Security Council resolutions to enable the creation or expansion of important U.N. missions in places like Darfur in Sudan, Haiti, Congo, and Afghanistan. We as the United States of America have always prided ourselves on helping those who can not help themselves, on aiding those who are being massacred simply because of who they are, but now this bill seeks for our nation to turn a blind eye to these people. We, as the 109th Congress can not allow ourselves to be the ones who cut off assistance to these desperate people. Not only does the Hyde bill take a wrong approach to peacekeeping, but it will also create great problems with the budget at the United Nations. The Hyde bill claims to ``pursue a streamline, efficient, and accountable regular assessed budget of the United Nations,'' yet in reality the approach taken by the bill will wreak havoc on the U.N. budget process and will result in the automatic withholding of U.S. financial obligations to the U.N. regular budget. This flawed bill attempts to shift funding for 18 specific programs from assessed contributions to voluntary contributions. To achieve these goals, the bill mandates the withholding of up to $100 million in U.S. dues to the U.N. regular budget. While this idea may have merit, the U.S. should work with its allies to advance it through the Budget Committee at the U.N. instead of starting from the point of withholding dues, which should be our nation's last resort. Furthermore, the Hyde proposal links 50 percent of U.N. dues to a list of 39 conditions, not only at the U.N. Secretariat, but also at various U.N. specialized agencies over which the U.N. has no direct control. All of this will create a new U.S. debt at the U.N., since many of the conditions are so rigid and specific that they are not achievable. In the end, all that any of this will do is create resentment towards the United States in the international community. As the Washington Post editorialized, ``This is like using a sledgehammer to drive a nail into an antique table: Even if you're aiming at the right nail, you're going to cause damage.'' The Hyde bill also calls for certain steps supported by the U.N. and the U.S., such as the strengthening of the U.N.'s oversight functions, the creation of a Peacebuilding Commission, and reforms in U.N. peacekeeping. However, it calls for these reforms to be funded solely within existing resources. If the U.S. withholds dues as this bill calls for, even less funding will be available to support these reforms. This bill also calls for the creation of new positions in several departments, including the Office of Internal Oversight Services and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, without allowing resources to fund these positions. Clearly, too many of the provisions of the Hyde U.N. reform bill will only cause resentment against the United States in the international community. Achieving reform by consensus in a body with 191 members is difficult, but this is not in itself a reason by by-pass the consensus building process. The more Member States that are engaged in achieving reform, the more legitimate and effective the changes will be. The U.S. should lead the way by actively promoting a tough reform agenda and retaining the threat of withholding dues as a last resort. Reform should not, however, be a crusade led by the U.S. against the institution and its Member States. Unfortunately, this bill on U.N. reform will not lead to reform, but only to the weakening of the United Nations. I urge support against the Hyde amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thought today was a particularly relevant day to talk about protecting America against terrorism and reinforcing what I believe is a belief of all Americans, that immigration does not equate to terrorism. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because this morning we heard a brilliant message from the Prime Minister of India, Prime Minister Singh, who talked about a new day in America's relationship with India. As we are called the oldest democracy, India is called the largest democracy. In his conversation, he talked about democracy empowering women, he talked about the reasonable use of nuclear energy, the need that India had in promoting the use of civil nuclear energy as opposed to any use of it for weapons and their commitment to nonproliferation. But he also talked about the cultural exchange and the value of the Indian-American community and the Indian community in India, and the United States building on a relationship. Well, Mr. Speaker, what that means is that we have a reasonable response to immigration because in order to have that cultural exchange, certainly those individuals from India would have to utilize visas to come to this country, for example, the J-1 visa which helps bring physicians to the United States to serve in rural and underserved areas. So I say to this body, we cannot hide in the sand on the question of immigration. And I believe the American people are reasonable people. The ranking member on the Subcommittee on Immigration on the House Committee on the Judiciary, I have called for a full hearing on all of the bills that have been offered by my colleagues, the Kennedy-McCain bill which I support, and of course many others. Today and yesterday, two bills were offered by our friends, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and Senator Corzine. I would say that all of those bills need to be heard; but I would caution, you cannot have an immigration bill that is only about enforcement, because so many of us come from immigrant backgrounds and we understand the value of reuniting those who are here legally with their family members. Because our system of immigration is broken, we have not been able to do that. That creates illegal immigration. Even in a document that talks about America's views on immigration, it says in terms of protecting us against terrorism, Americans do want to have closed, secure borders and they want the borders to be protected. Twenty percent say that. But in terms of be careful about those who enter this country and pay attention to immigration, it is not overwhelming, though it is certainly 13 percent of Americans say pay attention to immigration. That does not say close the doors to immigration. That is why I offer a commonsense answer to immigration reform. My bill is called H.R. 2092, Save America Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2005. We cannot solve immigration by putting military on the border. We cannot solve it by the Minutemen. We cannot solve it by a bill that says deport everybody; that you do not want to have anyone to be a guest worker other than those who are already here legally. We can solve it by protecting our borders and adding more resources to border protection. We can solve it by giving more dollars to Immigration, Customs and Enforcement, providing us with more than 800 of those so that we can have internal immigration reform or protection. We can do it by doubling the amount of family visas, so that those individuals who are here, taxpaying immigrants who want to bring a mother, a daughter, or a husband will have the visas which will allow them to do so. We can do what we call earned access to legalization. That is not amnesty. What it says is, if you are undocumented and here in the United States, get in line. Let us provide you with a method of earning access to legalization; no criminal record, be here 5 years, do community service and petition to be a citizen. Mr. Speaker, are we not safer, is it not the right common-sense approach to protect us against terrorism to know who is in our country? Do my colleagues think we can deport the 8 million to 14 million who are here working in hotels and construction and as aids around America? Yes, the system was broken in order to allow the growth of such, but many of these people now have family members that are citizens and who have invested by buying homes and paying taxes. So it is important to recognize that if we were to work and try to deport the 8 million to 14 million, only about 32,000 are done a year in terms of deportation hearings. All of them are subjected to appeals. You would be centuries trying to deport 8 million to 14 million who are here, and maybe that number is not even the number. So my legislation, H.R. 2092, the Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act, provides for the reunification of families by increasing the visa number. It also provides for the reuniting or the citizenship of children. It protects women against violence. It provides for the border security provisions, as I have mentioned, and it fixes this broken system of deportation. So that if you are in a deportation proceeding because of some small offense you created as a teenager, you would not be deported to a place you had never seen in your life. We need diversity visas, helping Haitians and Liberians. Mr. Speaker, I hope we have a full debate on immigration, and I am delighted that the American people are common-sense and reasonable people. They know that immigration does not equate to terrorism; that in fact we can have a full debate, fix the broken system, work with those who have come to this country for opportunity, secure our borders, and fight against terrorism, but not condemn immigrants who are here, hard working. For many of us, many of us, some came in the bottom of the belly of a slave boat, but many of us came first to this country as an immigrant.

Mr. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Mr. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's amendment to the overall measure as introduced by the gentleman from Florida because it authorizes additional projects and calls for a series of additional studies. In addition to authorizing $349 million, with an estimated Federal cost of $174 million, for environmental restoration on Picayune Strand, FL; $193 million, with an estimated federal cost of $123 million, for navigation at Port of Iberia, LA.; $99 million, with an estimated Federal cost of $64 million, for hurricane and storm-damage reduction in New Jersey; and other allocations for many critical projects across the country, it seeks to bring improvement projects to my district of Houston, Texas. I applaud the Chairman for the inclusion of section 4104 that calls for a ``study to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction'' in Harris County. Tropical Storm Allison destroyed expansive areas of my district in June 2001. More than 1,400 homes in the Bellaire section received serious flood damage. About 90 percent of Bellaire is in the Brays Bayou flood plain, according to new maps drawn by the Harris County Flood Control District after that storm, and I did submit requests in the fiscal year 2006 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for $12,500,000 to be used to fund for ongoing contracts and to initiate additional construction contracts to mitigate some of this residual damage. In addition, it is pleasing that this legislation contains a provision, section 5123, that will extend funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, hazard mitigation grant program to ``the project for flood control, Upper White Oak Bayou, Texas, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986.'' Upper White Oak Bayou, almost in its entirety, serves the northwest corridor of the 18th Congressional District and communities such as the Heights, Lazybrook-Timbergrove, Oak Forest, Garden Oaks, and many others. Mr. Chairman, I hope that as negotiations begin with the other body that these important projects are retained for their tremendous value to the communities that have been affected by flood damage.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, today I speak about the ravages of war. I also say to my colleagues that there is no claim of being unpatriotic when you desire to speak of peace. The ravages of war can generate much devastation, not only in our domestic society, but also internationally. I rise today, first of all, to pay tribute to a young man who lived in my community who was buried today, a young officer in the United States military, enlisted personnel, young and bright and committed to serving his country. In actuality, he died serving his country. Mr. Speaker, it was not by the ordinary manner in which you might have thought he may have lost his life, he did not suffer a wound, but he was a casualty of war. For he was sent into Iraq already ailing, but because of the need for the recruiting numbers and the necessity of meeting quotas, he was sent to Iraq. And he served ably. But he was carried out on a stretcher, because, unfortunately, he suffered liver failure. No matter how our young men and women, enlisted personnel, Reservists and National Guard lose their life in the line of battle, we owe them a great debt of gratitude. And so to his mother today as she buried her son, I offered to her my deepest sympathy. Unfortunately, things do not work a lot of times when we think of the way our government should, and that is why I account or say that this is part of the ravages of war. The hospital system failed Nathaniel Parker, from the hospital system, the military system, the veterans system failed him, maybe because they had a billion dollar shortfall. But when he went to the hospital to receive treatment, he was turned away. I will not allow that to stand, because I will be taking his case and calling for an investigation, because I do not want one single soldier to come home and face the doors of the hospitals being shut in their face. The ravages of war also find that children are being killed. How sad it is to find that soldiers who simply wanted to engage children in Iraq were the cause or the genesis of children, because of a horrible suicide bomber, an evil person, yes, but because of the existence of our military there and the children coming to them to receive candy, much of what I have seen when I visited the soldiers, because they care and they love, the soldiers were endangered, the children were endangered, and we saw the killing of children in Iraq, the ravages of war. And then of course in the last 24 hours, the Green Zone that is supposed to be safe, the very place that I slept while I was in Iraq, had two explosions. So that means that our command and our soldiers that come there for comfort, our contractors are not safe. The ravages of war. The explosions in the Green Zone. There is no safety in Iraq. And then when you talk to the Iraqi people, they say, We have no running water, we have no electricity, we cannot send our children to school. Meeting with women there, they said that they are in fear of their lives, and their children cannot go to school. There is no solution that seems to be to bring about peace. And then, of course, there is discussion of whether or not our military should be inside Iraq or really at the borders to stop the insurgents or those who come to do terrorists acts from coming inside into the country. Most importantly, as we give the deepest sympathy to our friends in London, England, we offer to our prayers to their families. We realize that the terrorism was not one that came inside, it existed inside the country, and we realize that that terrorism is what we should be focused on, and the fact that Iraq continues to churn in the minds of those who think that we are not the great Nation that we are, it continues to foster in the minds of those that they should do evil things. And so it is important for the President and this administration to set a timeline, not a date certain, but a timeline to bring our troops home. For the families who are now distraught, the Reservists and the National Guard families who cannot make ends meet, and, of course, for a war that is churning in the minds of those who believe that that is all that America represents, it churns, it permeates, it sours, and it turns into evil acts. It is important for this Nation to stand up and acknowledge that Iraq must take the leadership of its own country. We might be able to stay on the border, but the constant jeopardy of our young men and women on the front lines, not because they are not brave, not because they are not courageous, because we have no plan, we have no solution, and they become targets of evilness, the children become targets of evilness because we represent a certain force in Iraq. The war was based upon misdirection and untruth, and so it is hard to be able to be liberators when there are no weapons of mass destruction. I would simply argue that we must come together, and I am delighted to be on the bipartisan legislation that speaks about an orderly timeline. And I hope if we ever take this country to war again, whatever president it may be, Democratic or Republican, that we will do so with a constitutional vote under the Constitution, because we recognize when America is at war, we come together as one, we support our troops. But the way that we go to war is the key. And victory will come to those who understand process and understand plan and understand solution and understand exit strategies, success strategies. And so, Madam Speaker, I think it is important, as I pay tribute to Nathaniel Parker who was buried today, a young soldier who served his country in Iraq, that we say to the Nathaniel Parkers whose medical system here in the United States failed him, not on our clock, not on our watch will this ever happen again, not at Abu Ghraib, or not the tragedies of loss of life, not anything that spoils the Democratic thrust of America. It will not be on our clock. And I ask my colleagues to work with us to bring our troops home.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Five days and counting, Mr. Speaker, and the only one in jail today on the issue of a cover-up is Judith Miller, a reporter with integrity at the New York Times. I am well aware of the fact that there is an ongoing investigation. But truth has an uncanny ability of opening the doors and clarifying and, as well, providing justice. Judith Miller believes in the first amendment. She also believes in the right to protect sources. I want the truth on who exposed the undercover CIA agent, a woman. But I believe it is patently unfair because of the lack of a shield law that Judith Miller still stands in jail. In essence, I consider her a political prisoner, and I think it is appropriate for the United States Congress to stand up and defend Judith Miller, as she should be released. The investigation should proceed. The truth should be known. But those who know the truth need to come up and own to the truth so that Judith Miller, a reporter who tries to tell the truth, can be free.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.R. 740, a bill to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 by expanding the size of the commission that hears OSHA appeals from three to five members. Supporters of the measure argue that the panel has had difficulty meeting a quorum because of recusals and vacancies. However, I would argue that the change would allow the current Administration to stack the board with pro-business members. Many responsible employers are tired of continually being underbid by unscrupulous and reckless operators that refuse to spend anything on protecting workers' lives or promoting public safety. Voting in favor of H.R. 740, could potentially erode a basic respect for human life. We must remember that workers killed on the job are someone's son or daughter, husband or wife, and/or father or mother. Unlike other victims of crime, their lives are often seen as expendable. As a Mexican Consular officer said: ``Too many employers don't see these people as human beings.'' Bereaved family members suffer further upon discovery that federal law denies them justice. If H.R. 740 is allowed to pass, we would be allowing the current Administration to stack the board with pro-business members. I urge my colleagues to oppose the passage of H.R. 740.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.R. 742, a bill to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 by making it easier for small businesses to recover attorneys' fees from OSHA if the agency brought unjustified enforcement action. Small businesses under the bill are defined as those with no more than 100 employees and a maximum $7 million in net worth. More than any of the other bills, H.R. 742 poses the greatest threat to worker safety and health. OSHA, as is almost every other Federal agency, is already required by law to pay attorneys' fees and costs in any proceeding in which the agency's charge is not substantially justified. H.R. 742 singles out OSHA, alone among all Federal agencies, to require it to pay attorneys' fees and costs in any proceeding in which it does not win, regardless of why it lost and notwithstanding the fact that the position of the agency was substantially justified. In effect, unless the agency can guarantee that it will win every case it brings, H.R. 742 punishes the OSHA for trying to enforce the law. The OSH Act does not afford workers a private right of action. If OSHA fails to enforce the law workers have no other means of doing so. In summary, this bill, as would all the other OSHA bills considered today, would impede the enforcement of worksite safety and health provisions at the very time when more and more Americans have identified safety as one of their foremost concerns. According to a poll conducted in April by NBC and the Wall Street Journal, 84 percent of Americans want Congress to pass legislation that ensures greater workplace safety and health. Supporting this bill would take us in exactly the opposite direction.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.R. 739, a bill to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for adjudication flexibility with regard to the filing of a notice of contest by an employer following the issuance of a citation or proposed assessment of a penalty by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. In essence, this bill would amend current law to authorize the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) to make exceptions to the 15-day deadline for employers to challenge OSHA citations if the employer's failure to meet this deadline is due to a ``mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.'' This would weaken the ability of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission to enforce the current deadline and would encourage increased litigation and disrupt OSHA's ability to address workplace hazards in a timely manner. OSHA is already ``astonishingly ineffectual'' in protecting workers' lives. In the past 20 years OSHA has failed to seek criminal prosecutions in 93 percent of the cases where employers' willful and flagrant safety violations ended up killing workers. (New York Times/December 2003). Furthermore, according to a recent GAO report, since 1996, OSHA has cut resources dedicated to enforcement by 6 percent. The U.S. lags behind other western nations in protecting workers' lives. A U.S. construction worker is 4 times more likely to be killed on the job than one in Denmark. (Center for Worker Rights 2004). As a New York State Supreme Court Judge observed: ``Why Congress has adopted such a spineless response to industrial malfeasance is best left to voters to assess.'' (Newsday, 1/15/04). As responsible Members of congress, we cannot afford to vote for this bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 739.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today speak in opposition to H.R. 741, a bill to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 by requiring judges in OSHA appeals cases to give more weight to the commission's decisions than to Labor Department regulators. Supporters argue the legislation would codify the intent of the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act (PL 91-596). However, I would argue that the measure would violate a 1991 Supreme Court ruling that gave the Labor Department priority in interpreting OSHA regulations. Nearly every working man and woman in the Nation comes under OSHA's jurisdiction (with some exceptions such as miners, transportation workers, many public employees, and the self-employed). Users and recipients of OSHA services include: occupational safety and health professionals, the academic community, lawyers, journalists, and personnel of other government entities. To ensure that these individuals are safe and protected on the job, OSHA and its State partners have approximately 2,100 inspectors, including complaint discrimination investigators, engineers, physicians, educators, standards writers, and other technical and support personnel spread over more than 200 offices throughout the country. This staff establishes protective standards, enforces those standards, and reaches out to employers and employees through technical assistance and consultation programs. OSHA has proven that it is committed to doing its job and the Labor Department should continue to have the authority to interpret OSHA regulations. I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 741.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Science, this is an important day and an important week. I am delighted we have an opportunity to debate the assets of NASA today in the commemoration of their beginning their human space flight again. This legislation, the NASA and JPL 50th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act, is one that I think speaks loudly to the celebration that we hold tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), and I was a proud original cosponsor in his effort to promote and celebrate the excitement of the work of NASA and the Jet Propulsion Lab. I also thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) as well for their efforts in moving this legislation forward. This legislation is unique in its promotion of NASA and the Jet Propulsion Lab, and it speaks to the best of what NASA represents. I believe, of course, that human space flight is crucial to the knowledge of men and women and the improvement and enhancement of Americans and people around the world. At the same time, the Jet Propulsion Lab also offers its own assets: new technology and understanding of flight and new sciences regarding these issues. The good news of this particular legislation is it responds to a concern that I have, and that is to recognize the families that have seen their loved ones lost in the exploration of space. We know that space exploration is a good thing, so the idea that the $50 coin and the $10 coin, or the two coins that will be offered, the surcharge that will be on those two coins will be utilized for the NASA Family Assistance Funds, which proposes financial assistance to the families of NASA personnel who die as a result of injuries suffered in the performance of their official duties. As a neighbor to the Johnson Space Center, I knew the families of Challenger and Columbia, and my heart, as well as the hearts of all Americans, poured out in response to the enormous impact and loss of life to those families and to America, brave astronauts willing to risk their lives so that others might live well or better. Tomorrow, at 3:51, the Space Shuttle Discovery is scheduled to launch from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida with a woman commander. What better statement to support that effort than by passing this legislation today. Even as they go forward, they will have the opportunity to test the muster and fortitude of the space station by delivering goods and services there. They will first demonstrate repair techniques on the shuttle's protective tiles, known as the thermal protection system. During the second space walk, they will replace a failed control moment gyroscope, which helps keep the station oriented properly. And, finally, they will install the external storage platform, a sort of space shelf for holding spare parts during station construction. This bill also provides for a freestanding museum and also a traveling exhibit to promote and celebrate the various metals that have been found in space. I think that is an excellent idea. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this legislation and I make one comment. It is important as we support the human space shuttle as it goes off tomorrow, that we continue our oversight with the NASA authorization bill and that we recognize the importance of safety and that we promote in large dollars the needs of NASA as it looks to the sophistication of new safety standards. Then of course I hope that my colleagues will join me in honoring those who lost their lives aboard Columbia by rendering a gold medal, where I sought 300-plus signatures on legislation that I offered to promote that and to acknowledge their loss through a gold medal. I think that will bring us full circle to acknowledging going forward but also acknowledging the sacrifices that were being made. Let me conclude my remarks by saying that in 1962, John F. Kennedy was at Rice University and he said these words: ``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 science technology has no conscience of its own.'' Today, we honor them by this legislation. I congratulate my colleague for H.R. 68, and I urge my colleagues to enthusiastically support it, for it recognizes NASA and JPL for their 50th anniversary. I rise today as a proud cosponsor of H.R. 68, the NASA and JPL 50th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act. Let me first thank the sponsor of this legislation my colleague from Texas, Mr. Culberson and the work of Ms. Maloney in bringing this legislation to the floor. This bill would require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. I am heartened to see that the NASA and JPL 50th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act stipulates that any funds generated by the sale of these coins shall be paid by the Secretary to the NASA Family Assistance Fund for the purposes of providing financial assistance to the families of NASA personnel who die as a result of injuries suffered in the performance of their official duties. This Act also states that each coin shall include a portion of metal that has flown In space so that these coins are truly symbolic of our Nation's journey through space. Being from the City of Houston, which is home to the Johnson Space Center I take great pride in the accomplishments of NASA. Tomorrow at 3:51 p.m. the Space Shuttle Discovery is scheduled to launch from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. I am proud to say that I will be among the Congressional Delegation that will be in attendance at this historic launch. The launch of the Space Shuttle Discovery will come more than 2 years after the tragic Columbia shuttle accident. The crew of the Discovery will include astronauts Steve Robinson, Jim Kelly, Andy Thomas, Wendy Lawrence, Charlie Camarda, Eileen Collins and Soichi Noguchi. With implementation of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board recommendations completed, this crew of seven astronauts will fly aboard Space Shuttle Discovery on mission STS-114 to test new safety techniques and deliver needed supplies to the International Space Station. Two crewmembers, Steve Robinson and Soichi Noguchi, will venture outside the Shuttle three times on spacewalks. The first will demonstrate repair techniques on the Shuttle's protective tiles, known as the Thermal Protection System. During the second spacewalk, they'll replace a failed Control Moment Gyroscope, which helps keep the station oriented properly. Finally, they'll install the External Stowage Platform, a sort of space shelf for holding spare parts during Station construction. STS-114 will also be the third trip of the Multi Purpose Logistics Module, MPLM, named Raffaello to the Station. It's essentially a ``moving van'' that transports supplies to the orbital outpost. I have consistently stated that since the Columbia shuttle accident, that safety must be our number one priority. There is no doubt that the Space Shuttle Discovery is the safest ever flown by NASA, but when it comes to safety there is always more work to be done, both in regards to the shuttle as well as to the International Space Station. All Americans can look proudly upon the achievements of our space exploration tomorrow when we witness the launch of Discovery. 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.'' Tomorrow afternoon we embark on yet another journey of exploration and we write another chapter in the history of space. Our Nation has seen great tragedy and yet we continue to move forward because that is the only path that knowledge will accept, truly it is appropriate that tomorrow's shuttle will be called Discovery.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished member of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time and also for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I wish we were on the floor today actually passing a minimum wage bill. The reason why I say that is I do not believe there is one Member of Congress in their district, no matter whether they are representing Beverly Hills or representing Palm Springs or maybe they are representing the Gold Coast in one of our great cities or maybe one of the higher-priced areas in the city of Houston, does not have some person in that district that is suffering from a lack of a reasonable income and no health insurance. We know there are 44 million uninsured individuals in America, but we also know there are individuals who cannot afford to make ends meet because of a lack of a minimum wage. We come to the floor today to do something that I think is unfortunate: one, to not pay attention to the need for an increase in the minimum wage. But we also dumbed down the safety requirements of America. Can one imagine an accident, a tragedy occurs in their plant and their employer now does not have the responsibility of notifying OSHA or the Department of Labor? What an outrage, Mr. Speaker, because we in America believe that the Federal Government is there to provide the necessary umbrella of safety, the umbrella of security for Americans. And yet we have legislation on the floor that would extend or eliminate the 15-day time frame in which they are supposed to respond. It also takes away the responsibility of the Department of Labor from overseeing OSHA and overseeing safety, overturning a Supreme Court decision. I cannot imagine, Mr. Speaker, that we would be here today after celebrating July 4, home with our friends and family, pledging our allegiance to the flag of the United States and the values of America that we come back one day, one day after that recess where we were suggesting the need for providing for America and do this kind of legislation. I close on this: we have on the front lines of Iraq young men and women who have offered their lives. They will come back here to take minimum wage jobs. What an outrage that these young men and women, Reservists and National Guard, are on the front line and now they cannot get an increase in the minimum wage because today we take away safety, but we do not provide for an increase in the minimum wage. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and also I ask them to vote ``no'' on the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, H. Res. 351, to provide for consideration of the four very contentious and overreaching bills that amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)--H.R. 739, H.R. 740, H.R. 741, and H.R. 742. I am utterly disappointed by the fact that the Committee on Rules has issued a closed rule on the debate over all three bills. Furthermore, it is no mistake that the rule fails to make in order the amendment offered by Reps. George Miller and Major Owens to increase the minimum wage. This amendment is identical to the Minimum Wage bill that was introduced by Mr. Miller that would increase the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $5.85 per hour 60 days after enactment, up to $6.55 per hour one year after the first increase, and $7.25 an hour one year from the second increase. I oppose the underlying bills partly because the relief granted have nothing to do with ``small businesses'' as their titles purport. Among other, they address a single situation by overturning a case out of the Second Circuit, Chao v. Russell P. Le Frois Builder, Inc. (Second Circuit, May 10, 2002) to allow the employer to contest an OSHA citation with a ridiculous amount of latitude. In Houston, OSHA proposed fines of $258,000 against the Pasadena Tank Corporation for an August 23, 2001 accident that killed a worker at a construction site. The company had 15 days in which to contest or pay the fines. The Houston-based firm received a citation of six willful and serious safety violations for failing to protect workers by providing an inadequate fall protection system. The employee repairing a rooftop of a storage tank fell 56 feet to the ground when the rooftop collapsed. An OSHA employee said of the situation, ``The employer knew about the unsafe working conditions, but continued to place workers at risk . . . A similar incident happened two years ago when two employees fell to their deaths from a storage tank. This company's continued failure to protect its workers from falls is simply unacceptable.'' This failure to act when there is sufficient knowledge to mitigate an unsafe condition is what these bills will sanction and permit. Our innocent employers should not be punished from a piece of legislation that attacks from the ``back door'' by weakening a procedural standard that has been set in place to protect them. We should follow the motto, ``if it isn't broken, don't fix it.'' Mr. Chairman, I oppose the rule and the underlying bills, and I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same.