Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) for helping to continue this tribute, and I thank my colleague and friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), for convening us at the very beginning. I rise tonight as an admirer, someone who watched from afar as a law student and did not for a moment think that ultimately I would wind up as a Member of the United States Congress and then to serve on the Committee on the Judiciary where Peter Rodino gave his all and gave his service. So my words are to come and express my admiration, to thank him for his life and his works. For those of you who were in Congress, many of whom we have heard from today, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), that world was a separate world from those of us who looked from afar at this thing called impeachment. We understood there was a democracy and a Constitution, but we did not understand the intimate parts of what might happen through the process of an impeachment. But then this very calm and distinguished gentleman rose to the forefront of the national landscape as the media focused intensely on the hearing room. There sitting was Chairman Rodino, someone who had a balanced temperament and seemingly gave comfort not only to the Nation but to the world. As law students, we remained glued to the whole series of Watergate hearings, all the processes in the Committee on the Judiciary. I happen to represent the 18th Congressional District in Texas and all eyes were on a young woman by the name of Barbara Jordan. It seemed that the chairman and this young lawyer from Texas, now a Member of Congress, worked hand in glove together. Congresswoman Jordan would make mention, as I have heard the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) say, that they were on the bottom tier, row. They were freshmen. They were the new members of the committee. But my understanding was that there was not one single member, Democratic or Republican, that the chairman did not make feel part of this very serious and grave process. We heard my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), state that the chairman prayed that there might not be a conviction or that there would be a vindication of the President. That showed the temperament of this chairman. But he led the committee in that way by allowing dissent on both sides of the aisle, by allowing a full hearing, by making sure that all the witnesses were able to be heard extensively and over an extended period of time. And so although I know that there are many personal anecdotal stories that have been told tonight, I want the Rodino family to know that for this law student who looked in horror at this process, tried to make sense of this constitutional proceeding, concerned about the survival of this Nation, that there could not have been a better teacher, a better leader than Chairman Rodino who guided us through a real constitutional crisis. I think even then studying law it became more real to me, and I admired both the law and the process and the Constitution more as I watched our government go through it and survive it and as I have watched in admiration the Honorable Barbara Jordan and so many others that worked so well by reaching out and working with the chairman in an orderly fashion. Who could have done it but this very well-tempered and kind gentleman from New Jersey, a man who started serving in 1949, at a time that America was heavily segregated, and he rose as an easterner to fight for the civil rights of all people as a strong advocate for racial justice in America, a man of many talents, and a man who might have been considered ordinary coming from an immigrant's background. But yet he rose for these extraordinary times. A man ordinary, but becoming extraordinary in himself and leading his Nation in an extraordinary way. So I thank you for allowing me to share my admiration and appreciation for Peter Rodino and as well his family, and to thank him for the kindness that he showed a young Congresswoman from Texas, the honorable Barbara Jordan, and the way he guided us through a constitutional crisis. I also thank him for his early commitment for racial justice, for his commitment to the 1965 Voter Rights Acts, the 1964 Civil Rights Acts, leveled to the creation of southern districts, one of which was the 18th Congressional District in Texas. Many others sprung up across the South because of his willingness and his passion to lead. Might I also thank him very much for his continuing abilities to teach. For although he could have left Congress and done many other things, I know that the students whom he taught law to over the years are forever grateful that they were able to have this giant amongst them. This giant, the calm and even-handed spirit was able to do so much. I also want to thank him and make note of the fact that as he stayed in Congress, he never wavered from being out front on immigration issues. It might have been very popular during those times, but he was a person who believed in reforming immigration and understanding its value to America and to Americans. So I say to the family, thank you for allowing him to serve, thank you for allowing those of us who were just students of the law to watch the law operate and practice. Might I just say that in his loss may we all commit ourselves to guiding ourselves and doing the business of this House the way the chairman did it during the most troubling times. Might I say to my Committee on the Judiciary colleagues chairman, ranking members and all of us, could we do as well as this chairman of that committee during those very tumultuous times? To my friend that passed, as I call on my friend for his leadership, might you rest in peace and might your family know that you are a great patriot, a great American, and you have laid down a marker in the United States Congress that all of us can be grateful for and grateful to be able to implement and to follow. May God bless you as you rest in peace. May God bless America and your family. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Peter Rodino. As a body, we have gathered to commemorate his life and his works, but as an individual I personally appreciate being able to share in the honor, because of his life and his works. Although Chairman Rodino is well known for his seminal work in the Nixon impeachment, he was also a primary advocate for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act (1965). Given his work in both racial equality in the United States, and the presidential impeachment, it is clear to see that his heart was forever committed to justice and truth. During the most difficult times of the Civil Rights movement he was one of the few leaders able to stand up and fight for a better America--against a sea of bigotry and racial prejudices. As a Congressional leader willing to look past racial politics he was at the forefront of the struggle for civil rights. Wanting to fulfill this country's standing as a democratic nation, he was also willing to bring to justice those leading our country. It is also important for me to mention that Chairman Rodino was a man of integrity and humility who served our nation with great dignity and honor. By conducting the Watergate impeachment hearings with fairness, he ensured that the rule of law prevailed during one of the gravest Constitutional crises in our history. All Americans will be forever grateful for his courage and defense of the Constitution. In closing, while Chairman Rodino is most renowned for the service he rendered during the Watergate impeachment hearings, he also left a lasting imprint as a distinguished Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and author of significant legislation, ranging from civil rights to immigration reform to protecting consumers. It gives me great pleasure to speak on the life of such a great leader.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, I have spoken to him about this amendment, and staff. I have reviewed what we have done in the appropriations, and I am prepared today to withdraw the amendment. I am appreciative of the fact that he is willing to work with me in conference. I think that this is a tough job, but I also know that we all believe in our personnel. So with the commitment to be able to work with the conferees or to work through this process, I know that the commitment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), I am willing and would like to be able to work with them.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would just hope that we can really focus on how we align the funds as well in training these Iraqi forces.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman. As you well know, I hopefully will have three bites of the apple of working with you on the military pay, and, of course, I did not offer the amendment dealing with armor, and I want to thank you for the work that has been done with providing our soldiers the armor. Let me say that this is a passionate desire of many of my constituents, as well as the military families around America. I would very much like to, I hope I will have the opportunity, to work with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) as well. I would very much like to be concretely, though not a member of your august body, the Committee on Appropriations, to at least try to get a slice, if we remove the cap, to increase the dollars, because leaving our soldiers bare like this, losing the senior advisor of the Iraqi forces is really devastating.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want you to know and my colleagues to know that I am trying to engage in discussions with the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and I have mentioned this one to the chairman. I would like to have the opportunity to discuss, in a very lucid manner, my great concern, recognizing that we have tried to fund the support system for the Iraqi nationals. It is well known, Mr. Chairman, that a number of us are concerned about the ongoing violence in Iraq and the front line, if you will, attacks and loss of life that our brave men and women are accumulating in Iraq and, of course, Afghanistan. USA Today recounts for us that over the weekend, a bomb killed at least 23 in Baghdad. If you talk to families around America whose young men and women and Reservists and National Guard are over in Iraq and Afghanistan, their concern, of course, is the continued violence of the insurgents and the IEDs. Our soldiers are on the front lines. And beyond the question of bringing our soldiers home, which the American people have gone enthusiastically on record for, recognizing the bravery of those young men and women, Reservists and National Guard, we have got to find a way to transition this war to Iraqis. In the Houston Chronicle, the headline reads: American sacrifices buying time for Iraqis. So my amendment is simple--$500 million from the missile defense to go into the Iraqi Freedom Fund. Allow me to read this one anecdotal story, and I would ask my colleagues to listen, because I would like to work with you on this. This is about Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Crowe, one of the highest ranked soldiers in the United States military. He was a senior U.S. military advisor to Iraqi forces, and he was ambushed while leading Iraqi soldiers on June 7. Through the bravery of Sergeant First Class Gary Villaboso, who is now being recommended for a Silver Cross, this brave sergeant was able to drag, while fighting off alone, the Iraqi snipers, this brave wounded Lieutenant Colonel, Terrence Crowe, out of harm's way, at least to get him out. He performed heroically in extricating the mortally wounded Crowe, while wiping out Iraqi attackers. The 17 Iraqi soldiers broke rank and fled the scene. We realize they may have been well-intentioned, but most of the 17 Iraqis in the patrol broke rank during the initial outbreak of the gunfire and faded from the street fight. Villaboso, a fine soldier in his own right, did not want to condemn, and he said these words: He is unsure if Crowe, 44, who was hit instantly several times as the shooting began, could have survived if the Iraqis had effectively returned fire and swiftly evacuated the wounded officer. But what he did say is, I think he would have been able to be helped, if we could have gotten him out in a few minutes instead of 15. Training, training, training and transition. This is a simple question and equation. We need to provide the resources, and I know the distinguished gentlemen have had a number of dollars that went out into the original authorization, and, of course, $500 million, I believe, that are in this particular appropriation. But I ask my colleagues to consider, if we are going to move, we have got to move on behalf of our soldiers and provide the resources for the Iraqi nationals to serve our military personnel for Iraq. Finally, my deepest respect and sympathy to the family of Lt. Colonel Terrence Crowe; and to Sgt. Villaboso, thank you for your commitment. I rise today to support my Amendment to this Defense Appropriation bill, which increases funding for training the Iraqi National Army by $500 million. This Amendment would double the amount of money appropriated for training the Iraqi National Army within the Iraq Freedom Fund. In addition, it will 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. Just last week a roadside bomb blast killed five U.S. Marines who were riding in a vehicle during a combat operation near Ramadi. On this very same day a suicide bombing at a restaurant on an Iraqi military base killed 23 Iraqi soldiers and wounded 28 other people. Clearly, this war is not getting any easier; clearly our troops are still very much in danger. Our best solution is to train and supply the Iraqi National Army to beat back this insurgency and gain the trust of their people so that one day soon our troops can go home and the Iraqi National Army can bring peace and prosperity to Iraq. I know it sounds too simple, I but the truth is we have no other solution, that is unless you believe our U.S. troops should be in Iraq indefinitely. There is an old saying that the best offense is a good defense and the best way to maintain that posture is to have a strong Iraqi National Army supplementing the heroic effort of our troops. The offset for this Amendment would come from missile-defense programs, which are appropriated at a staggering $17.9 billion. Missile defense systems are not new; in fact they have been talked about, researched and tested for decades. The sad truth is that missile defense systems have proven to be overly complex, unreliable, and often been little more than a pipe dream. Why in the world can't we shift a little bit of this money to train the Iraqi National Army and relieve much of the burden on our own troops? This Amendment does not end research for missile-defense programs it simply pares it down slightly to offer hope for the Iraqi people that one day soon they can rule their own nation. The Congressional Budget Office has declared that this Amendment not only does not increase revenues in this bill, but actually decreases outlays by $30 million. Right now there are 136,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and their mission is not getting any easier. 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. We must move to the obvious solution, that the Iraqi National Army must soon take over their own nation and provide for the protection of their people.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that I have joined a number of my colleagues in asking for soldiers to come home in the fall of 2006. But I think the priority of my amendment, or at least the focus of my amendment today is, of course, the safety and security of our troops. I welcome both gentlemen. They are men of their word. I thank you very much. I would like to be able to pursue this with staff and with the committee. And I hope that the amendment of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) will be accepted, that we will have the opportunity to increase those numbers, because I think we owe it to the families of Lieutenant Colonial Terrence Crowe and many others.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there are many times that this Nation has celebrated its freedom. One that comes to mind is the celebration after the Revolutionary War, then the celebration after Abraham Lincoln pronounced the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. But today I rise to celebrate Juneteenth, a holiday that is now celebrated across the Nation, but Texans and Louisianans know it well, for because the Union soldiers were too busy, the slaves in Texas, some 200,000, did not know of emancipation until 1865. When General Granger landed in Galveston, he read the words, ``The people of Texas are informed that in accordance with a proclamation from the executive of the United States, all slaves are free.'' And so this weekend on June 19, across the State of Texas and Louisiana and around the Nation, we celebrated freedom. We sang, we spoke about freedom and the preciousness of it. We thanked America for its values and belief in freedom. I would like to thank State Representative Al Edwards, a Texan and a constituent of my congressional district, who is known as the Father of Juneteenth. It is important to honor freedom wherever it is found.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise as well to reflect on the words of the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a distinguished friend, as I heard him this morning acknowledging the relationship, but also the excellence between the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Ranking Member Lantos) and referring to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) as one of the more outstanding Members of this body. And I associate myself with those words and thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for his service and as well his leadership on a number of issues. I think this question of U.N. reform is a difficult question, and I think it is an important question. I am reminded of my history and my childhood. My history tells me that President Wilson's effort at the League of Nations, if it had succeeded, we might have had a better life, and we might not have had World War II and the tragedy of the Holocaust. But it failed. And so we come now to the United Nations, almost 60 years old. And I am reminded of Ralph Bunche, one of the first African Americans to serve at the United Nations and to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, how proud so many of us were as we read that in history, knowing that the United Nations was reflective of the world's diversity and its concerns and its policies. So I think the United States is better off because the United Nations exists. And the Lantos substitute, in essence, captures that spirit, the spirit of the necessity of reform, but yet that we are better off because the United Nations exists. It appropriately gives the right kind of stick, and that stick, Mr. Chairman, deals with providing the guidelines, the regulations, the standards, the moral compass, but it gives the Secretary of State, the chief diplomat of the United States, the discretion to withhold funds, and so that Secretary of State can engage on the world forum and speak with their fellow foreign ministers and discuss a world that would be better off with peace. In addition, I am gratified that the Lantos amendment thoughtfully does not give an automatic cut-off of new U.N. peacekeeping missions. How many of us are reflecting on our life and wish that we had been in a place, in a position to go into Rwanda and save the million lives? The U.N. did not act. The world did not act as we would have preferred it to act. The peacekeepers could not stop the violence. And so reforms are necessary, but we know that peacekeeping is necessary. Those many Members of Congress who have gone into the refugee camps, as I have done in Chad, and seen that the only body that was there was a representative of the U.N. High Commission on Refugees, the only physical body that could get into help the starving people of Sudan. And the Lantos amendment substitute has compassion and heart, and it has a strong voice and a strong stick. That is the balance of diplomacy that we need. That is why I ask my colleagues to support the Lantos substitute, because the United Nations makes the world better. It makes America better. And we, as leaders of the world and world peace, need to work with the United Nations, a strong United Nations and a reformed United Nations. Vote for the Lantos substitute. I rise in strong support of the Lantos Substitute to United Nations Reform Act of 2005. The goal of reforming the United Nations to be a stronger and more effective organization is a worthy one, one which the Secretary-General is working towards, a goal which most nations of the world are in favor of. This substitute amendment will help alter a bill that has a worthy goal, but which is flawed in its method of achieving those goals. The Hyde bill on U.N. reform contains many serious flaws which if implemented would not be welcome by the international community. Peacekeeping is one such area where this bill contains deeply flawed logic. The Hyde bill points to peacekeeping reforms that everyone agrees are needed. These reforms are in fact endorsed by the U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations and in most cases, these reforms are already underway to address recent concerns raised about sexual exploitation and abuse in peacekeeping missions. However, the Hyde bill says that starting this fall, the United States must prevent the expansion of existing missions or the creation of any new U.N. peacekeeping missions until all specified reforms are completed and certified by the Secretary of State. The truth is that some of these requirements simply cannot be met by the fall. True reform takes time. Reforms will require careful implementation at the U.N. as well as by the 100-plus troop contributing countries, and in some cases will require additional U.N. staff and funding which of course is not provided by this legislation. And yet, the Hyde bill will likely prevent Security Council resolutions to enable the creation or expansion of important U.N. missions in places like Darfur in Sudan, Haiti, Congo and Afghanistan. We as the United States of America have always prided ourselves on helping those who cannot help themselves, on aiding those who are being massacred simply because of who they are, but now this bill seeks for our Nation to turn a blind eye to these people. We, as the 109th Congress cannot allow ourselves to be the ones who cut off assistance to these desperate people. Not only does the Hyde bill take a wrong approach to peacekeeping, but it will also create great problems with the budget at the United Nations. The Hyde bill claims to ``pursue a streamlined, efficient, and accountable regular assessed budget of the United Nations,'' yet in reality the approach taken by the bill will wreak havoc on the U.N. budget process and will result in the automatic withholding of U.S. financial obligations to the U.N. regular budget. This flawed bill attempts to shift funding for 18 specific programs from assessed contributions to voluntary contributions. To achieve these goals, the bill mandates the withholding of up to $100 million in U.S. dues to the U.N. regular budget. While this idea may have merit, the U.S. should work with its allies to advance it through the Budget Committee at the U.N. instead of starting from the point of . withholding dues, which should be our Nation's last resort. Furthermore, the Hyde proposal links 50 percent of U.N. dues to a list of 39 conditions, not only at the U.N. Secretariat, but also at various U.N. specialized agencies over which the U.N. has no direct control. All of this will create a new U.S. debt at the U.N., since many of the conditions are so rigid and specific that they are not achievable. In the end, all that any of this will do is create resentment towards the United States in the international community. As the Washington Post editorialized, ``This is like using a sledgehammer to drive a nail into an antique table: Even if you're aiming at the right nail, you're going to cause damage.'' The Hyde bill also calls for certain steps supported by the U.N. and the U.S., such as the strengthening of the U.N.'s oversight function, the creation of a Peacebuilding Commission, and reforms in U.N. peacekeeping. However, it calls for these reforms to be funded solely within existing resources. If the U.S. withholds dues as this bill calls for, even less funding will be available to support these reforms. This bill also calls for the creation of new positions in several departments, including the Office of Internal Oversight Services and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, without allowing resources to fund these positions. The Lantos substitute is a more constructive and cooperative approach to U.N. reform. This is not a time when the United States needs to be taking an aggressive approach against the United Nations and the international community. The Lantos bill gives the Administration much more flexibility to negotiate the reform proposals with other Member States, and references the withholding of dues as an option of the Administration rather than something that will occur automatically. The Lantos substitute also waives certain provisions of the Hyde bill if it is in the national security interests of the United States. This is particularly important when it comes to the provisions on U.N. peacekeeping, since new or expanded missions may be necessary to support international peace and stability. We can not predict where or when we will have to mobilize the international community next and in this world of uncertainty we need to have flexibility instead of the rigid and overly harsh approach of the Hyde bill. The Lantos substitute amendment does not completely alter the United Nations Reform Act. The Lantos substitute supports many of the same reforms as the Hyde bill--such as the inclusion of Israel as a full Member State at the U.N., a series of reforms to address recent problems in U.N. peacekeeping, overhaul of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, and administrative and management reforms necessary to make the U.N. more effective, transparent and accountable. Clearly, those who believe in the United Nations as a tool of international cooperation can get behind the Lantos substitute. We as a Nation, should all support the United Nations because it is a tool of international cooperation, an ideal to which we should all aspire.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the gentleman is correct that he has worked with many Members, including myself, and he is correct on that. I respectfully say that he is incorrect, and we thank him for allowing the amendment to go forward, but we worked not to not have a point of order, and the amendment is not changed from what it was previously. It just clarifies it so it would not be subject to a point of order, and all it does is ask for a reporting of these records to ensure fairness. And I would love to work with the distinguished gentleman. I hope we can work together because he has been fair, and I want the Record to show that. But this is hurting the hearts and minds of constituents across America. And I know we have good law enforcement, and I know the States would not be offended, nor would they be burdened by simply reporting this information. I ask the gentleman to understand that there was no offense intended, and I thank him for the kindness he has shown, but this is an important issue.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished ranking member for his review of the amendment and clarifying and making it a very direct and very simple proposition. Many years of civil rights jurisprudence law have been ignored and thrown out the window when America permitted situations such as that in Tulia and Hearne to take place with impunity. Mr. Chairman, I am a former judge and a trained lawyer, and I have consistently worked with law enforcement across America and in my hometown and in my State. I am not here to impugn the hard work of good law enforcement officers. I just want there to be a balance between the rights of Americans and the law enforcement system and the judicial system. We cannot have a system of Federal funding that will fund antidrug task forces or other efforts that are not complying with the law, submitting cases that, in fact, have evidence, corroborating evidence, have video, have another witness, have the drugs that person is alleged to have actually had in their possession. This simply requires agencies receiving Federal funds in law enforcement instances to improve their criminal justice record and to acknowledge that it is unfair to discriminate and prosecute one race, one community, one city, one rural area. I know we can do this in a bipartisan way, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

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, this is an amendment that does not violate current law, does not in any way violate any concerns that the majority would have, and I thank both the chairman and the ranking member for over the past couple of days working with me on some of the concerns I have expressed. But I particularly offer to them this amendment because it is an amendment of fairness in Federal funding that, by the way, the President of the United States extinguished, if you will, in his budget but we added back in a bipartisan way the antidrug task forces. But what we did not support in the supporting of the funding was the discriminatory treatment of the prosecutions and arrests. I rise today in the name of the victims of Tulia and Hearne, two cities in the State of Texas symbolic of cities around the Nation with antidrug task forces who in the past have had arrest and conviction on the single testimony of one individual. The case in Tulia showed premeditated perjury, no other evidence but the word of one task force member against 15 to 30 African Americans who were ultimately destroyed, taken away from their families, prosecuted, convicted, and jailed. This amendment speaks to the need of ensuring that there is corroborated evidence either showing the drugs, either showing video or another witness that would corroborate that this particular individual was engaged in drug usage or drug possession or drug selling. The Jackson-Lee amendment seeks to restore justice into the justice system by making the operation of federally funded State and local antidrug task forces more transparent in order to prevent nightmares such as those that occurred in Tulia, Texas. Grants to fund State and local antidrug task forces come from the Edward Byrne grants. As a member of the House Law Enforcement Caucus, I am an ardent proponent of initiatives that strengthen and support our law enforcement, but we also need to ensure that we have the right kind of training and funding and better facilities, the same thing that I argued for as a member of the Committee on Homeland Security in supporting first responders. But we have a grant process that does not protect against the racial imbalance of the prosecutions of African Americans and other minorities. Racial imbalance requirement restrictions: notwithstanding any other provision of law, nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, or the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration to ensure that there is fairness. We have worked on this matter with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, particularly the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). I offer this amendment to my colleagues to say it does not violate current law; it only requires State agencies to share the ability to improve their criminal justice records to show that they are not discriminating. Mr. Chairman. I thank the Chairman from Virginia as well as the Ranking Member, from West Virginia for their bipartisan work to produce a Unanimous Consent Agreement that made this very important amendment in order. The Jackson Lee amendment seeks to restore ``justice'' into the Justice system by making the operation of federally-funded state and local anti-drug task forces more transparent in order to prevent nightmares such as those that occurred in Tulia, Texas and more recently in Hearne, Texas. Grants to fund state and local anti-drug task forces come from the ``Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs (Byrne Program), '' In Title 42 U.S.C. Subchapter V. As a member of the House Law Enforcement Caucus, I am an ardent proponent of initiatives that strengthen and support our law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, as a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I make it a goal whenever possible to advocate for increased funding, better facilities, training, and equipment, and for improved interoperable communications for these first responders. However, with this amendment, I seek to restore the integrity, honesty, evenhandedness, and judiciousness of our law enforcement agencies. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3789d section (b) of the ``Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,'' reads (b) Racial imbalance requirement restriction Notwithstanding any other provision of law, nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, or the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration-- (1) to require, or condition the availability or amount of a grant upon the adoption by an applicant or grantee under this chapter of a percentage ratio, quota system, or other program to achieve racial balance in any criminal justice agency; or (2) to deny or discontinue a grant because of the refusal of an applicant or grantee under this chapter to adopt such a ratio, system, or other program. The Jackson Lee amendment does not seek to contravene this provision of the law. Rather, the amendment does seek to hold the State and local grant recipients accountable for the manner in which they conduct their anti-drug programs. Mr. Chairman, the type of reporting that is prescribed under my amendment is authorized in law as found in 42 U.S.C. 3782, 42 U.S.C. 3759, and 42 U.S.C. 3789e, the Byrne Program as well as 42 U.S.C. 3751 and 3753. Section 3782 lays out the parameters of the establishment of rules, regulations, and ``procedures that are necessary to the exercise'' of agency function in carrying out the provisions of Byrne. Specifically, it authorizes the promulgation of rules and regulations that ensure that the entire program has a ``high probability of improving the criminal justice system'' and is ``likely to contribute to the improvement of the criminal justice system and the reduction and prevention of crime.'' More importantly, however, the rules and regulations promulgated must help the reporting agencies determine the program's ``impact on communities and participants.'' The very negative results of the program that we saw in Tulia and Hearne, Texas clearly and unequivocally contravene these provisions, and the Jackson Lee amendment seeks to correct this problem. Section 3789e contains a report to the President and to Congress that relates to the nature of the activities conducted under this program. The Jackson Lee amendment seeks to ensure that unethical and dishonest application of anti-drug task forces funded under this program do not slip through the cracks. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is vital to protecting the integrity and the evenhandedness of the activities funded under this program. Many years of Civil Rights jurisprudence and law have been ignored and thrown out the window when America permitted situations such as that in Tulia and Hearne to take place with impunity! Improper and illegal operation of anti-drug task forces was the impetus for my introduction of H.R. 2620, The Law Enforcement Evidentiary Standards Improvement Act of 2005. This bill will provide much-needed oversight and accountability for the millions of federal dollars distributed to state and local law enforcement agencies to fight the drug war. Its provisions propose to minimize the injustice of erroneous arrests and convictions by (1) enhancing the evidentiary standard required to convict a person for a drug offense and (2) improving the criteria under which states hire law enforcement officers to participate in drug task forces. In recent years, it has become clear that programs funded by the Edward Bryne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program have borne opportunities for the abuse of the penal system, racially disparate treatment, corruption and tainting of law enforcement agencies, and the commission of civil rights abuses across the country. This is especially the case when it comes to the program's funding of hundreds of regional narcotics task forces. Operation of anti-drug task forces around the country, which has lacked state or federal oversight, has been riddled with corruption and is the root of some of America's most horrific law enforcement-related scandals. One of the better known federally-funded anti-drug task force scandals occurred in Tulia, Texas several years ago. Fifteen percent (15%) of the African American population was arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced to decades in prison based on the uncorroborated testimony of a federally-funded undercover officer who had a record of racial impropriety in the course of enforcing the law. The Tulia defendants have since been pardoned, but these kinds of scandals continue to plague the Byrne grant program. In fact, just a month ago, on May 11, 2005, the defendant, the District Attorney of Robertson County, in Hearne, Texas and the South Central Texas Narcotics Task Force, in a case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of 28 African Americans, offered to settle the case after five years of litigation. This case arose from the arrest of these 28 individuals--out of 4,500 other residents of Hearne in November 2000 on charges of possession or distribution of crack cocaine. During litigation, the presiding judge was asked to dismiss the charges because they were based on evidence from an unreliable informant, as reported to the Houston Chronicle. Furthermore, reportedly, Task Force officers in the case suggested that the informant had added baking soda to narcotics recovered as evidence in one of the cases. These scandals are not the result of a few `'bad apples'' in law enforcement; they are the result of a fundamentally flawed bureaucracy that is prone to corruption by its very structure. Byrne-funded regional anti-drug task forces are federally-funded, state managed, and locally staffed, which means they do not really have to answer to anyone. In fact, their ability to perpetuate themselves through asset forfeiture and federal funding makes them unaccountable to local taxpayers and governing bodies. To date, fifty (52) organizations at the national, state, and local levels have signed on their support for this legislation and would support this important amendment that is consistent with its goals. Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues on this very distinguished Subcommittee work with me to accept this important amendment. I would like to thank my staff member Dana Thompson for his detailed work on this important amendment. Thank you, Dana. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the chairman if he has any additional speakers.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I believe all of my colleagues would accept the premise that justice is not outside of the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary, nor is the concept of justice outside of the concept of this august body. Judge Learned Hand is cited to have stated that the spirit of liberty is a spirit which is not too sure that it is right. So sometimes, Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that those of us who believe in liberty should step back for a moment and question whether everything that we have done or everything that we think is right. I think it is well to remind my colleagues that our Founding Fathers, those who came freely to this Nation, fled because they fled from persecution. And they fled to have the opportunity and the right to speak. We have always abhorred the tyranny of the majority. So it is important that those of us who stand today welcome, welcome, the offer being made by the previous speaker that we can sit down and resolve these questions and these disputes. But there is no doubt that the resolution offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) has not been refuted. Violation of Rule XVII did occur. A motion did not occur to adjourn, and it is the rule that we have accepted. The violation of Rule XVII did occur, and as much as we did have a hearing, there were witnesses who were not able to respond to accusations or allegations being made by Members of Congress. I think that we as Members recognize that we represent the American people, and whether or not witnesses come and take an oath and offer to this Congress words that you agree or disagree with, courtesies should be given to them so that their voice might be heard. The previous speaker is right. We worked in a bipartisan way on the PATRIOT Act. We did it within a 6 week period. But ultimately another bill went to the floor of the House. It behooves us now to insist on behalf of the American people a complete overview and oversight of the PATRIOT Act. So I simply say to my colleagues, justice should not be fleeting, and we should abide by justice, all of us, and we should vote for the Nadler resolution. Mr. Speaker, Judge Learned Hand is cited to have stated that ``The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right. . . .''I would like to associate myself with the resolution filed by the Gentleman from New York and I join him in expressing displeasure and outrage at the disrespectful conduct of the Republican majority at the Committee hearing that was held on Friday, June 10, 2005. The Hearing was requested by the distinguished Ranking Member Mr. Conyers, for the purpose of hearing important testimony relating to questions of civil rights and civil liberties, immigration policy, and human rights resulting from the provisions to be reauthorized in the USA PATRIOT Act. What happened on June 10 was not only an attempt to silence Democratic Members of Judiciary, it was to silence Democracy in America. In my 11 years on the Committee on the Judiciary, I have never witnessed such treatment and disrespect as we saw by the Committee Leadership, who in addition to walking out of the hearing, also unilaterally decided to shut off the microphones for both Members and witnesses. Furthermore, to do so in the context of analysis of very substantive legislation such as PATRIOT Act Reauthorization, something that greatly concerns all Americans, only exacerbated the repugnancy with which the very legislation itself was passed. Throughout that hearing, which was called at the least convenient time of 8:30 a.m. on a Friday when Congress was not in session, witnesses and Members were cut-off in mid-sentence, and the Chairman refused to yield to points of order or points of personal privilege called for by the Committee Democrats. The hearing was abruptly adjourned by the Chairman, in violation of the Rules of the House while microphones of Democratic members were shut off while they attempted to speak. Sixteen provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act automatically sunset at the end of the year unless reauthorized by Congress. As such, the Judiciary Committee held hearings on the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act that absolutely required bipartisan cooperation. Legislation that touches upon fundamental civil rights and civil liberties should not be commingled with petty games, personal gripes, or hostile acts steeped in partisan politics. It is my hope that the Republicans will issue an apology and begin taking strides to form a bridge across the aisle that has been widened by ugly partisan divide. Sixteen (16) provisions that are due to sunset at the end of 2005 are set for reauthorization. These provisions include Section 213 that allows delayed notification search warrants, Section 209's emergency disclosure of e-mails without a court order, and the provision that allows access to business records. I commend the Chairman for his disposition to hold the 10 oversight hearings that have been held on these controversial provisions. However, if my colleagues on this side of the hearing room were to file an action based on the common law principle of forum non conveniens, we would likely be justified based on the fact that this hearing has been called for 8:30 a.m. on the day following the end of votes for the week! Nevertheless, we applaud this de minimis effort to appeal to the requests for hearings that have been made by the distinguished Ranking Member of this body. By way of background, I remind this body that the PATRIOT Act was passed into law a mere six weeks following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The process of drafting this bill until its signing into law by President Bush took only four days from October 23 to October 26, 2001. The final measure, H.R. 3162, incorporated provisions of H.R. 2977, which the House passed on October 12, 2001, and S. 1510, which the other body passed on October 11, 2001. While Congress grappled with the need to act expeditiously to fight terrorism, I still marvel that a bill more than three hundred pages long moved from introduction to enactment at such a daunting speed. The process of reauthorization seems to resemble this path. Mr. Speaker, while the Committee on the Judiciary has exercised oversight on the provisions that are up for reauthorization, I feel that, given their continued and increasing contentiousness, we must further analyze the possibly negative impact that they will have on our civil rights, civil liberties, and other guarantees under the U.S. Constitution. Conduct that disrespects Members who wish to conduct substantive debate as representatives of the House of Representatives.