Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to take this opportunity to discuss what I think is a very important issue. While recognizing that this committee, the chairman and the ranking member, funded the air traffic controllers at the rate that the President asked for, at 595; and recognizing as well that there had been additional dollars placed in FAA for additional services which might be used for air traffic controllers, and I hope that will be the case, as recently acquiring Houston Intercontinental Airport in my Congressional district, and let me also say that I support the previous colloquy of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) on the dollars for soundproofing because all who live in the area are well aware of that need, but I wanted to quote for my colleagues the news report of the incident of yesterday: Stray Plane Sets Off Evacuation At Capitol. The last paragraph in the article in The Washington Post says ``A Federal official said radio communications between the pilot and the authorities indicated the pilot ended up in a restricted area while trying to avoid bad weather.'' I can only say, since it does not designate who the authorities were, that we know air traffic controllers are enormously busy. We are looking at increasingly congested skies and we are looking at overburdened and overworked air traffic controllers. In fact, in one airport in Texas, it was found that at this particular airport air traffic controllers and managers routinely covered up serious operational errors and deviations, including aircraft, for the last 7 years. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel said the controllers had allowed airplanes to fly too close to each other near the airport, and that supervisors either failed to investigate or did not report the incidents to the FAA headquarters as required. The independent Federal agency said the cover-up of controller mistakes have been jeopardizing air traffic safety. We need more air traffic controllers, because 595, in my view, is certainly not enough. So my amendment was to offer $5 million that was offset by the Department of Transportation's Surface Transportation Board salaries and expenses. This amendment is about establishing priorities. And even though the amount of monies is capped off and no more monies can be allowed in that particular account, I think that is an important issue. And I hope my colleagues, as they move into the next year and the next session in this appropriations process, they will recognize that our skies are getting busier and busier, our air traffic controllers are getting tireder and tireder, and they need increased training and they need relief. I want to applaud our air traffic controllers. This is a very, very, very, very serious business. It requires great attention to detail. It requires nerves of steel, and we understand that. But the key is that there is a great need for more than 595. Mr. Chairman, I will submit for the Record, at the appropriate time, this letter that I will read: ``I write this letter to support your amendment to H.R. 3058, to increase the amount made available for the Department of Transportation with respect to air traffic controllers. In these times of shortages of personnel and training, this amendment would provide much-needed relief to continued budgetary shortfalls. Please accept our a gratitude for your efforts.'' This is the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists. So I am hoping we will have an opportunity to work on this. The point of order, of course, refers to the capping of this particular account, and I recognize the hard work of this committee, but I think in all seriousness, besides the danger that was proposed yesterday, we do know our skies are busy with small and large planes. Mr. Chairman, the amendment seeks to increase the ``Federal Aviation Administration Operations'' account on page 6 by $5 million and would offset this amount from the ``Department of Transportation-Surface Transportation Board-Salaries and Expenses'' account in Title I. This amendment is about establishing priorities. While the salaries of the staff within the Department of Transportation is of enormous concern, I would think that my colleagues would agree with me that providing funds to help navigate the ever-increasing air traffic is of a higher priority, especially given our new utilization of equipment such as we find at the Boston Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON)--which is America's newest FAA consolidated facility. New technology requires adequate staffing. Therefore, my amendment would provide the necessary funds to make new employee recruitment and training possible. Problems exist within our Federal Aviation Administration, Mr. Chairman. I cite the June 24, 2005 article in the Dallas Morning News (page 1A) entitled ``Agency: Air traffic errors covered up Controller at D/FW spurs inquiry into unreported close calls'': The U.S. Office of Special Counsel said the controllers had allowed airplanes to fly too close to each other near Dallas/ Fort Worth International Airport and that supervisors either failed to investigate or didn't report the incidents to Federal Aviation Administration headquarters as required. The independent federal agency said the cover-up of controller mistakes had been ``jeopardizing air traffic safety.'' ``This was a substantial and specific danger to public safety,'' it said. [Furthermore,] a number of corrective actions' were taken after a March report from the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General substantiated . . . allegations. Specifically, the D/FW Terminal Radar Approach Control, or TRACON, was placed on probation for two years, the center's quality assurance manager was reassigned, and one air traffic controller was decertified. In addition, the FAA placed the facility manager, operations managers, supervisors and other controllers on probation. This citation alone underscores major problems in the system. In addition, it highlights the fact that the jobs should not be outsourced, an issue that my colleague Mr. Sanders has championed. The key national security function of Air Traffic Control Specialists was evident during and immediately after the horrific 9/11 attacks. During this national tragedy, Air Traffic Control Specialists communicated crucial instructions to planes in the air and on the ground, and were responsible for re- starting air traffic in the days afterward. Air Traffic Control Specialists also play a vital role in keeping commercial and general aviation airplanes out of restricted airspace, including the restricted airspace around the White House. And, Air Traffic Control Specialists are critical during a natural disaster. For example, when hurricanes hit the Southeast last year, the FAA closed air traffic facilities in the region, but kept Flight Service Stations open and Air Traffic Control Specialists working to ensure the safety of airline passengers. We should be strengthening, not weakening air traffic safety. In the 1980s we had 315 Flight Service Stations across the country. Today, we only have 61, and if the FAA gets its way there will only be 23 Flight Service Stations left in this country responsible for protecting over 600,000 general aviation pilots, as well as military and commercial pilots. This could only make our Nation's airspace less secure. Mr. Chairman, we must support our Air Traffic Controllers by providing them with the support they need. I ask that my colleagues support this amendment. National Association of Air Traffic Specialists, Wheaton, Maryland, June 30, 2005. Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Jackson Lee: I write this letter to support your amendment to H.R. 3058 to increase the amount made available for ``Department of Transportation--Surface Transportation Board Salaries and Expense Federal Aviation Operations Derived from the General Fund by $5,000,000. In these times of shortages of personnel and training this amendment would provide much needed relief to continuing budgetary shortfalls. Please accept our gratitude for your efforts in this regard and let me know if I can be of any help in securing this amendment. Sincerely, Kate Breen, President. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I discuss this amendment to help educate my colleagues and to remind them that this amendment was passed in previous Congresses and the work of many of my colleagues, including the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), has been ongoing to try to bring fairness to this process. I would first like to say that none of us disagree with the idea of volunteer service. But my amendment simply says that it prohibits the use of funds in this act to implement the community service requirement for public housing tenants. This proposal has a long history, and of course the reason is because this is a difficult provision to enforce. Part of the enforcement in this time of decreasing public housing is to evict individuals from public housing, the individuals who are most vulnerable, the individuals who are most needy, and the individuals who may be least able because of their physical condition to perform community service. I have a letter here from the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials which indicates: ``Dear Representative Jackson- Lee: I write on behalf of the National Association of Housing Redevelopment Officials to support your amendment to halt the implementation of the public housing community service requirement. This organization is the Nation's oldest and largest association of housing community development professionals and the leading advocate for adequate and affordable housing and strong, viable communities for all Americans, particularly those with low and moderate incomes. Our 21,000 agency and individual members help millions of families nationwide find safe and affordable housing. ``This organization has been opposed to the community service requirement since its enactment in 1998. Although a limited percentage of families nationwide meet the criteria for being subject to the community service requirement, all families must be screened and tracked for compliance. This requirement is an unfunded mandate that public housing can ill afford. In time of scarce resources, we believe that Federal funds could be better focused on maintaining safe, decent housing for 12 million low-income families.'' In essence, they are committed to providing this service themselves. In fact, they say, ``many agencies partner with local service organizations to assist in case management and provide services. Other communities find it is necessary to augment local resources with programs and services that are easily accessible by public housing communities. The community is in the best position to make this decision.'' This amendment is a clean-up amendment. It allows the local authorities to provide the opportunities for community service, but it does not burden those public housing entities by using Federal funds to require the oversight and then to evict those most needy for public housing. I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, Washington, DC, June 29, 2005. Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Jackson-Lee: I write on behalf of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) to support your amendment to halt the implementation of the public housing community service requirement under Section 12(c) of the US Housing Act of 1937. NAHRO is the nation's oldest and largest association of housing and community development professionals and the leading advocate for adequate and affordable housing and strong, viable communities for all Americans--particularly those with low- and moderate-incomes. Our 21,000 agency and individual members help millions of families nationwide find safe, affordable housing and economic opportunities through a variety of local, state, and federal programs, such as Public Housing, Section 8 Housing Vouchers, Community Development Block Grants, HOME and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit. NAHRO has been opposed to the community service requirement since its enactment in 1998. Although a limited percentage of families nationwide meet the criteria for being subject to the community service requirement, all families must be screened and tracked for compliance. This requirement is an unfunded mandate that public housing can ill afford. In a time of scarce resources, we believe that federal funds could be better focused on maintaining safe, decent housing for 1.2 million low-income families, 47 percent of which are headed by the elderly or persons with disabilities, and supporting self-sufficiency programs that get real results. Total funding for public housing has declined steadily in recent years. The President's FY 2006 budget requested 20 percent less funding for public housing than Congress provided in 2001. A Harvard Operating Cost study found that public housing has traditionally been underfunded compared with all other assisted housing. At the same time, basic housing operating costs have increased exponentially due to factors beyond local agencies' control, including employee health care costs, energy and utility costs, and public facilities insurance increases following 9/11. The cumulative effect of several years of this funding crunch has been to undermine local agencies' ability to provide basic services and maintain our country's $90 billion investment in affordable public housing. We are pleased that Subcommittee Chairman Knollenberg and Ranking Member Olver have been able to improve upon the President's requested funding levels for Public Housing Capital and Operating Funds in HR 3058. Despite their efforts in this area, however, public housing is far from fully funded. With so many stresses on our public housing, the unfunded mandate of the community service requirement is simply a drain on local agencies' ability to meet the core mission of providing housing and meaningful support for families seeking a better life. Thank you for your efforts to remove this unfunded mandate and pennit local housing agencies to focus on our core mission of assisting families and preserving the country's investment in affordable housing. Sincerely, Saul N. Ramirez, Jr., Executive Director. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Acting Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a cosponsor of this amendment. Specifically, the amendment seeks to prohibit funds in this act for the provision of mortgage insurance under the National Housing Act to lenders who engage in lending practices that are not prudent, as referenced in the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and FDIC Improvement Act. The gist of this amendment is to stop predatory lending. I want to pay tribute to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition and the hearing that was just held with the members of the Committee on Financial Services, including the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), that presented this report from the National Community Reinvestment Coalition that indicated minorities, women, and low- and moderate-income borrowers across the United States of America receive a disproportionate amount of high-cost loans. It also says that the Community Reinvestment Act has been unsuccessful, for example, in examining subprime lenders. So they have not been able to weed out those who might raise the interest rates so high that minorities and women and others are impacted negatively. In order to improve the housing market and to give access to better interest loans, we believe that there should be greater oversight. So this amendment was constructed to provide greater oversight. I am delighted to be able to join the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) on this amendment, but I hope that we will have the opportunity to work with our colleagues and really be able to provide an answer to this report, the ``2004 Fair Lending Disparities: Stubborn and Persistent.''

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me indicate that I believe it is an unfunded mandate; but more particularly I hope that we will get to a point, if this amendment is not accepted by my colleagues, that we can come together and work for what is best for those most vulnerable. That is what public housing is for. When it was passed in 1998, there were many good intentions. It was in the climate of welfare reform. But it is an unfunded mandate. It is burdensome. And it is disrespectful to suggest that those who are poor are not desirous of public service. It is discriminatory and it is unfair, patently so. I hope that my colleagues will work together with many of us who believe that we can ensure good citizenship by those in public housing; at the same time we can be fair by making sure that they do not get the ultimate penalty which is eviction and force unfunded mandates and public housing authorities who can least afford this in this time of declining funds. This is a burden. And I would ask that they go in any neighborhood of homeowners and ask the homeowners association whether or not to stay in your house, other than keeping your own house in a good condition, whether you are demanded to perform public service. Public service should be voluntary, and it should be out of your heart. I can assure you that poor people believe in public service. This is high-handed, up-handed, if you will, and elitist; and we know that it is a problem. And I would hope that my colleagues would vote for my amendment. In the option they do not, we will keep working because we believe in fairness to all who are deserving of public housing and who need public housing and are the most vulnerable. I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I do, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that I have acknowledged the point of order by the fact that the account itself is capped and, as was indicated, the issue regarding the authorization. But I raised this amendment, and I intend to withdraw this amendment, but I raised it because the discussion and the dollars are clearly needed. I am hoping my colleagues will see that 595 air traffic controllers are not enough for the increasingly busy skies over the United States of America. I have cited in one airport the incident of air traffic controllers being cited for routinely covering up serious operational errors and deviations involving aircraft; I have cited, of course, the support by the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists. I think that the difficulty is that we have a cap. We have $25 million for 595. I think we could use 1,000. Because of the budget shortfall, and because we do not have the money, we are faced with this dilemma. I happen to think the safety and security of Americans warrants increased dollars and an increased number of air traffic controllers. I know that the busy airport I represent, Houston Intercontinental Airport, could stand additional well-trained air traffic controllers, the opportunity to give relief to air traffic controllers who, in fact, are working very hard. I am hoping, Mr. Chairman, that we will have an opportunity to work on this issue and recognize the dire needs and the crisis that we face if we do not continue to grow air traffic controllers, to train them and provide them the kind of support services necessary to protect the Nation's skies. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to withdraw my amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, many of these residents are not able-bodied; and as indicated by the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, it is best utilized at the local levels. They have been partnering with local organizations to try to work through service. We all believe in service. This is an unfunded mandate. It is a burden on those who are most vulnerable in housing that cannot, either because of their physical or mental condition, perform this service and they are vulnerable to conviction. I would suggest to my colleagues it is worthy of eliminating. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Missouri will continue to yield, I want to thank the chairman very much. I did not hear the conclusion; I do not know if the gentleman from Michigan concludes after we conclude, with respect to report language, but I assume that is what we might be able to work with the chairman on.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that we acknowledge and yield to the ranking member and thank him for his interest in this area and, of course, to be able to work with him during conference on this very important issue of trying to stop predatory lending.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) for yielding me time. I want to thank her, first of all, for focusing the House on this very important issue, and as has been said before, giving us an opportunity to affirmatively stand against an idea whose time has not come. If there is ever a time to speak about investing in America I think the time is now. On the shadow of celebrating the freedom day, July 4, our day of independence, it is a time now to stand up for investing in America. And I guess in discussing this purchase of Unocal by China, I think we should make the point that China has been and hopefully will continue to be our friend. We engage in cultural exchange and educational exchange. It is a great opportunity to learn from each other to do research with each other. But in this instance, I think any purchase of Unocal by China at this time would be a disservice and a detriment to our homeland security. For example, one of the reasons why Unocal is such an attractive purchase is because it has deep reserves. And one of the reasons it has deep reserves is because it is one of the few companies that has developed the kind of technology that has allowed it to project into the future and be able to keep and find the amount of reserves that keep it with a sizable amount of reserves in place. Then, of course, China is dropping cool cash, $18 billion, which puts at a disadvantage a number of American companies in particular who are interested in purchasing Unocal. Now, of course, this is a private purchase and shareholders rights have to be taken into consideration, but I think this Congress, although we are a capitalist society, should look at the government money that Communist China is going up to buy not only in America but in South and Central America, in the Caribbean, in Africa, more and more in the Middle East and elsewhere. We need to begin to put together a package that suggests that we will be able to help some of our companies who are trying to invest in America companies and purchasing them. Well, an unusual idea but one whose time may have come. We cannot compete. We need to be able to support our companies such as General Motors. Why does General Motors owe China $2 billion. Why do we owe China almost $300 billion? Because we have not kept our eye on the prize and we have not reminded not only our individuals, but our large corporate sector of investing in America. I rise to support this amendment. There should be bipartisan support. I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) for her very affirmative amendment that keeps the money away from this deal. But I believe the sense of Congress should acknowledge that this is a protracted deal. We need oversight, and it should not go forward unless we pass the litmus test of national security, homeland security, investing in America and allowing American companies to purchase Unocal. Because I remind my friends, the technology that you lose today is the technology that you will regret tomorrow. This purchase should not go forward. I ask for the support of the amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, just a few hours ago I voted for the amendment to the appropriations bill that addressed this question. But I rise this evening to further emphasize as a former member of a local city council that sometimes it is appropriate for property owners to have the hand of the Federal Government to protect their constitutional rights. Although I might quarrel with the language of the resolution as it relates to the description of the Court's decision, there is no doubt that I quarrel with an understanding of being able to take private property for private use. So I rise simply to support the idea of a remedy for those who have been harmed. I always believe that the Federal Government, using the Constitution, using the issue of due process, even though this falls under the question of taking, the taking clause, but simply giving those homeowners who were facing up against a large obstacle of government and corporate interest the right to protect their property. In this instance, this was not a depressed area, the facts will determine. These are homeowners who have been providing or keeping their homes and all of a sudden because they are on choice property, they now become vulnerable to a heavy hand. I believe this is a right direction, and I have joined the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary in legislation that not only remedies or corrects the unlawful taking of the property in New London, Connecticut, but will protect Americans around the Nation, rural and urban areas, from overaggressive taking of eminent domain when taking for private purpose, and a government is taking your property for private purpose. I ask that my colleagues do continue on this bipartisan ground because I believe that the first step we made was the appropriation announcement of our opposition to this particular decision; but clearly, clearly, I believe the Supreme Court made a misdirected decision in taking the property away from homeowners and due owners of their property for truly private purpose.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the supplemental appropriation of $975,000,000 that will fill the huge gap that was left by the Administration's FY 2005 request for the Veteran's Administration health care system. While my veteran constituents such as a 23-year old male who now suffers from kidney and liver failure due in part to administrative failings in the Veterans Healthcare Administration. The paltry funding levels set by the Administration and codified by the Republican Congressional Leadership have caused young soldiers like my constituent to suffer unnecessarily and cause their parents to shed tears. I just visited this young man at the Walter Reed Medical Center last week, and his condition reminded me of the very irresponsible work of this Administration. Hundreds of thousands of veterans just like my young constituent are being told that they cannot enroll in VA health care. When the current Administration decided to ban new Priority 8 veterans from enrolling in January 2003, it estimated that by 2005 the number of affected veterans would be 522,000. Some veterans' hospitals are reporting shortages of medical supplies. Furthermore, the number of Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans lined up for treatment is expected to rise dramatically as the poorly managed war effort causes physical and mental ailments to increase exponentially. In the 18th Congressional district of Texas alone there are more than 38,000 veterans and they make up almost ten percent of this district's civilian population over the age of 18. Yet, despite these large numbers we often forget about our veterans. We do this in part because our men and women of the armed services come home from war and lead normal productive lives; often our veterans go unnoticed in the general population. However, our veterans are not normal people; they are truly extraordinary individuals who have changed the course of our lives in ways that we may not even realize. I hope we will always keep this thought in mind; we cannot forget to celebrate our veterans, for if we forget to honor them, we forget all that makes this nation truly great. There are over 26,550,000 veterans in the United States, the great majority of whom rely upon these services to maintain a healthy standard of living. In the 18th Congressional District alone there are there are more than 38,000 veterans and they make up almost ten percent of the district's civilian population over the age of 18. These veterans rely upon the great services offered at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston. Of course any great medical facility is only as good as its health care personnel. Mr. Speaker, today's vote is the first step to correcting an enormous underfunding of our veterans. However, this amount does not match that offered by the other body--therefore, the problem has not been solved, and soldiers like my young constituent at Walter Reed will continue to suffer the dire and potentially fatal consequences. This body must increase funding to $1.5 billion so that our debt to those who have sacrificed for us is paid. Even if my colleagues pass this measure, these men and women will not receive the benefits before July 4! The amount offered by the House Republicans did not match the figure that passed in the other body. It is truly shameful that we must watch our Republican colleagues give piecemeal care to our veterans when the needs are so urgent. For the reasons above stated, I support this measure, but I ask that my colleagues continue to press for full funding at the level passed in the other body

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, for a long time I have shared the neighborhood with the Houston Veterans Hospital. Today, Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago, we rose to the floor of the House to cure the unpardonable, and that is, of course, the mistaken numbers and the failure to provide the right kind of information to be able to provide the right dollars to serve America's veterans. $1.5 billion is what the Senate passed. Frankly, the need is $1 billion and more, with the number of returning Iraqi veterans and Afghanistan veterans, those who have been maimed and injured on the fields of battle. It certainly is a shame that we came to the last hours and finally were able to provide for those veterans who were willing to give the ultimate sacrifice. Right now in the Nation's hospitals, veterans are languishing all over America. Families of enlisted personnel are suffering because of the lack of funds for TRICARE. I even know today a young man who is a veteran who is suffering in one of our Nation's military hospitals because of insufficiencies in our local hospital in Houston. Mr. Speaker, they need more resources, they need more staff, they need our commitment. I hope the majority will not have us end up in the same predicament by allowing this to happen again. I hope we will work through and provide full funding for veterans and veterans health care in America.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1449.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Brown- Menendez-Rahall-Cummings amendment, and I offer just a little story. Because I heard the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) mention the solution to our problem. We just passed a very helpful and needed amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) that acknowledged America's commitment to long-distance rail. But then we have a slight problem. As we have supported his amendment, we have a sea of red that indicates that America will be disconnected. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me tell you a little story. I have traveled on rail, heavy rail in the early stages of my life as a little girl. Not only was I not in the luxury seats, I was in the back of the train or the train designated for one group of people. In addition, I brought my own bag of food. Now, I might say that I enjoyed that delicious food that was given to me by my grandmother. But when it comes to saving our rail system, I believe we might just go back to eliminating the luxury but providing for the practical. My condition was a predicament of this society, segregation. But yet, now that we have a full and open society, we need to be able to continue a full and open transportation system. Although it notes that Texas may be included in the rail system, all of the red suggests that we will not be connected because of the cuts in the rail system. So this amendment will eliminate a provision in the bill that prohibits Amtrak from using funds to operates all 15 of the railroad long-distance trains, some of which provide essential service to rural area and three short-distance trains. The amendment will eliminate the provision that prohibits Amtrak from using the funds to operate these particular long-distance trains. How can you have a system that eliminates all of these connecting aspects of our rail system? That is the benefit of rail. That gives us, the consumer, the choice: driving, bus service, flying, or, yes, the train service. And if I might add to the esthetics of train travel, how many families have testified to the value of traveling together as a family along America's highways and byways, seeing America through the eyes of a train? By yet there is more to the train service because some of our rural communities and smaller cities do not have access to any kind of interstate travel except for train travel. They do not have close enough airports. They may not have bus service. They may not have access to automobiles. And with the fuel prices, I will assure that you there will be many who will fall into this category. The Brown-Menendez-Rahall-Cummings amendment is a good commonsense amendment. It plays right into the hands of the LaTourette amendment, the funding; but it also says that it is important to serve America. Why not cut the luxury service? Why not encourage families to bring their own home-cooked meals? Whatever the choice may be, bag lunches, however it is. But I would assure you that most Americans would rather have the kind of travel that is necessary for them to move about this Nation than some hot-cooked meal on a train that does not come to their doorstop. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Texas will be mighty lonely. Even though it may be one of those States that has the service, we are disconnected because the routes going through our State will be disconnected and we will have no way of connecting to the rest of America. Support this amendment and give back to America its ability to travel.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we cannot attribute good intentions to my good friend. I do not know his heart. And certainly there are homeless Americans, and the numbers are growing. Unemployment in America is soaring. The money spent for the war is ongoing. And when we begin to look at the landscape, more and more Americans are unemployment and underemployed. Forty-four million Americans are uninsured. But here is what you call borrowing from a poor Peter to pay a devastated Paul. Homelessness in America needs its own special attention. In fact, I wish we were not under a massive budget cut, the low ebbing, if you will, of funding America's greatest needs. I would hope the gentleman would join me and the colleagues that have spoken and really address the questions of homelessness. I would venture to say we can almost spend a billion dollars to provide housing for Americans. But when it comes to taking money from an already crippled system that really assists the poorest of Americans many times in getting from place to place, we are not gaining, we are only losing. In the midst of this fight and debate, there are many cities who are fighting for more light rail dollars. The city of Houston has been to be one. We are being frustrated by the new formulas that have been generated only because we do not have the money. I want to see the system in Washington, D.C., get the billions-plus they need for their light rail system, but because of the fact that we are out of money, cities and rural areas across America in fact are suffering in terms of expanding and growing their light rail system with artificial capping and victimizing those citizens who are needing service. We are in a battle right now to get rail to minority communities in Houston that were promised it, and they are not able to get it right now because of formula cuts. I would like to be able to take that money out of Amtrak and provide for light rail. I hope we will find a way to solve our problem, but in the sense of collegiality or recognizing that we have a crisis, I know we cannot cripple Amtrak any further. I hope, my good friend, as they say, we will lock arms together and fight the problem of homelessness. I hope you will join us by adding dollars to the section 8 underfunded allotment that we have. I hope the gentleman will join in adding dollars for emergency home repair for senior citizens who live in dilapidated housing all over America. But we cannot afford to take $100 million from someone who is crippled, as Amtrak is, and stifle transportation across America; and then, if you will, give money to a poor Paul, and that is for the homeless. We want a collective, comprehensive effort that will really attack the question of homelessness. Might I say that homelessness also goes to societal concerns: Addiction, unemployment, lack of education. It just does not get solved with $100 million for those who are homeless and veterans who are suffering. So I think this amendment bears consideration only because I do not judge the gentleman's heart, but we should oppose it because we need a more comprehensive response, and we cannot undermine an already broken system of heavy rail that people are needing to survive. And for those of us who are still fighting for light rail, we certainly need a lifeline. And obviously, we all need an infusion of dollars to provide for a comprehensive solution. I hope we will work together for that. For that reason, I oppose the amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to congratulate the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) for their recognition that there are communities that are still suffering and that the brownfields cleanup has been something that even the least of those really understand. You go into a community where there has been, if you will, old oil cans piled up in their neighborhood, tires piled up in their neighborhood, and you will find that they understand what a cleanup and a brownfield is all about. I wondered in the original drafting of this legislation whether there was full recognition of how important the brownfields cleanup is to our communities. In particular, in the community that I represent, we had a number of brownfields still waiting for dollars to provide that assistance. These extra dollars I hope will spread the opportunity for the cleanup but; more importantly, I hope that it will emphasize the importance of maintaining this program and maintaining it by funding it and letting it work. Quality of life is something we owe all Americans. Many Americans live in neighborhoods where the quality of life is dependent upon public funding and public assistance. Brownfields dollars are extremely important. I would hope that our colleagues would vote for this amendment because it adds to the quality of life of Americans, some of whom cannot fight for themselves.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be an original cosponsor of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization authored by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren). I am very pleased to say that the Violence Against Women Act has been a success in terms of protecting women, but the statistics on domestic violence remain alarming. Nearly one in four women experiences at least one physical assault by a partner during her adulthood. It is important that we stand united in protecting women across America. I am delighted that two of my provisions will be included in this legislation containing issues on DNA and trafficking. We can stand together to protect women around America, and I hope this Congress will be wise enough to move this legislation along quickly so that we can stamp out the devastation of violence against women. As women are violated, children are impacted, and protecting families means protecting women; it means having strong laws. Support the Violence Against Women reauthorization for it to be reauthorized and to be able to stand tall against violence and to stand for protecting the sanctity of the family and our children.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my amendment be read.

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