Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against this amendment which seeks to restrict illegal aliens access to the U.S. Mexican Social Security Totalization agreement. I cannot support this agreement, not for its intent, but because of the consequences of enforcing it. I agree with Mr. Hayworth that immigration is an issue that must be addressed. However, the remedy that this amendment creates would lead to more harm then good and violates a fundamental aspect of American ideals. This amendment seeks to ensure that benefits can't be paid under the U.S. Mexico Totalization agreement for work inconsistent with federal law. Undocumented aliens working within the United States would meet the criteria of work inconsistent with federal law and therefore would be denied benefits. This method of dealing with our nation's immigration problem is not the answer. Social Security is a contract: you put money in, you get money out. Denying undocumented aliens the money that they put into social security is to violate what is at the very center of Americn ideals. Weare a country that values hard work. You get what you give. Refusing to grant Social Security benefits to undocumented aliens who have spent their entire lives working and contributing to the system is a blatant violation of contract law. Our nation faces many challenges on the issue of immigration. Our Immigration system is far from perfect. We have Filipinos waiting 18 years just to have a person look over their application. We have families who are forced to wait years upon years to be reunited with their brethren. We need comprehensive reform. This amendment would denigrate the hard work of thousands of workers who have spent their lives working hard in this great nation. If an undocumented alien puts a dollar into the social security system this amendment would rob him of that dollar. Is this the GOP's plan to solve the social security conundrum; to rob undocumented aliens of their social security benefits. To refuse to put more boarder guards on our frontiers, only to rob those who are attempting to create a better life for themselves. This is not immigration reform. Our immigration situation is a problem that needs to be solved. I will be the first to admit that. But reforms such as this amendment are not the correct method to achieve that goal. We need comprehensive immigration reform. I can not support this amendment because I feel it unduly robs undocumented aliens of their hard earned wages. This amendment will not solve our nation's immigration problems. It only serves to violate simple contract theory. I believe in an American in which you get what you put in. This amendment contradicts that belief and therefore I must oppose it.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to compliment him on a very thoughtful amendment. I would hope, as this idea makes its way through conference, we can be constructive as the reutilization of unexpended Ryan White CARE Act funds will be a very great need to our various States. In 1988, 1989 when the Ryan White CARE Act was initially authorized, Texas was number 13 on the list of HIV-infected persons. We are still facing the devastation of HIV/AIDS, and we realize that the number one killer of African American women from 25 to 44 is HIV. In addition, we have seen it increasing in other populations, Hispanics and Asians. So for the sake of States that have not yet expended these dollars, this is a very important amendment. In particular, in my community, the Donald Watkins Foundation, Brentwood, St. John's, Montrose Clinic, Montrose Counseling, and the St. Thomas Clinic would benefit from these dollars. But I hope we will find a way to work through with the gentleman, and I thank him very much for a very thoughtful amendment. We need these unexpended funds, and we need them now.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker I rise today to speak in support of Mr. Engel's amendment to the H.R. 3010, the Labor HHS Appropriations bill. Mr. Engel's amendment would grant states an extension to use their expiring, unexpended Ryan White CARE Act funds, appropriated in previous years, through fiscal year 2006. The amendment would therefore prohibit expiring funds from being returned to the Treasury before the end of FY06. Reports indicate that State AIDS directors unanimously agree that expiring unexpended funds must be put back into the CARE Act, rather than being returned to the Treasury as is currently the case. While administering Ryan White Care Act funds, States and Eligible Metropolitan Areas periodically finish fiscal years with small amounts of unspent funds. These amounts, typically ranging from five or ten percent of overall awards, may be requested in the subsequent fiscal year to provide services during that fiscal year. The unspent funds typically result from delays in notice of grant awards from the Federal government, timing issues related to subcontracting of services, payroll savings due to State hiring delays or freezes, expenditure of other grant funds for similar services, or other unanticipated fluctuations in spending at the State level. Occasionally, the amount of unexpended funds reaches beyond ten percent of a grantee's overall award for reasons specific to the individual jurisdiction. Currently, the FY06 Appropriations bill provides $2.1 billion for Ryan White AIDS programs, which is $10 million (2 percent) more than the current level but equal to the administration's request. This total includes $610 million for the emergency assistance program--which provides grants to metropolitan areas with very high numbers of AIDS cases--$1.1 billion for comprehensive-care programs, $196 million for the early-intervention program, and $73 million for the Pediatric HIV/ AIDS program. In closing, it is important for me to say a few words about Ryan White. As many of you know, as a result of his infection, Ryan White was expelled from his school, on the account of being a `health risk' to other students. This shameful behaviour on behalf of the school board, as well as multiple death threats to him and his family, required the White family to move to Cicero, Indiana. Having found relative peace in Cicero, Ryan White began a nationwide campign to help educate communities about HIV/AIDS. His inscesant work landed him in Washington, DC to testify before the President's Commission on AIDS. His words, works, and wills, were enshrined in The Ryan White CARE (Comprehensive AIDS Resource Emergency) Act, signed 4 months after his death (April 8, 1990). This is a very important issue, and I urge my colleagues to support the Engel amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can say is that I rise with enthusiasm to support the Obey/Slaughter/Leach amendment that recognizes the need and the reason for survival of public broadcasting. I only say one sentence. If Afghan citizens can gather yesterday in Washington to welcome Big Bird to Afghanistan, then it really is a shame that we are closing the door and turning off the lights and turning off the television for the children of America who learn and are inspired by Big Bird and Sesame Street and PBS. But then I want to support the Obey amendment that will be coming up that adds $11.8 billion to a bill that has been called America's umbrella. I am very sad to say that even though I have the greatest respect for the chairman and, of course, the ranking member of this subcommittee, we have not done our job. From the billions of dollars that have been cut from education, it is evident that we need a reform of this bill. No Child Left Behind, $806 million has been cut. The bill cuts $603 million from Title I. The Republican majority again breaks their promise on the funding of IDEA, provisions that help those with special needs. The bill freezes dollars in the after-school centers. It slashes education technology dollars by $196 million. It eliminates comprehensive school reform grants to 1,000 high-poverty schools by eliminating the program. This is not the umbrella that the American people need. When we begin to talk about investment in America, this is the bill we do it in, and we have traditionally done it in a bipartisan way. I have heard my good friend from California say this is a House bill, we are not finished, but this is a bill that makes a statement to America. We have cut moneys from the most vulnerable. I would ask my colleagues to look at this closely, defeat this bill and go back to the American people and work on their behalf. Support the Obey amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I enthusiastically support the Obey amendment to restore PBS funds. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, that seeks to prevent the use of funds in H.R. 3020 to carry out the recission of the ``Corporation for Public Broadcasting.'' This recission would have amounted to a 45 percent cut to local Public Radio and Television stations in FY 2006. Under the legislation as drafted, rural stations and those serving minority populations would suffer greatly with respect to their operating budget. The grants that fall under the account affected comprise anywhere from 15 to 85 percent of their budgets. Most stations would be forced to layoff employees, to shut down local production-- which would include local public affairs programs--and to cut back on local outreach. Mr. Chairman, public television is the backbone of mass media communications for most of the minority population--which includes in large part, our children who need guidance and education. In Houston, to be specific, KUHF-FM would have suffered a cut of 46.4 percent or $228,197 of its funding. Similarly, KUHT-TV would have suffered a 44.4 percent or $679,049 cut of its funding. These amounts translate to severe loss in operating budget for these stations. Relative to the State of Texas, over $6,263,296 or 42.8 percent of its funding would have been cut under the bill as drafted. For the reasons stated above, Mr. Chairman, I fully support the Obey amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to associate myself with my colleagues to promote a better quality of life for all Americans and African Americans who are suffering greatly from the disparities that are found in health and education.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin my remarks by acknowledging the obvious. The gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member, dealt the hand that was given to them. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Ranking Member Obey) of the subcommittee and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the subcommittee, dealt the hand that was given to them. But, my friends, when the budget is cut by $16 billion and you expect that the most vulnerable of America can raise their head and survive, you understand that a crisis is in the midst. Now, I was prepared today to offer two amendments, because I believe that in helping that we can all work together. But I realize that the ranking member and the chairman have done everything that they could possibly do, and I buy into our leader's concept that this is simply borrowing from the lambs, the most vulnerable. But I do want to acknowledge the two amendments that I would have offered today and share with my colleagues the reason for withdrawing them, because I hope that we will battle all the way to conference, restore the $16 billion that takes away from the most needy, but also from the Americans who depend on us the most. Just a couple of days ago, the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations stood on the floor of the House and they said they came in $3.5 billion under mark, meaning that they spent less than they were authorized or able to do. But even with that $3.5 billion, we find ourselves cutting over 20 Health and Human Services programs and over 25 educational programs to educate our children. I would have offered the following two amendments, one dealing with the hepatitis C virus, and I pay tribute to a former constituent of mine, Ed Wendt, who lost his life in the battle with hepatitis C and liver disease, a Vietnam war veteran, somebody with whom I stood in front of the Justice Department fighting against the discrimination of veterans who have hepatitis C virus. Although many of them do not know it, nearly 4 million Americans are currently infected and 35,000 new infections occur each year. HCV costs millions of dollars in health care and lost wages, and this amendment would have offered an additional $1.5 million to deal with this issue. Hepatitis C impacts African Americans, children, and adolescents, renal dialysis patients, HIV-positive patients. We need help. But I will not offer this amendment to continue the battle for more dollars for all Americans on all issues. Today on the floor of the House I saw a former colleague, Congresswoman Meek. Carrie Meek was a soldier on the battlefield for lupus research, and I was prepared to offer an amendment to increase the dollars for lupus because we have not determined the cause of lupus. But because of the need to spread the wealth and the need to provide resources that we do not have because the majority determined that the most vulnerable of America do not need our attention, I will not offer that amendment. I rise to offer the impact or to emphasize the impact that we will be facing. Do my colleagues realize that we are cutting dollars from community health clinics, we are cutting dollars from training and primary care medicine and dentistry, sickle cell demonstration projects are being zeroed out, early learning opportunities programs are being zeroed out? In education, we are zeroing out comprehensive school reform, parental information and resource centers. We are zeroing out arts and education, alcohol abuse reduction; all of those are being zeroed out. And even though I will be supporting my colleagues on the Congressional Black Caucus, because we are appreciative of being able to save TRIO, we will also be standing here to say that because we believe in the mandate of the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Watt) for this Congress, closing the disparities gap for Americans, particularly minority Americans and African Americans, we can stand here today and say that this legislation is a travesty, for it impacts the elderly, it impacts the most vulnerable, the sickest of Americans, it impacts the youngest of Americans. In Texas alone we will be losing some $9 billion in language acquisition in education, we will be losing $62 billion in education technology, $7 billion in assessments. We will be losing $27 billion in innovative education. We will be losing $13 billion in rural education. We will be losing another amount in special ed. Mr. Chairman, this bill needs to go back to address the needs of the most vulnerable Americans and to close the disparities gap. Mr. Chairman, let me first say thanks to you and the Ranking Member for your work on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I had planned to offer two amendments but have decided to withdraw them due to existing funding cuts in the bill and the fact that there is not much room to transfer monies throughout the bill. Nevertheless, I feel it is very important to briefly discuss these amendments for they deal with two very pressing health issues (Lupus and Hepatitis-C). My first amendment, which was two fold, would have increased funding for the ``Centers for Disease Control and Prevention- Disease Control, Research, and Training'', by $2.5 million. The second half of this amendment would have increased funding to the ``National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities'' by $1.5 million. The purpose of these funding increases would have been to increase educational programs on Lupus for health care providers and the general public. In addition, my first amendment would have sought to expand the operation of the National Lupus Patient Registry. Lupus is a chronic, disabling, and potentially fatal condition in which the immune system attacks the body's own organs and tissues. Lupus strikes primarily women and is twice as common among people of color. Currently, it is estimated that 1.5 to 2 million Americans have Lupus. There is no cure for Lupus, no new drugs have been approved to treat the disease in nearly forty years, and no valid medical measure to diagnose and track the disease's progression exists. This is a serious disease and we must focus more attention on it if we are to find a cure. My second amendment would also have increased funding for ``Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Disease Control, Research, and Training'' for the purpose of increasing Hepatitis-C research activities. Particularly at risk for Hepatitis-C are African-Americans, children and adolescents, renal dialysis patients, HIV/HCV positive patients, and patients with hemophilia. Although many of them do not know it, nearly four million Americans are currently infected, and 35,000 new infections occur each year. This insidious virus takes thousands of lives annually--primarily through cirrhosis and liver cancer. HCV costs millions of dollars in healthcare and lost wages each year, but it receives inadequate attention from the public, the medical field, and the federal government. Hepatitis-C is an inflammation of the liver including tenderness, and sometimes permanent damage. Hepatitis-C can be caused by various viruses or by substances such as chemicals, drugs, and alcohol. Hepatitis C virus is one of six known types of the hepatitis virus. I would urge my colleagues to take a closer look at this devastating disease. I would also like to take a moment to express my concerns with some of the many funding cuts for Title VII programs in this year's appropriations bill. While I am pleased to see that funding was provided for Minority Centers of Excellence ($12 million) and Scholarships for Disadvantaged Students ($35 million), I am disappointed that Area Health Education Centers, Health Education and Training Centers, and Health Professions Training Programs were all zeroed out. These programs have been addressing the needs of medically underserved communities in Texas since 1991 by playing a key role in providing health services and health care professionals for our most vulnerable populations. I would hope that I would be able to work with the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member as this bill moves through conference to see if we can find some funding for these very important programs. I am pleased to see that the Committee provided an increase over last year's funding level for Ryan White AIDS Programs. Specifically, the bill appropriates $2.1 billion for the programs, which is $10 million (2%) more than the current level but equal to the administration's request. This total includes $610 million for the emergency assistance program--which provides grants to metropolitan areas with very high numbers of AIDS cases--$1.1 billion for comprehensive-care programs, $196 million for the early-intervention program, and $73 million for the Pediatric HIV/AIDS program. Head Start also received an increase in funding. The bill provides $6.9 billion for the program. This is $56 million more than the current level but slightly less than the administration's request. I would like to work with the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member to increase funding to the Administration's request during conference. The total for Head Start includes $5.5 billion in FY 2006 billion in advance appropriations from a prior year. The measure also includes $1.4 billion in advance FY 2007 appropriations. Unfortunately, the bill only provides $14.7 billion for the Education for the Disadvantaged Children Program. It saddens me to say that this amount is $115 million less than the current level and $1.7 billion less than the Administration's request. I hope more funding can be provided for this important program during conference. Before closing, I would like to express my dismay with the $100 million decrease in funding for Corporation for Public Broadcasting. A loss in CPB funding would seriously hamper PBS' ability to acquire the top quality children's educational programming that is used in classrooms, day care centers and millions of American households to educate, entertain and provide a safe harbor from the violent, commercial and crass content found in the commercial marketplace. PBS provides valuable services that improve classroom teaching and assist homeschoolers. These could be reduced or eliminated if federal funding is cut. These services include PBS TeacherSource, a service that provides pre-K through 12 educators with nearly 4,000 free lesson plans, teachers' guides, and homeschooling guidance; and PBS TeacherLine, which provides high-quality professional teacher development through more than 90 online-facilitated courses in reading, mathematics, science and technology integration. We must not cut funding for this valuable program. Again, I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for their work on this bill, and I hope we can all work to further fund the programs mentioned in my statement as we move to conference.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 330 the Rule governing debate on H.J. Res. 10, an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit physical desecration of the flag of the United States. I oppose the Rule to H.J. Res. 10 because the Rule allows inadequate debate on a resolution is an overly broad infringement on the First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech. This partisan, structure rule, severely limits amendment and debate on issues that affect every American citizen--the United States Constitution and the First Amendment. I fully support the amendment offered by the Gentleman from North Carolina, the distinguished Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mr. Watt. That amendment is so simple that it nearly restates the First Amendment to the Constitution--which further exemplifies the ridiculous nature of the underlying legislation we debate before the Committee of the Whole House. It is a shame that Members have to propose and offer amendments that require adherence to the U.S. Constitution--as Representatives of the United States of America, we are charged with the duty of upholding individual rights, not restrict them. In last Congress' iteration of this very legislation, I proposed an amendment that was not made in order. My amendment to that bill was designed to protect Americans' right to express their opinions and views about government activity. My amendment stated in pertinent part, ``a person shall not have violated a prohibition under that section for desecrating the flag, if such desecration is an expression of disagreement or displeasure with an act taken or decision made by a local, State, or Federal Government of the United States.'' Under my amendment Americans would have retained their freedom to speak out against actions taken by local, State, and Federal Governments through desecrations of the flag symbolizing their views. Our democratic government is a government of the people. Our citizen's freedom of expression is at the very heart of our democracy. An attack on American's freedom of expression is an attack on our entire democracy. My amendment would have protected our democracy and protects our citizens. This Rule, on the other hand, is potentially harmful to our democracy and America's citizens. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are fundamental components of our democracy. Limiting the ability of American citizens to voice their opinions about their government, through flag desecrations or otherwise, is a violation of the principles of our democracy that are symbolized in the American flag, including the First Amendment right to freedom on expression. I hope that the Republican leadership sees the irony of their decision to draft such a restrictive rule. We are debating a resolution that, if passed, will severely restrict American's ability to speak openly, freely, and fully, on issues that are of great concern to the public. Under this rule, my colleagues on this side of the isle are restricted from speaking openly, freely, and fully, on an issue that will have a drastic impact on the public, the First Amendment. This proposed amendment to the Constitution, H.J. Res. 10, is a severe abridgement of the freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This rule is a severe abridgement of our ability to debate an issue that may have a profound impact on one of America's most fundamental rights. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this Rule and I encourage my colleagues to do likewise.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this morning I rise to speak about two wrong-headed policies. First of all, let me honor and celebrate Title IX: remember the U.S. soccer team, women's soccer team, the WMBA; and then of course the assault on Title IX to allow the schools to send an e-mail to determine whether students, young women want to participate in sports. Do the Members know what that means? No women's sports. I stand here today to support a full funding of Title IX. Get rid of the loophole. And then, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my friends who think that we are going to accept the smoke and mirrors on the new Social Security plan, let us let me tell them that it is the same old plan. It privatizes Social Security, raids the trust fund, and weakens Social Security because what it does is it takes money from the trust fund and puts it in private accounts. Democrats stand for a solvent Social Security. Social Security is not a policy issue. It is a personal issue. It is an umbrella. It is the wind beneath the wings of those who work every day. Do not buy the smoke and mirrors of Social Security and support Title IX with no changes.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and I missed several votes. Had I been present I would have voted the following: Roll Call vote 293, aye. Roll Call vote 294, no. Roll Call vote 295, no. Roll Call vote 296, nay. Roll Call vote 297, no. Roll Call vote 298, no. Roll Call vote 299, aye. Roll Call vote 300, no. Roll Call vote 301, no. Roll call vote 302, aye. Roll Call vote 303, aye.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this amendment to the Constitution. When Framer Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, he wrote that: We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, solemnly publish and declare, that these colonies are . . . free and independent states . . . and we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor . . . our sacred honor. My colleagues, this is what the American flag stands for--honor. But it also stands for something even more sacred--freedom. Freedom of expression as contained in the 1st Amendment and the Bill of Rights. Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. This amendment, if passed, for the first time in our Nation's history, would cut back on the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression that is the bedrock of our democracy, and one of the fundamental guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights. In his 1859 essay On Liberty, John Stuart Mill recognized the public good and enlightenment which results from the free exchange of ideas. He writes: First, if any expression is compelled to silence, that opinion for aught we can certainly know, be true . . . Secondly, though this silenced opinion be in error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of the truth . . . Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice. There is a distinct difference between real and forced patriotism. Freedom cannot survive if exceptions to the First Amendment are made when someone in power disagrees with an expression! If we allow that, our right to free speech will depend on what Congress finds acceptable, precisely what the First Amendment was designed to prevent. This amendment may provoke rather than diminish the very acts it purports to curtail. Our Nation's experiment with an amendment to the Constitution concerning Prohibition shows that a cure by amendment to the Constitution may itself incite harm of the very nature it seeks to prevent. The flag desecration amendment is a solution in search of a problem. The expressive act, burning a flag, which this amendment attempts to curtail, is exceedingly rare. Professor Robert Justin Goldstein documented approximately 45 reported incidents of flag burning in the over 200 years between 1777 when the flag was adopted, and 1989, when Congress passed, and the Supreme Court rejected, the Flag Protection Act. About half of these occurred during the Vietnam War. Some of our great war heroes even share the spirit of my fellow Democratic colleagues in supporting efforts to preserve freedom through individual rights: Dwight D. Eisenhower said that ``Only our individual faith in freedom can keep us free.'' Thomas Jefferson again said that ``The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.'' Finally, General Richard B. Myers USAF, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff stated that ``In our profession and mine, (we are) working hard to defend our values, our way of life and our Constitution. We risk our comfort, our safety and our lives for what we believe in.'' This quote says it all--our brave soldiers fighting on the battlefields see the Constitution as one of their main causes. When we trivialize the Constitution by haphazardly amending it based on personal proclivities, we frustrate the sacrifices of our troops. This amendment would be the beginning, not the end, of the question of how to regulate a certain form of expression. It empowers Congress to begin the task of defining what the ``flag'' and ``desecration'' mean. The use of the flag as symbol is ubiquitous, from commerce, to art, to memorials, such that Congress would be in the position of defining broad rules for specific applications. Congress, the courts, and law enforcement agents would have to judge whether displaying the flag on Polo jeans is ``desecration,'' but the Smithsonian's recent removal of two million stitches from the 188-year old flag that inspired Frances Scott Key, is not. The United States Supreme Court has ruled consistently that flag burning is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court held it unconstitutional to apply to a protester a Texas law punishing people who ``desecrate'' or otherwise ``mistreat'' the flag in a manner that the ``actor knows will seriously offend one or more persons likely to observe or discover his action.'' The Court found that the law made flag burning a crime only when the suspect's thoughts and message in the act of burning were offensive, thus violating the First Amendment's protections of freedom of the mind and freedom of speech. The next year, in United States v. Eichman (1990), the Court reviewed a Congressional statute that attempted to be neutral as to the messages that might be conveyed, prohibiting flag burning except when attempting the ``disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.'' The Court struck down this statute as another attempt to punish offensive thoughts. To quote the legal philosopher, Lon Fuller on amending the U.S. Constitution, he stated that: We should resist the temptation to clutter up the Constitution with amendments relating to substantive matters. We must avoid the obvious unwisdom of trying to solve tomorrow's problems today and the insidious danger of the weakening effect of such amendments on the moral force of the Constitution. I continue to share the sentiment and spirit of this quote with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle because they continue to tread the unwise path of unnecessarily amending the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I strenuously urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 10.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of my colleague Mr. Baird's amendment to H.R. 2985 the Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 2006. The Baird amendment would strike the language of H.R. 841, which would require states to hold special elections within 49 days of the Speaker declaring that more than 100 vacancies exist in the House. First of all, this language has no business being in this Appropriations measure, it clearly legislates on what is supposed to be a spending bill. Truly, the other side of the aisle is trying to sneak in a piece of legislation within this Appropriation in order to force its passage upon the Senate. Furthermore, this language within this bill threatens to weaken the electoral process, to disenfranchise overseas, disabled, and lower- income voters and thereby reduce individual rights. The more expedited the process of replacing the members of the House and the smaller the body constituted is, the less legitimacy it will have. Unless the House constitutes members from all 50 States and through a full, fair, and transparent process, this body will lack qualities that make it truly ``representative.'' Forty-nine days is simply not enough time for a state to hold the most free and fair elections. Special elections on average, take four months. In the event of a catastrophic disaster, elections should be held on an expedited time schedule. The pillars of what makes American democracy unique, however, should not be toppled in the pursuit to do so. True democracy dictates that every eligible woman or man has the right to run for office and to vote freely and under fair circumstances. Under the guidelines of this language, this would not be possible. Many states would have to forgo party primaries and the system would lend itself to the wealthiest and most well-known candidates' ability to run virtually unopposed. All debate of the candidates' platforms or characters would be nearly muted, and in effect, Americans would vote ``in the blind.'' Significant disenfranchisement will likely occur in the unrealistic time frame that the language of H.R. 841 offers in this Appropriations measure. There would be no way to mail out and receive absentee ballots in time. Overseas Americans, including those in the military, would not have a realistic chance to vote. Yes, the legislation ostensibly offers military and overseas voters an opportunity to be heard, but 15 days simply are not enough. There is something unseemly about denying our men and women of the military the right to vote in the most consequential elections imaginable, when we would be replacing perhaps the entire House. Logistically, many states would not have sufficient time for voter registration. It would be difficult to even print the ballots in the time allotted under this Act. There are only a few ballot printing companies in this country and a limited supply of ballot-appropriate paper stock. In the case of electronic voting, programs must be written, and even under ideal circumstances, not all the technical glitches have been sufficiently worked out to assure voter privacy or the fidelity of the system. The language of H.R. 841 in this bill proposes to make the issue of state elections a ``federal question.'' However, just because this issue would become federalized does not mean that we should frustrate the essential elements of democracy.The processes of establishing the eligibility of state candidates, voter registration, voter freedom of choice, and equal access to voting under the Civil Rights Act must be preserved--even in the face of a catastrophe. Democracy should not be abandoned simply because our leadership may have to suddenly change. Clearly, this language does not belong in this Appropriations bill, nor does it serve the best interest of the American people. I urge all my colleagues to support the Baird amendment and remove this improper language from the Legislative Appropriations bill.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today against Mr. Hefley's amendment to H.R. 2985 the Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 2006, which would reduce this spending bill by 1 percent. The Hefley amendment is inappropriate at this time when funding needs have already been neglected in this Appropriation. Truly, the Committee had difficult decisions to make, but cutting even 1 percent more from this legislation would be a tremendous mistake. The total funding for this legislation is $2.87 billion which is only 2 percent more than current levels and $270 million (9 percent) less than requested by the various legislative offices and agencies. This bill appropriates $1.1 billion for operations of the House of Representatives which is only $13 million (1 percent) more than current funding and $35 million (3 percent) less than requested. It is unfortunate that these Appropriations are so tight, when the cost of operating the House of Representatives is in fact getting higher. These costs are becoming higher because the needs of our constituencies are becoming greater. If the Hefley amendment is to pass it will be our constituents who suffer. Regardless of any possible cuts, Congress will continue to function properly and we will serve our constituents proudly, but these cuts in our funding undermine our efforts. In addition to insufficient funding to the House of Representatives, the greatest reason to reject the Hefley amendment can be found in the legislative branch agencies that directly or indirectly support Congressional operations. This funding is only $32.6 million (2 percent) more than current levels and a staggering $234.8 million (12 percent) less than requested. Funding for the Capitol Police, who are entrusted with protecting the Capitol Complex and all those who work and visit here actually received $2 million (1 percent) less than in FY 2005, and $50.4 million (17 percent) less than requested in this Appropriation. The Architect of the Capitol who have worked so hard in the last year to make the Capitol Complex more accessible to visitors received only $317.3 million, $16.7 million (6 percent) more than current funding but a full $123.6 million (28 percent) less than requested. The Government Printing Office (GPO) which serves the demanding printing needs of hundreds of legislators every year received only $122.6 million which is $2.8 million (2 percent) more than current funding but $8.5 million (6 percent) less than requested. Indeed, even the Library of Congress, the resource for Members and staff to conduct research and the institution meant to be our nation's greatest repository of reading materials, even their funding was cut in this Appropriation. The Library of Congress received $543 million, about equal to the FY 2005 level but $47.8 million (8 percent) less than requested. It is sad to see these legislative branch agencies, which work so hard and diligently to support the work of Congress, have their funding needs not met. Again, these agencies will continue to support Congress and they will do their jobs well, but any further cuts in funding can only lessen their effectiveness. I urge all my colleagues to reject the Hefley amendment as its passage will only make it more difficult for us to meet the needs of the American people. Cutting 1 percent from the Legislative Appropriations will not lead to any dramatic monetary savings, but it will hinder efforts to provide the best Congressional support services possible. It takes a lot to keep the great halls of Congress going and it is our responsibility to ensure that all of it is properly funded.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2985 the Legislative Branch Appropriations for fiscal year 2006. However, I find it truly unfortunate that these Appropriations were consistently under-funded because of the tight budget due to the massive tax cuts given to the richest Americans. These Bush Administration tax cuts have created gaps in so many programs and these Legislative Branch Appropriations are no different. The total funding for this legislation is $2.87 billion which is only 2% more than current levels and $270 million (9%) less than requested by the various legislative offices and agencies. This bill appropriates $1.1 billion for operations of the House of Representatives which is only $13 million (1%) more than current funding and $35 million (3%) less than requested. It is unfortunate that these Appropriations are so tight, when the cost of operating the House of Representatives is in fact getting higher. These costs are becoming higher because the needs of our constituencies are becoming greater. With these unfortunate budget cuts in place it will be our constituents who suffer. Regardless of these cuts, Congress will continue to function properly and we will serve our constituents proudly, but these cuts in our funding undermine our efforts. In addition to insufficient funding to the House of Representatives, the greatest deficiencies can be found in the legislative branch agencies that directly or indirectly support Congressional operations. This funding is only $32.6 million (2%) more than current levels and a staggering $234.8 million (12%) less than requested. Funding for the Capitol Police, who are entrusted with protecting the Capitol Complex and all those who work and visit here actually received $2 million (1%) less than in FY 2005, and $50.4 million (17%) less than requested in this Appropriation. The Architect of the Capitol who have worked so hard in the last year to make the Capitol Complex more accessible to visitors received only $317.3 million, $16.7 million (6%) more than current funding but a full $123.6 million (28%) less than requested. The Government Printing Office (GPO) which serves the demanding printing needs of hundreds of legislators every year received only $122.6 million which is $2.8 million (2%) more than current funding but $8.5 million (6%) less than requested. Indeed, even the Library of Congress, the resource for Members and staff to conduct research and the institution meant to be our nation's greatest repository of reading materials, even their funding was cut in this Appropriation. The Library of Congress received $543 million, about equal to the FY 2005 level but $47.8 million (8%) less than requested. It is sad to see these legislative branch agencies, which work so hard and diligently to support the work of Congress, have their funding needs not met. Again, these agencies will continue to support Congress and they will do their jobs well, but these cuts in funding can only lessen their effectiveness. However, the issue that has me most concerned about this Appropriation is the language of H.R. 841, which would require states to hold special elections within 49 days of the Speaker declaring that more than 100 vacancies exist in the House. First of all, this language has no business being in this Appropriations measure, it clearly legislates on what is supposed to be a spending bill. Truly, the other side of the aisle is trying to sneak in a piece of legislation within this Appropriation in order to force its passage upon the Senate. Furthermore, this language within this bill threatens to weaken the electoral process, to disenfranchise overseas, disabled, and lower- income voters and thereby reduce individual rights. The more expedited the process of replacing the members of the House and the smaller body constituted is, the less legitimacy it will have. Unless the House constitutes members from all 50 States and through a full, fair, and transparent process, this body will lack qualities that make it truly ``representative.'' Despite my objections with certain provisions of this legislation I will vote in favor of this Appropriation because it serves the needs of our Congress. However, I hope that soon our economic and budgeting practices would change so that we are not forced to make so many cuts in vital areas. I also hope that in the future we do not use these Appropriations bills as a way to further our legislative agendas. It is my sincere hope that the institution of Congress, which was made to serve the needs of the people, will continue to be effective no matter the obstacle.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to pay tribute to the late Congressman Jake Pickle, who will be funeralized today in Austin, TX. What a giant. What a generous spirit. What an outstanding patriot and leader. And I am grateful that he served the people of Texas and the United States of America. Yes, he was someone who had the common touch. In fact, many would speak of his travels from Washington to Austin where he worked the airplane aisles to shake hands with all the constituents and others who were flying back and forth with him. He was committed to justice in this country and made a powerful vote when he voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He made it out of conscience and passion and what was right. And then I think what he thought was his greatest achievement because of his common touch, he helped fix Social Security in the right way, in a bipartisan manner, and had it to last for 40 and 50 years. We are grateful for his life and my deepest sympathy to his family and friends. But all we can say today is farewell to our friend. We thank him for his service. We thank him for being a great patriot. We thank him for loving America and thank him for loving Texas.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as I raise this issue with my colleagues, first I want to acknowledge that I believe that there are a number of efforts trying to make their way through the House and Senate on immigration reform that really should give us an opportunity to have a degree of synergism to respond to the concerns of the American people. I rise today because I just finished a hearing in the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims on the important topic of employer sanctions. It would seem we should have agreement that employers should be penalized when they engage in the hiring of undocumented aliens. But interestingly enough, there is not agreement. The business community is particularly sensitive to this, claiming they are not able to find enough workers to fill these jobs. Then, of course, I think the AFL-CIO has a meritorious argument that when you enforce employer sanctions, employers who are unscrupulous will then enforce them against innocent persons, some documented and some undocumented, by either massively firing them or punishing them with lower wages and bad working conditions. Interestingly enough, those who are fired will go out the door and that unscrupulous employer will then find others who are more timid to fulfill those jobs and they themselves may be undocumented. There are many issues that cannot be handled piecemeal. Let me share another thought that came up in the hearing. There is a basic pilot program that requires employers to provide certain documentation when they hire an individual. Interestingly enough, only a few of the employers around the Nation can participate. Why? Because we have not given the Department of Homeland Security enough dollars to work the program beyond it being a pilot program. It was also brought to our attention that maybe we should look to those who make the fraudulent documents and find a way to weed them out. What this Nation really needs is comprehensive immigration reform. And so I offer to my colleagues the Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2005. It is H.R. 2092. We call it the fix-it bill. There are many fine efforts going through the United States Congress. But what I think immigrants need is a bill that fixes some of the 1996 immigration reform effort. So we start off by focusing on family-based immigration by increasing the allocation of family-based visas. In speaking to a group of IndoAmericans, it was sad to hear the complaint about not being able to have loved ones come to the United States simply for a visit or simply to visit relatives in the United States that are ill or having some event. I have heard that from many, many immigrant communities around America, many of them documented with status, but yet they cannot invite their relatives to visit. Another issue is protection against processing delays. Many offices have had to deal with constituents of Members when they call the various centers that deal with immigration where they have lost paperwork or lost fingerprints, stopping the good flow of immigration. This bill includes acquisition of citizenship for children born abroad and out of wedlock to a United States citizen father. It allows aunts, uncles or grandparents to adopt orphaned or abandoned children of the deceased relative so it does not leave in limbo children outside of the country who have a United States citizen father, or orphaned children here in the United States who do not have an immediate parent, a mother or father. It provides earned access to legalization. We run away from the language of amnesty only because people give it just a bad name. But we give earned access to people who are hardworking and providing income and taxes to the United States. We realize that intelligence, meaning keeping the bad guys out, is important so we provide more resources for border security. And we understand the issues of OTMs, other than Mexicans, that are coming across the border, maybe some who may want to do us harm, and we want to build up security at the northern and southern border. Employment-based immigration. We want to deal with the unfair immigration-related employment practices, and we have in this particular legislation protection for American jobs. We have in this legislation training of Americans and the ability for an employer to have to attest that they cannot find an American for this job before they can hire someone who is not a citizen of the United States of America. We address the question of removal waivers. We address the question of diversity visas. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, we address the question of the violence against women who happen to be undocumented. This is a comprehensive approach to the broken immigration system. I for one look forward to working with my colleagues and to give a hearing to all of the immigration bills that bring together the various thought processes of this Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike. Until we open the door to listening to all of us who have these ideas, we are not going to move immigration reform along. I call on the chairmen and ranking members of our respective hearings to call for hearings in the House and the Senate on this important legislation and the legislation of my colleagues so we can finally answer the concerns of the American people.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise tonight with my distinguished colleagues in the newly formed Get Out of Iraq Caucus. We stand together in this hallowed place to advocate for the majority of Americans who believe that President Bush must get our men and women home from Iraq. It was the great politician and diplomat Adlai Stevenson who said: ``Patriotism is not a short and frenzied outburst of emotion but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.'' I want to thank each and every American who believes strongly in this cause for making that dedication and speaking out about what you believe to be wrong for our great Nation. I want start off by reading a very telling quote: ``War should be the politics of last resort. And when we go to war, we should have a purpose that our people understand and support.'' This quote was made by none other than former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a senior member of the Bush Cabinet leading up to the war in Iraq. The truth is that this war was not a last resort, and it most certainly does not have the full support of the American people. The truth is that this Administration has continuously changed the truth about their motives for going to war. First they said it was about weapons of mass destruction, then when we found out the truth that there weren't any in Iraq, they said the war was now about Saddam, and today they tell us it's about establishing democracy in Iraq. The real truth is that this Administration has no real plan, they had no plan before going to war, they have no plan to get out of this war and most dangerous they have no plan to win this war. The truth is that our men and women of the Armed Forces are the ones caught in the middle, the ones who have to fight and risk their lives in a war that has not end in sight. Earlier this week I offered an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill which would have increased funding for training the Iraqi National Army by $500 million. This Amendment would have doubled the amount of money appropriated for training the Iraqi National Army within the Iraq Freedom Fund. However, Mr. Inslee's amendment to lift the $500 million cap on funds for training the Iraqi National Army was accepted into this Appropriation. Therefore, I will work with Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha to insure that additional funds are appropriated for training the Iraqi National Army. The Jackson-Lee and Inslee amendments reinforce the point that the best way to get U.S. troops out of Iraq is to train the Iraqi troops to take care of their own nation. Clearly, more money is needed to not only train these inexperienced troops to defeat the insurgency, but also to pay troops to enlist in this new army despite the obvious danger they face. At this time of increased danger for our troops, this Amendment reiterates the fact that we need to be transferring more responsibility upon the Iraqis to take care of their nation and develop a plan to remove our U.S. troops. To this date at least 1,783 members of the U.S. military have died, 152 from the State of Texas alone, since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003. Since May 1, 2003, when President Bush declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, at least 1,585 U.S. military members have died. There have been at least 1,909 coalition deaths in Iraq, which means that more than 93 percent of the coalition deaths have come from the U.S. Armed Forces. This President told us that there would be an international coalition going in to fight the Iraq War, the truth is that it is our troops and our troops alone who are on those front lines suffering mass casualties and the burden of this war. Just last month I wrote to President Bush respectfully requesting him to rescind and repeal the Defense Department rule that bars public viewing of the flag-draped coffins of fallen soldiers upon their arrival back to the United States in the spirit of patriotism, honor, and respect for the service that they have given. This overly restrictive rule contravenes the First, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as the principles of due process and equal protection as it relates to the decedents, their families, and each American who wishes to honor one who has fought for his or her Nation. In addition, this rule violates the Freedom of Information Act by arbitrarily narrowing the scope of material that may be accessed under the law. While the stated objective of this policy is to protect the privacy of the decedents' families, its effect reaches unjustifiably broad and in a manner repugnant to the foundations of the democracy in which we live. The American public has been allowed to view and honor fallen soldiers of wars dating as recently as the Persian Gulf War in 1990-1991 under prior Administrations of both political parties. The current policy is clearly deceitful to the American people, who deserve to know the full truth about the War in Iraq. When our American troops are the ones fighting abroad, it is our military families who must also suffer. They wait every day and night hoping to hear from the loved ones, praying that they are not put in harm's way, that they may come home soon. Too many families have not been so lucky, finding out the news of a loved one's death is not only emotionally traumatizing it can have long term effects for the family that may never be repaired. Such is the case with the family of Army Spc. Robert Oliver Unruh a 25-year-old soldier who was killed by enemy fire near Baghdad on September 25th of last year. Unruh was a combat engineer, who had been in Iraq less than a month when he was shot during an attack on his unit. Several days after learning of his death, his mother had gone to the hospital complaining of chest pains, Hamilton said. She was feeling better the next day but saw her son's body Saturday morning and collapsed that night in her kitchen. The poor woman literally died of a broken heart, her beloved son killed in action, the emotion of it all was just too much for her to take. There is also the story of the Danner family in Branson, Missouri who had to spend this last Father's Day sending their father off to War in Iraq. Col. Steve Danner will be heading to Fort Riley, Kan., on Monday to begin training before he begins a two-year tour in Iraq with the Army National Guard 35th Support Command. At 52, Danner isn't hesitating to fulfill his duty, but said it's going to be tough to leave his family. ``I'm as ready as I'm going to be,'' Danner said. ``My main regret is my youngest daughter is going to be a senior at Branson and I'll miss her softball games and probably her graduation next year. We have to recognize it's a reality. I've done this a lot of years. It's my turn again.'' Danner's wife, Katie, said she was ``shocked'' when she learned her husband would be headed to Iraq. ``I knew there was always a possibility, but you would have thought, at his age, that the war wouldn't be at a point where they would need his talents,'' she said. The Danners have four children, Aryn Danner Richmond, 29, of Phoenix, Andrew, 20, Alex, 19, and Audrey, 17. Katie Danner said they understand why their father needs to leave, but ``I don't think they really know what it will be like for Dad to be gone.'' It's a true shame that loyal soldiers like Col. Steve Danner have to be called up at the age of 52 because of this war and the current recruiting shortage. It's stories like that that make my heart ache and that strengthen my resolve to defend the rights and welfare of our American soldiers and their families. We must all stand as champions for our men and women fighting abroad. These soldiers who bravely reported for duty, they are our sons and our daughters, they are our fathers and mothers, they are our husbands and wives, they are our fellow Americans and they deserve better than the predicament that this Administration has placed them in. Many of these soldiers are now themselves standing up and demanding answers about this war. One such brave individual is Sgt. Camilo Mejia, whose case I know that many tremendous anti-war organizations have championed. Camilo spent six months in combat in Iraq, and then returned for a 2- week furlough to the U.S. There he reflected on what he had seen, including the abuse of prisoners and the killing of civilians. He concluded that the war was illegal and immoral, and decided that he would not return. In March 2004 he turned himself in to the U.S. military and filed an application for conscientious objector status, for this he was sentenced to one year in prison for refusing to return to fight in Iraq. He has eloquently stated: ``Behind these bars I sit a free man because I listened to a higher power, the voice of my conscience.'' He was finally released from prison on February 15th of this year. I applaud this young man for making a conscious decision not to fight in a war he does not believe in, it's a disgrace that this young man who truly is a conscientious objector was treated like a criminal. Time and time again this Administration has said that there are no plans for a draft, that we have an all-volunteer Army, but all of us know the real truth that there is in effect a back door draft taking place. Individuals who have been out of the Armed Forces for years and many who were told that they had fulfilled their commitment are now being taken away from their families and put in this war. Under the Pentagon's ``stop-loss'' program, the Army can extend enlistments during war or national emergencies, about 7,000 active-duty soldiers have had their contracts extended under the policy, and it could affect up to 40,000 reserve soldiers depending on how long the war in Iraq lasts. The Army has defended the policy, saying the fine print on every military contract mentions the possibility that time of service may change under existing laws and regulations. Its just cowardly to hide behind fine print when it comes to peoples lives being at stake in this war, every day their tours are unjustly extended is another day they risk their lives. However, many of these individuals are now fighting back against this injustice, rightfully asking why they, who have already proudly served their Nation, must now be recalled for a war that has already claimed too many American lives. Fewer than two-thirds of the former soldiers being reactivated for duty in Iraq and elsewhere have reported on time, prompting the Army to threaten some with punishment for desertion. The former soldiers, part of what is known as the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), are being recalled to fill shortages in skills needed for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military families know the helplessness that many of their loved ones serving in Iraq feel because they are being given no voice in this war they are being told to fight. An article in the Christian Science Monitor article written in July 2003, almost two years ago when this war was still in its infancy, had a number of very telling quotes from U.S. soldiers in Iraq. One soldier said: ``Most soldiers would empty their bank accounts just for a plane ticket home.'' Another soldier, an officer from the Army's 3rd Infantry Division said: ``Make no mistake, the level of morale for most soldiers that I've seen has hit rock bottom.'' The open-ended deployments in Iraq and the constantly shifting time tables prompted one soldier to remark: ``The way we have been treated and the continuous lies told to our families back home has devastated us all.'' In yet another Army unit, an officer described the mentality of troops: ``They vent to anyone who will listen. They write letters, they cry, they yell. Many sometimes walk around looking visibly tired and depressed. . . . We feel like pawns in a game that we have no voice [in].'' These quotes were taken almost two years ago, I can only imagine how these soldiers and others like them feel seeing that this war is still going on and with no real end in sight. These quotes individually are sad, but collectively they represent a pattern and unfortunately once again it is our men and women in the Armed Forces who are paying the price. Even members of this Administration who orchestrated this war have their failures in this war. L. Paul Bremer, has said ``horrid'' looting was occurring when he arrived to head the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad on May 6, 2003. ``We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness,'' Bremer said. ``We never had enough troops on the ground.'' Prior to those comments he had also stated last September that: ``The single most important change . . . would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout.'' He said he ``raised this issue a number of times with our government'' but admitted that he ``should have been even more insistent.'' Even Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the architect in many ways for this war admitted U.S. intelligence was wrong in its conclusions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. ``Why the intelligence proved wrong [on weapons of mass destruction], I'm not in a position to say,'' Rumsfeld said. ``I simply don't know.'' When asked about any connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, Rumsfeld said, ``To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.'' With leadership such as this, how are our troops supposed to have any confidence in this Administration and their handling of this war?? This Administration is creating new veterans everyday by sending our soldiers to Iraq, meanwhile it has done nothing to help--the courageous veterans we already have here in our Nation. There are over 26,550,000 veterans in the United States. 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. As soldiers return home from serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, perhaps the most disturbing trend is their inability to find jobs because of their veteran status. Take the story of Staff Sgt. Steven Cummings from Milan, Michigan. Cummings' wife took out two mortgages and the couple accumulated $15,000 in debt during his 14 months overseas, because his salary was less than he was making as a civilian electrical controls engineer. Looking back, those almost seem like the good times. In the year since he's been home, Cummings has been laid off from two jobs. While other reasons were given for the layoffs, Cummings thinks both were related to his duty in the Michigan National Guard and the time off it requires. Like some other veterans who have returned from Afghanistan and Iraq, he is struggling to find work. ``I don't know what I'm going to do now. I'm in the exact position I was when I came back from Iraq,'' said Cummings, a father of two. ``I'm 50 years old and I have a mortgage payment due. I'm tired of it.'' Cummings, a member of the 156th Signal Battalion who did telecommunications work in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Mosul, said he is surprised to find himself in this predicament. Cummings said he thought he was returning to Gentile Packaging Machinery Co., where he worked for 11 years in Bridgewater, Mich., but he was told he was laid off the first day he was back to work, he said. Cummings said he considered suing the owner, but freshly home from war, it just seemed overwhelming to do so because he felt ``devastated, betrayed, worthless.'' A few months later through a veterans program he was able to get work at Superior Controls Inc., in Plymouth, Mich. But, he said he was laid off from that job on May 20. He said he was told the company was downsizing, but he believes it was because he complained about a company policy that said it could not promise to hire returning veterans from war. Some are changed by war, and find the civilian jobs they had before are no longer as meaningful. This has also been the case with Cpl. Vicki Angell, 32, who was assigned to the 324th Military Police Battalion out of Chambersburg, Pa. She gave up her job as a customer service supervisor at an equipment company to serve in Iraq, and it took her a year to find a job she was happy with as an editor at The Sheridan Press in Hanover, Pa. ``You send out a lot of resumes. You try to do everything you can do, but it's really hard to account for the time you are in Iraq, and really to try to make that, the things you were doing in Iraq relevant to what an employer is looking for today,'' Angell said. Sgt. Benjamin Lewis, 36, who also lost a stepson to the War in Iraq, was a civilian chef who worked at a restaurant in Ann Arbor, Mich., that burned down while he was deployed in Iraq with the Michigan National Guard, said some employers directly told him they could not hire him because he could be deployed again and needed weekends and time off in the summer for drilling. Others, he said, asked if he struggled mentally because of his time at war. He got so desperate he considered returning to Iraq with a new unit. It is because of cases such as these and many others throughout our nation that I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 1352, the Veterans Employment and Respect Act offered by my colleagues Representatives Allyson Schwartz and Joe Schwarz. This vital legislation already has 161 Congressional cosponsors and would give companies up to $2,400 in tax credits for each veteran from the Afghanistan and Iraq wars that they hire. Unfortunately, we may be able to give companies incentive to hire recent war veterans but it seems we can not get this Administration to put the same effort in looking after our veterans in the first place. As soldiers return home from serving in Iraq and Afghanistan the need for medical care, living assistance, and disability benefits are steadily increasing. This puts a strain on an already-overburdened Veterans Administration, which has not been adequately funded by the Bush Administration to meet these challenges. The fact is that more than 30,000 veterans are waiting six months or more for an appointment at VA hospitals, and there are more than 348,000 veterans on the waiting list for disability claim decisions. This President has long ignored pressing domestic concerns for a war that did not need to be fought and for which so many good American men and women have given their lives. It was our second President John Adams who aptly said: ``Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war.'' Unfortunately for our nation, our current President has not felt the weight of this guilt, for if he had our loved ones in the Armed Forces would be home now. This Administration told us that the international community would join us in Iraq; they said the world would be a better place because of this war and then they said major combat in Iraq was over. Today as we see our men and women every day giving their lives in Iraq, we know that this war has only caused a greater divide between our nation and the international community, this war has only increased hatred for our nation, it has not made us safer as promised, it has in fact put us in greater danger. President Abraham Lincoln speaking after the conclusion of the Civil War, gave a vision for our nation that I hope we can follow today, he said: ``With malice toward none; with clarity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan-to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and lasting peace, among ourselves and with all nations.'' Before I conclude I would like to take time to read some of the names of the soldiers from Houston who have given their lives in Iraq and honor them with a moment of silence. Spc. Adolfo C. Carballo, 20, Houston, Texas Died: April 10, 2004, Baghdad, Iraq. Pfc. Analaura Esparza Gutierrez, 21, Houston, Texas Died: October 1, 2003, Tikrit, Iraq. Spc. John P. Johnson, 24, Houston, Texas Died: October 22, 2003, Baghdad, Iraq Spc. Scott Q. Larson, 22, Houston, Texas Died: April 5, 2004, Baghdad, Iraq. Sgt. Keelan L. Moss, 23, Houston, Texas Died: November 2, 2003, Al Fallujah, Iraq. Pfc. Armando Soriano, 20, Houston, Texas Died: February 1, 2004, Haditha, Iraq. Cpl. Tomas Sotelo Jr., 20, Houston, Texas Died: June 27, 2003, Baghdad, Iraq. Staff Sgt. Brian T. Craig, 27, Houston, Texas, April 15, 2002, Afghanistan Capt. Eric L. Allton, 34, Houston, Texas September 26, 2004, Ramadi, Iraq. Capt. Andrew R. Houghton, 25, Houston, Texas August 9, 2004, Ad Dhuha, Iraq. Lance Cpl. Thomas J. Zapp, 20, Houston, Texas November 8, 2004, Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Cpl. Zachary A. Kolda, 23, Houston, Texas December 1, 2004, Al Anbar Province, Iraq. Staff Sgt. Dexter S. Kimble, 30, Houston, Texas January 26, 2005, Ar Rutba, Iraq. Pfc. Jesus A. Leon-Perez, 20, Houston, Texas January 24, 2005, Mohammed Sacran, Iraq. (Moment of Silence.)

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of the Special Order today by the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise to show my support for the men and women who work in the intelligence community each day sacrificing their lives so that we may remain safe. This measure, H.R. 2475, does authorize 100 percent of the funding requests made by the community, which is a positive departure from the measure proposed in 2005, which funded only 26 percent of the requests. In addition, this legislation improves upon the President's request of only 40 percent of the community's counterterrorism funding needs. This departure is important because this measure is the first authorization bill to come to the floor since passage of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458)--the families of the victims of 9/11 as well as the entire international community still look to us for responsible action in the area of intelligence. I also applaud the Committee's inclusion of provisions for the recruitment and clearing of personnel adept in language skills necessary to truly aid our intelligence-gathering and processing initiative. However, I join my colleagues in disagreeing with Section 305 of the bill as reported out of Committee. This section gives congressional committees a ``pocket veto'' of the personnel transfers that the new Director of National Intelligence might recommend. Absent passage of the Manager's Amendment offered by Mr. Hoekstra, this provision will contravene much of the authority conferred in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act that was signed into law by the President last year. Public Law 108-458 contains provisions that I offered that deal with commercial alien smuggling such as penalty enhancement as well as an outreach section that would require publication of the enhancements by DHS to act as a deterrent. I support the amendment that will be offered by my colleague from New York, Mrs. Maloney that would require a report to Congress until the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center has been confirmed and until the Center is fully functional. Madam Speaker, for the reasons above stated, I support the legislation with reservations.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Clerk to read a portion of the amendment because we know that there is no point of order on this, so if she could read so that I can understand the gentleman has the right one.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me, first of all, acknowledge the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the subcommittee; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), ranking member, and thank them for their due diligence on behalf of the United States military. Though there have been those who have tried to divide our commitment to the personnel of the United States military, it is very clear, Mr. Chairman, that we are united as Americans, as Members of Congress, local elected officials and families and supporters on behalf of our military. As I flew in today, I watched a number of our returning military arrive at their destination and be embraced by their family members. Besides acknowledging the love extended, I thought about the commitment that we owe to those families. And so I bring to the attention the headline in my newspaper ``Troops' Best Gift: Family Support'' of the Sunday Chronicle, and I would say that the best gift we can give to those families is the compensation of our particular personnel. I rise today to offer the amendment to the Defense appropriation which would increase military pay raises by an additional $1 billion overall. This amendment would have been necessary in order to better compensate our brave men and women who are fighting for our Nation. The appropriation provides an average 3.1 percent pay increase for military personnel, equal to the President's request and extends certain special pay and bonuses for reserve personnel. Our men and women in the Armed Forces deserve these pay increases, but the simple truth is that they deserve much more for the sacrifice that they are making for our Nation. This amendment would result in funds for military pay increases of $300 million for the Army, $250 million for the Navy, $50 million for Marine Corps, $250 million for Air Force, $25 million for Army Reserves, $25 million for Navy Reserves, $25 million for Marine Corps Reserves, $25 million for Air Force Reserves, $25 million for Army National Guard, and $25 million for Air Force National Guard personnel. The Congressional Budget Office has declared that this amendment not only does not increase revenues in this bill, but actually decreases outlays by $215 million. The offset for this amendment would come from missile defense programs, which are appropriated at a staggering $7.9 billion. Missile defense systems are not new. In fact, they have been discussed for decades. The truth is that missile defense systems have proven to be overly complex, unreliable, and often been little more than a pipe dream. I believe our military personnel deserve our first priority, affection, admiration, and love. And I frankly believe we owe this to their families, the many thousands that are in Texas, reservists, National Guard, and enlisted and active duty. Why in good conscience in this time of budget constraints and increased need would we allocate even more money for these failed programs? This amendment does not end research for the missile defense program. It simply pares it down to a more reasonable number in order to pay for the best defense system in our entire military system: our American troops. Missile defense systems are great in theory. They were especially important during the Cold War, but now, in fact, the world has changed. In fact, the war is considered the war on terrorism. I hope we will never forget the sacrifices of our troops made on behalf of all of us. Right now there are 136,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, 34,000 soldiers in Kuwait, and 9,600 personnel in Afghanistan. So I would ask any colleagues to consider paying tribute to these soldiers by considering an amendment in this category. I rise today to support my amendment to this Defense Appropriation bill, which would increase military pay raises by an additional $1 billion overall. This amendment is necessary in order to better compensate our brave men and women who are fighting for our Nation abroad. This appropriation provides an average 3.1 percent pay increase for military personnel in fiscal year 2006, equal to the President's request, and extends certain special pay and bonuses for reserve personnel. Our men and women in the Armed Forces deserve these pay increases, but the simple truth is tha they deserve much more for the sacrifice they are making for our Nation abroad. This amendment would result in funds for military pay increases of $300 million for Army, $250 million for Navy, $50 million for Marine Corps, $250 million for Air Force, $25 million for Army Reserves, $25 million for Navy Reserves, $25 million for Marine Corps Reserves, $25 million for Air Force Reserves, $25 million for Army National Guard, and $25 million for Air Force National Guard personnel. The Congressional Budget Office has declared that this amendment not only does not increase revenues in this bill, but actually decreases outlays by $215 million. The offset for this amendment would come from missile-defense programs, which are appropriated at a staggering $7.9 billion. Missile defense systems are not new; in fact they have been discussed for decades. The truth is that missile defense systems have proven to be overly complex, unreliable, and often been little more than a pipe dream. Why in good conscience, in this time of budget constraints and increased need, would we allocate even more money for these failed programs? This amendment does not end research for missile-defense programs it simply pares it down to a more reasonable number in order to pay more for the best defense system in our entire military system: our American troops. Missile-defense systems are great in theory, they were especially important during the Cold War, but now the world has changed and we need troops more than we need overly complex defense systems that may never work. I hope we never forget the sacrifices our troops make on behalf of all of us. Right now there are 136,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, 34,000 soldiers in Kuwait, and 9,600 personnel in Afghanistan. I hear people in Washington complaining about how hot its been recently, just imagine how uncomfortable our Armed Forces feel, they have to suffer the heat under their Kevlar helmets and heavy bulletproof vests. They can't sit inside and enjoy themselves, these days they are on constant high alert because of the Iraqi insurgency. Just last week a roadside bomb blast killed five U.S. Marines who were riding in a vehicle during a combat operation near Ramadi. The facts are plain, a total of 1,713 Americans including 159 people from Texas alone have lost their lives since this war in Iraq began and more than 12,000 have been wounded in action and yet we play politics with giving them due compensation? This amendment is about our national defense, we are only as strong as our men and women in the Armed Forces. In the end, this amendment is about shifting some money from a defense system that may never work to a group of Americans who have never stopped working for this Nation.

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

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Ranking Member Obey's amendment, which seeks to protect religious freedom at the Air Force Academy. This amendment condemns coercive or abusive proselytizing at the Academy and reaffirms that the military must be a place of tolerance for all faiths and backgrounds. Indeed, we hold our nation to high ideals of religious freedom and this amendment ensures that the Air Force Academy meets these ideals. Thankfully, this issue of infringement on religious freedom was reported by cadets at the Academy. The Los Angeles Times reported on April 20, 2005, that an atmosphere existed on the campus of the U.S. Air Force Academy that appeared to tolerate disrespectful treatment of persons who were not evangelicals. Air Force officials have acknowledged the problem, which initially surfaced in early May 2004 when a survey of present and former cadets revealed that some students felt that `born-again' Christians received favorable treatment and that persons of faith that did not consider themselves born-again had been verbally abused. These reports are unacceptable; truly we can not tolerate even the hint of religious intolerance or persecution anywhere in our nation, but especially not in any sector of our Armed Forces. Our brave men and women in the Armed Forces are fighting and in many cases are dying to protect the idea of religious freedom for all Iraqis, it would be a true shame if religious intolerance were given even the slightest legitimacy here in the United States. At this time when recruitment levels are low we do not need to send out the message that anyone who joins the Air Force Academy and is not a strong evangelical Christian may face persecution. I was disappointed by the words heard on the floor by one Republican that Democrats are declaring war on Christians; thankfully he decided to strike this offensive statement from the record. However, he brings up an issue that must be addressed despite its outrageousness. The simple truth is that Democrats are supporting this amendment to strengthen the voice of religion, not weaken it. I affirm the tolerance of all religions. As Democrats we believe that all faiths have a right to practice freely and share their beliefs. This freedom of religion strengthens and gives voice to the entire faith community. The Obey amendment is not any radical measure, it simply states that: ``(1) the expression of personal religious faith is welcome in the United States military, but coercive and abusive religious proselytizing at the United States Air Force Academy by officers assigned to duty at the Academy and others in the chain-of-command at the Academy, as has been reported, is inconsistent with the professionalism and standards required of those who serve at the Academy; (2) the military must be a place of tolerance for all faiths and backgrounds; and (3) the Secretary of the Air Force and other appropriate civilian authorities, and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and other appropriate military authorities, must continue to undertake corrective action, as appropriate, to address and remedy the inappropriate proselytizing of cadets at the Air Force Academy.'' It also calls for the Secretary of the Air Force to develop a plan ``to ensure that the Air Force Academy maintains a climate free from coercive religious intimidation and inappropriate proselytizing by Air Force officials and others in the chain-of-command at the Air Force Academy. The Secretary shall work with experts and other recognized notable persons in the area of pastoral care and religious tolerance to develop the plan.'' Clearly, the requirements of this amendment are not burdensome or complex, but they are necessary. This amendment gives peace of mind to all students who enter the Air Force Academy that they will not face intimidation when making choices about their faith. Truly, this is an American ideal and we can never stray from that path.