Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the chairman. This is a colloquy that is before him.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment authored by the Gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, to the Commerce-Justice-State-Science Appropriations Act for Fiscal year 2006. His proposal is simple but carriers tremendous weight in terms of protecting the Constitutional rights of individuals who live in this nation. it withholds funds from government action to issue a national security letter (NSL) for the purpose of obtaining health insurance records under any provisions amended by Section 505 of the PATRIOT Act. Currently, under Section 505 of the PATRIOT Act, the FBI is authorized to issue self-authorized secret national security letters to insurance providers, which opens the door to he secret seizure of highly personal medical information. Section 505 of the PATRIOT Act authorizes FBI field office directors to collect, in secret, almost limitless sensitive personal information, including medical records, from health insurance companies that are not under investigation themselves but have customers whose records the government wants by simply issuing a ``national security letter'' carrying the weight of law on the FBI's own assertion that the request is relevant to a national security investigation. This unfettered access to information that has been held to be Constitutionally protected since the passage of the Bill of Rights must be checked, and the Nadler Amendment provides that check in the context of fulfilling funding requests for the Department of Justice. Not only is the scope of the searchable material under this provision unconstitutional but the prohibition on notice to the individual searched contravenes the notions of privacy that have formed the foundation of our fundamental freedoms. Records held by health insurance companies about their customers must be turned over regardless of whether they concern financial matters, because ``financial records'' are defined as ``any record held by a financial institution pertaining to a customer's relationship with that institution.'' The records sought may include laboratory test results, medications prescribed, and reports that indicate the results of operations and other medical procedures. This kind of authority might well be described as ``terroristic'' to Americans in and of itself. The existence of alternative ways of accessing this kind of information with grand jury subpoenas and orders issuing under Section 215 justify offering this important amendment. This section allows the FBI to obtain virtually any business record simply by asserting the information is ``relevant'' to a national security investigation. It can be used to obtain records of individuals who are not suspected or accused of any crime. Citing Section 215, the government may, unbeknownst to the suspected person, secretly obtain employment, medical, and financial records, membership lists, and even a key to one's office. The only oversight is an annual report to Congress of the number of warrants issued. Mr. Chairman, I have been involved in the limited oversight that the House Judiciary Committee has begun. On Friday, June 10, 2005, the manner in which the Committee Majority Leadership conducted that hearing is only indicative of the manner in which the highly controversial provisions of the PATRIOT Act have been foisted upon the American people. I support the Gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. As a member of the Committee on Science, might I just say to the gentleman, he could not be more correct as relates to a tool of inspiration. Let me also emphasize that the Committee on Science works in a bipartisan way on education, helping to educate young people or encourage young people to participate or to be interested in math and science. One of the key issues happens to be girls in math and science and for them to be unafraid of those disciplines. This kind of inspirational film that was first shown internationally and then shown nationally is the kind of very small investment that seeks to inspire similarly as young people were inspired in the 1960s, led by President John F. Kennedy and Camelot, speaking about our ability to travel into space. I am disappointed that we would focus $20,000 on this very positive effort. I would hope that we would think of this in a different manner. I would hope that boys and girls and young people across America who are deciding to go into the sciences and get graduate degrees and Ph.D.s and might, I say particularly those in the Hispanic and African American community, which we work on in a bipartisan way on the Science Committee, Historically Black Colleges, Hispanic-serving institutions, I would hope that they would still have an opportunity to see an inspiring film such as this one, and that NASA would not be limited from investing in educational projects that will generate millions of dollars in research and opportunity for our youth.

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

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

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Yes.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am withdrawing it with the idea that it is an important issue, and I hope that the committee can work together with me on this issue, because, as I indicated in my earlier remarks, the importance of fighting for a system of legal immigration that shows due diligence is as important as it is for fighting against illegal immigration.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment. I ask respect for those who oppose this amendment, but I ask respect, kindness and love for those suffering with cancer. There is not a family in America that is not touched by this devastating disease. Allow the Hinchey amendment to go forward, so there can be healing and comfort for those dying of an enormously devastating disease. That is all we ask for, and, of course, the protection of the 10th amendment, that allows States to govern the laws of their particular jurisdiction, to protect the people of their State. Support the Hinchey amendment. I rise today in support of the Hinchey Medical Marijuana amendment. According to the Mayo Clinic, marijuana has been used as a medical treatment for thousands of years. Further, the use of marijuana for medical purposes has been proven to be beneficial in the treatment of glaucoma, cancer, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and chronic pain. Despite various studies and reports by medical experts, the U.S. Supreme Court, on Monday of last week, handed down its rule which would allow sick patients who rely on marijuana to relieve pain or to help with their medical conditions to be prosecuted under Federal law even if their home State allows use of the drug for such medical purposes. The 6-3 decision came as a setback to the medical marijuana movement, but it does not change the laws of the 10 States that allow patients to use the drug to ease symptoms. Needless to say, I am very disappointed with the Court's decision. To this end, I strongly support the Hinchey amendment. This amendment would prohibit the Justice Department from preventing States that have passed medical marijuana laws from implementing them. Currently ten States have adopted laws that allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. These laws were passed to allow the use of marijuana to relieve the intense pain and other symptoms that accompany several debilitating diseases, including aids, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and glaucoma. The DEA has conducted numerous raids on the homes of medical marijuana users, prosecuting patients who were using marijuana, in accordance with State laws, to relieve this pain. Before closing, it is important to note that the Hinchey amendment will not change marijuana's classification as a Schedule I narcotic, require States to adopt medical marijuana laws, stop law enforcement officials from prosecuting the illegal use of marijuana, encourage drug use in children, and legalize marijuana or other drugs. I urge 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. I look forward to working with the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee, and I want to thank them again for their courtesies as well as their staffs' courtesies in working through some of the issues that we find very troubling and important to address in this appropriation. My amendment at the desk is one that I offer dealing with the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmances, which I intend to subsequently withdraw, and I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman as well as the ranking member of the subcommittee on this important issue. It relates to the administrative review and appeals and immigration- related activities referenced in title I of this act. This matter is near and dear to many who understand the importance of the Board of Immigration Appeals. I believe that we should withhold funds in the act for programs that would facilitate the issuance of affirmances by single members of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the BIA, without an opinion. This would protect the petitioner for immigration review by ensuring that their $110 filing fee does not leave them with a simple ``affirmed'' with no basis for a decision. That means they have nothing to rely upon at a subsequent time. This really goes to the question of legal immigration, and it goes to the question of ensuring that we are vigorous in protecting and fighting for legal immigration as we are for fighting against illegal immigration. This would protect the due process rights of the petitioner. The proportion of affirmances without opinion decided by a single board member has increased from 10 percent to over 50 percent of all board decisions beginning immediately after the new rules were proposed. Part, of course, of the reason is because of the overwhelming number of cases. At the same time, the proportion of cases that are favorable to the alien decreased. Prior to proposing the procedure reforms, one in four cases were decided in favor of the opinion. Since then, only 1 in 10 is decided in favor of the alien, and there is no opinion, just an affirmation. It is important to note that a wide number of organizations and academics in immigration law believe that these affirmances without opinion by single-member review has created bad legal and administrative precedent and an incentive to rubber-stamp immigration judges' decisions. Affirmance without opinion is much faster and easier than writing a decision and creates an incentive, whether conscious or unconscious, for board members to meet case processing guidelines by affirming removal orders, notwithstanding the merits of the appeal. The rights of the petitioner and due process requires a thorough review. That is what the appeals process is all about. Moreover, intellectual rigor in decisionmaking may be diminished because board members no longer need to articulate the basis for their decisions. They need only to decide whether they agree with the result ultimately reached by the immigration judge. A panel of three board members is far more likely to catch an error below than a single board member. In the immigration context, there is only one administrative hearing before the case reaches the board. Other administrative agencies that employ single-member review have several layers of administrative process. That is why it is important to change or to look into this procedure at the Bureau of Immigration Appeals. Single-member review makes it difficult for the board itself to determine whether its members are making errors. The courts of appeal, when such review is available, similarly lack guidance when reviewing the decisions of the immigration judges and the board. Now I would like to reaffirm my position, which is to suggest that the idea of a de novo hearing in the Federal District Court and the Court of Appeals is an option that should be considered important by giving the Bureau, if you will, more substance in its determination.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, let me thank the gentleman and let me thank my colleagues. I thank them for the accepting of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very clear and straightforward. None of the funds made available in this act may be used to deny the production of safety reports regarding the NASA space shuttle program and the international space station. To the credit of NASA and to the credit of the members of the House Science Committee, we have joined together along with the Senate and been diligent and steadfast as it relates to safety issues in the human space shuttle and international space station. Those of us who come from the region that I come from and have as our neighbor the Johnson Space Center have lived through Challenger and then Columbia. These are our neighbors, our friends, and certainly the families are families that we care for. In fact, so many of the names are household names to us because, as I said, they are our neighbors. This amendment simply reinforces the importance of safety and safety reports as it relates to the human space shuttle and the international space station. Just recently NASA was able to report that 3 out of the 15 safety requirements that were recommended by the Columbia report have now been completed. At the same time, the international space station is making steadfast but slow progress in securing that facility. Over the last couple of months, we have seen article after article about air quality and a number of other concerns that will require our oversight. This amendment wants to reinforce the fact that we are committed to exploration in space, but likewise, we are committed to safety. One of the issues that was very important during the time of Columbia and the review that occurred, one, to put forward the most effective and efficient commission that we could, and the Gehman Commission did an outstanding job; but, two, to ensure that we retained skilled workers. I am very gratified to note that language in this legislation indicates that if a worker is trained along the line of safety skills, then their work position should certainly be protected, or there should be some reason for their termination if that occurs. This amendment is to focus us again on the fact that if we are recommitting ourselves to the vision of Mars, the vision of exploration, then we should commit ourselves to the safety of the personnel who are engaged, the safety of those who reside on the international space station, the safety of those who will travel. Let me also say, Mr. Chairman, that in reviewing the articles that I have seen over the last couple of weeks listing and reviewing reports, we note that we have just discovered that the potential for falling debris can be as threatening to the human space shuttle as it was 3, 4, 5, 6 years ago. That is a safety question. No manner of reports or study are too much to determine that safety. This amendment, as I said, is straightforward. I ask my colleagues to support it, which is to emphasize the importance of safety reports and review by NASA to ensure that whatever we do, it be done safely, protecting the lives of Americans who are willing to go forward and explore space on our behalf. I thank the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee for their hard work in making the conduct of this floor consideration a bipartisan experience thus far, and I thank them for making the Jackson-Lee amendment in order. This amendment, designated as ``Jackso 110,'' seeks to preclude funds that in any way obstruct or otherwise hinder the production of safety reports as to the NASA Space Shuttle program and the International Space Station. As a member of the House Science Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics as well as a Representative of the 18th Congressional District, home of the Johnson Space Center, which is where astronaut training and Mission Control take place. The safety of our space missions is paramount, and this is the impetus behind the Jackson-Lee amendment. I offered this important amendment with the upcoming launch of Space Shuttle Discovery next month for International Space Station Flight LF1 in mind. During this mission, new inspection and repair techniques will be implemented; therefore, it is important that full reporting remain unimpeded. In the past, I have introduced legislation that would provide for the establishment of an independent, Presidentially appointed Commission to assess the safety of the International Space Station and its crew, H.R. 4522 in the 108th Congress. The Jackson-Lee amendment is consistent with the spirit of this legislation by preserving the oversight and reporting functions that are in place. Since the tragic Columbia Space Shuttle accident safety must be our number one priority. I am working with the majority party appropriations to have language inserted in the Conference Report for this bill which would direct NASA to report the amount of money spent in its budget for safety overall as well as for each major program and initiative for it fiscal year 2007 budget request and for all following years. This language about NASA safety will help determine if enough funds are being dispersed for safety procedures. In addition, it will allow appropriators to determine from year to year whether there has been an increase or decrease in safety spending. However, more can be done and must be done to assure our brave astronauts that we have done all we can to ensure their safety. Given the great distances that NASA has traveled in terms of progressing from widespread scrutiny and speculation as to whether it operated with a culture of safety, the Jackson-Lee amendment will preserve the transparency and the commitment to safety that will help the families of the brave astronauts who will travel with Discovery feel an added comfort. In the summer of 2003, Columbia accident investigators condemned NASA's safety culture and put as much blame on poor management as the flyaway piece of foam insulation that tore a hole in the shuttle's lift wing at liftoff. The shuttle was destroyed during re-entry on February 1, 2003, killing all seven astronauts aboard. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment that does not affect the functionality of NASA. Rather, it seeks to strike the balance between the need to explore and learn expeditiously and the need to remain deliberate, responsible, and safe in doing so. I ask that my colleagues support this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this Congress has a moral obligation to eradicate poverty; to be able to stand up for those that cannot speak for themselves. Tragically, in the backdrop of an administration who celebrates an economy that is on a track going toward a train wreck, the President's statement about a positive economy came 1 day after disappointing job numbers showed our economy created only 78,000 new jobs. This number is one-half of the 150,000 jobs that must be created each month to keep up with our increasing population. Americans need to work. Americans need to have the opportunity for an income to provide for their families. This tragedy of job creation is the worst since Herbert Hoover. And of course our congressional colleagues believe that we should be excited. Well, my challenge is if poverty is raging in America, we have a moral obligation to those working at Burger King and elsewhere to give them opportunities to move up. Why do we not stop the war in Iraq, invest in America, and eradicate poverty?

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this overall measure, H.R. 2862, which appropriates funds for the Department of Commerce, State, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies in FY 2006. I am encouraged that the overall measure provides $57.8 billion or 2% more than the 2005 level of funding. I am very encouraged by the fact that the Appropriations Committee gives $21.7 billion for Justice Department programs which is 4% more than the current level of funding and 5% more than the administration's request. I also applaud the Committee for providing $334 million for juvenile justice programs which is 44% more than requested by this administration but is still 12% less than the current level. I am disappointed however, that this bill provides only $520 million for the Community Oriented Policing Services--COPS--program which is a startling 13% less than the current level. This total includes $120 million for COPS technology, and $60 million for a new anti-gang initiative. We are sworn to serve the people of this Nation, and I can not see how reducing spending on such a vital community safety program can serve that honorable goal. The Committee denied the president's request for $3.7 billion for a new community development block grant, and instead provided $228 million for the existing Economic Development Administration, and I understand that the administration plans to phase this initiative out. For the first time this Subcommittee's appropriation's bill includes funding for NASA and the National Science Foundation. Until this year, NASA had to compete for funds with veterans and housing programs when it was part of the old VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. Many believe that pairing NASA with the State and Commerce departments has made it much easier to provide increases for the space agency without offending powerful domestic constituencies. As a member of the Science Committee's Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, the provision of $16.5 billion for NASA, or 2% over the current level represents a positive step toward reaching our goals in space technology and exploration. In addition, the NASA total includes $9.7 billion for science, aeronautics and exploration, which amounts to 4% more than the current level and about 1% more than the President's request. In this instance I appreciate that the committee did not agree to the administration's request to cut the Aeronautics Research program by $54 million. This appropriation also provides $5.6 billion for the NSF making it $171 million more than the FY 2005 level and $38 million more than the President's request. This funding provides money for vital research and research equipment that can make the difference between achieving a great discovery and falling short. As well this Appropriation provides funding for education and human resources, which are designed to encourage the entrance of talented students into science and technology careers, to improve the undergraduate science and engineering education environment, to assist in providing all pre-college students with a high level of math and science education, and to extend greater research opportunities, to underrepresented segments of the scientific and engineering communities. I also want to applaud the Appropriations Committee for directing NASA to include in its FY 2007 budget request detailed information on the prior year, current year, and requested funding levels for each program, project or activity, and on all proposed changes being requested. Clearly, the committee was disappointed with the lack of detail provided in NASA's FY 2006 funding request. In this vein I have asked that language be included that would direct NASA to report the amount of money spent in its budget for safety overall as well as for each major program and initiative for its FY 2007 budget request and for all following years. The need for this information is clear, since the Colombia Space Shuttle safety must be our number one priority. Yet, NASA has no exact figures for safety spending either in the overall spending or for each individual program or initiative. This language about NASA safety will help determine if enough funds are being dispersed for safety procedures. In addition, it will allow Appropriators to determine from year to year whether there has been an increase or decrease in safety spending. I have been assured by the majority staff of the Appropriations Committee that they will work to have this language added to the Conference Report. However, my only concern with this portion of the legislation is that NASA Exploration Capabilities were funded at $50.1 less than the President's request. This funding would be provided for the Space Operations Missions Directorate, including the International Space Station, the Space Shuttle program, and Space and Flight Support. The funds for NASA Exploration Capabilities are essential to the President's vision for space exploration. This appropriation comes at a watershed moment for NASA and the future of America's space exploration mission. After the tragic Colombia Space Shuttle accident we had to step back and reassess our space shuttle program. Today, NASA is preparing to return to flight, but safety is still at the forefront of our concerns. The funds being addressed here are applicable to safety as well and we must ensure that everything is done to keep our NASA astronauts from possible harm. I applaud the Subcommittee's prohibition of the funding of measures that implement torture. This is quite important given the recent report by organizations such as Amnesty International and the work that the Democrats of the Committee on the Judiciary have done to bring this issue to light. I wrote a letter to both U.S. Attorney General Gonzales and Secretary Chertoff requesting a full report on the conduct of the detention facilities located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and I hope that the Committee on the Judiciary will hold at least one hearing on this important matter. This measure provides $1 million for eight additional criminal division positions to assist U.S. attorney's offices and to coordinate investigations across judicial districts; and $60 million for a new anti-gang state and local law enforcement grant program. However, it is quite troubling to me that it does not provide any dollars for treatment programs to help these troubled juveniles. As Founder and Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I undoubtedly recognize the need for us to legislate to create protections from the danger and violence produced by gangs. However, before we haphazardly amend the law to add excessive and egregious mandatory minimums and other penalties that apply to groups of people or young groups of people, we just clearly define the acts that we seek to penalize. That is the essence of crafting law that is ``narrowly tailored'' and that does not suffer from over breadth. In addition, this measure provides funding for Byrne Grant applications from state and local law enforcement agencies. Grants to fund state and local anti-drug task forces come from the ``Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs,'' 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, an equipment, and for improved interoperable communications for these first responders. However, with my amendment, I seek to restore the integrity, honesty , evenhandedness, and judiciousness of our law enforcement agencies. Similarly, I will offer an amendment that states the following: No funds made available in this Act shall be used to facilitate the issuance of affirmances by single members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) without an opinion. An affirmance without opinion just says: The Board affirms, without opinion, the result of the decision below. The decision below is, therefore, the final agency determination. See 8 CFR 3.1(e)(4). The reason for this provision in the Regulations is to move apparently meritless cases quickly through the appellate process. I pasted the authorizing regulations to the bottom of this note. Cases coming to the Board that appear to be easy are separated out and sent to the streamlining panel. These cases are then assigned more or less randomly to staff attorneys without directions or supervision. If the staff attorney who reviews the case decides that affirmance without opinion is appropriate, he will print out a firm decision, and then give the file to a single Board member with a cover sheet that will have an explanation for why such disposition is appropriate. The explanations typically are a few lines. My amendment would permit this practice but only with cases that more than one Board member has reviewed and that result in the issuance of an opinion with the affirmance. The proportion of ``affirmances without opinion'' decided by a single Board member had increased from 10% to over 50% of all Board decisions, beginning immediately after the new rules were proposed. At the same time, the proportion of cases that are favorable to the alien decreased. Prior to proposing the ``Procedural Reforms'', one in four cases was decided in favor of the alien. Since then, only one appeal in ten is decided in favor of the alien. Single-member review creates an incentive to rubber stamp immigration judges' decisions. Affirmance without written decision is much faster and easier than writing a decision and creates an incentive (whether conscious or unconscious) for Board members to meet case processing guidelines by affirming removal orders notwithstanding the merits of the appeal. Moreover, intellectual rigor in decision-making may be diminished because Board members no longer need to articulate the basis for their decisions. They need only decide whether they agree with the result ultimately reached by the immigration judge. A panel of three Board members is far more likely to catch an error below than a single Board member. In the immigration context, there is only one administrative hearing before the case reaches the Board. Other administrative agencies that employ single-Member review have several layers of administrative process (i.e., interview, hearing, and reconsideration) prior to reaching the administrative appeals level as well as the option of a later de novo hearing in federal district court and court of appeals review. Single-member review makes it difficult for the Board itself to determine whether its members are making errors. The courts of appeal, when such review is available, similarly lack guidance in reviewing the decisions of the immigration judges and the Board. This issue must be addressed in order to save the federal district court dockets.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me wholeheartedly thank the chairman and the ranking member, and I look forward to working with them if we can find an accommodating place as we move forward. But I thank them very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first of all thank the ranking member for his inquiry and also thank the chairman. I think the time frame was not in agreement, but the issue is so important that I will proceed. Mr. Chairman, my amendment speaks specifically to what I think is the devastating disease of child violence and child abuse. This is a simple amendment. It takes from the $300 million-plus allotment for the Edward Byrne grants a simple $2 million for child abuse training programs for judicial personnel and practitioners. In a hearing in the Judiciary Committee just a week ago, a number of us presented bills trying to fight against sexual predators and those who would abuse children. We have discovered that the number one killer of children is now homicides. Even in the backdrop of this debate, we find a troubling set of circumstances in Aruba where a young 18-year- old still goes missing after celebrating her graduation and, of course, expressing great hope and aspiration for her entry as a freshman into college. The plague on children is rampant. This is a simple way of addressing the need for ensuring that we have practitioners as well as those dealing with judicial personnel and practitioners to be able to help children to recount incidences against them. I have introduced legislation to address the question of child predators as it relates to the DNA, but this particular amendment is important because one of the key aspects of preventing child abuse and child violence, of course, is to make sure that we can make the case, and the case is dependent upon those judicial personnel and practitioners who are sensitive enough to be able to engage a child and to understand. We are always grateful when a child has been recovered, when they survive violence and abuse, but we note by a number of our States that that has not been the case. We have seen these troubling cases all across America, children that have been kidnapped, children that have been raped and killed, the Jane Does and the John Does of little babies who have suffered. Just 24 hours ago there was a story noting the abuse of a 4-month- old, a sexual abuse of a 4-month-old. So the importance of this particular funding is to prevent child violence, prevent child abuse, and to be able to provide additional training for the vast number of practitioners and judges to be sensitive in their work dealing with children. We can do more. I hope that we will pass a number of child predator bills that are making their way through the Committee on the Judiciary and other committees. But, frankly, it is extremely important that we look to making a national statement, we are not going to take it anymore, a national statement in protecting our children and providing them with the kind of legal protection and as well sensitive judges and practitioners who will work with them. This is not in any way affecting this legislation inasmuch as the moneys for the Byrne grant that deal with drug task forces. That certainly has my support, even as the President zeroed it out, but my support with oversight, an amendment that I will offer at a subsequent time. But I ask my colleagues to consider their commitment to preventing child abuse and child violence, providing them with appropriate counsel and sensitive judiciary to understand their needs and to be on the front lines of saying and suggest that this is an important cause for America and making a statement. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank the chairman of this subcommittee and the subcommittee ranking member for their hard work on a hard task. This bill, that includes funding for NASA, the Department of Justice, the Department of State, a number of science programs, the Equal Opportunity Commission, is a tough legislative agenda, but certainly the hard work has been evidenced. I rise today to offer an amendment that would have added $50.1 million to the NASA Exploration Capabilities provision, and to note to my colleagues when I arrived here in this body and was assigned to the Committee on Science, one of the comments I used to make is that science would be the work of the 21st century. Mr. Chairman, I still maintain that, that out of science will come the opportunities for this country to boost its economic engine. The sad part about it is we find ourselves in 2005 having the least number of young people going into math and sciences, the least number of graduates out of chemistry and physics. So the vision of this Congress and the President and the American people coming together and talking about space exploration is so very important. This bill allows for $9 million to be added to this vision, and I think it is crucial that we stay focused, stay consistent, and stay determined and committed. I support the Vision of Space Exploration, because I have seen the results on humankind and what it has done in health care in America. In fact, space exploration has generated research and results on HIV/AIDS treatment, stroke, heart attack, and cancer. It has also had the potential to detect tsunamis, as we saw the tragedy that occurred in the winter of 2004 that saw hundreds of thousands of people lose their lives. Space exploration is real, and it means a lot to America. It is sad to note that America's young people do not find hopes and dreams in the study of science and technology and space exploration. What is known is that they want to see that there is a future, that there is hope, and out of this vision to go to Mars gives us hope. There is nothing more exciting than to see our early astronauts like former Senator John Glenn land or to travel into space, nothing more exciting to be able to note that we can achieve. So my amendment was to provide extra resources so that we could stay steady on the course. I believe, however, it is important to maintain the already existing funding. I expect to offer an amendment to provide greater funding for training legal officers dealing with child abuse under the Violence Against Women Act, or trained legal professionals such as counselors and lawyers. I would like to see more dollars for the Equal Opportunity Commission for the job that they need to do, and certainly I hope that as we look toward the Vision of Space Exploration, we will focus on safety. I want to thank this subcommittee for focusing with language in their legislation on safety and ensuring that those skilled workers who are trained in safety are not let go. I conclude by saying there are a number of good points in this bill, and I want to thank both the chairman and the ranking member for their language on torture to ensure that we do not adhere to that, and I would be offering an amendment to suggest that the terrorism dollars that are in this bill not be used to single out one religion over another. Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will support this legislation, and particularly the appropriations on the space exploration. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support my Amendment which would fund NASA Exploration Capabilities for an additional $50.1 million, with the funds to be taken from the Department of Justice General Administration funds. This funding would restore the President's full request for NASA Exploration Capabilities. This funding would be provided for the Space Operations Missions Directorate, including the International Space Station, the Space Shuttle program, and Space and Flight Support. The funds for NASA Exploration Capabilities are essential to the President's vision for space exploration. This appropriation comes at a watershed moment for NASA and the future of America's space exploration mission. After the tragic Columbia Space Shuttle accident we had to step back and reassess our space shuttle program. Today, NASA is preparing to return to flight, but safety is still at the forefront of our concerns. The funds being addressed here are applicable to safety as well and we must ensure that everything is done to keep our NASA astronauts from possible harm. Under this Amendment, funding for NASA Exploration Capabilities are to be taken from Department of Justice General Administration funds. The reason funds are being taken from this specific department is because they have received a very large increase of 14 percent or $250 million more than they did last year. Clearly, the Appropriations Committee has worked to make this a tight bill without much excessive spending. Most Departments are funding right at the President's request or even below last year's funding level. While I am in favor of many of the funding initiatives at the Department of Justice, I also feel strongly that NASA needs to be fully funded for space exploration. In addition, this Amendment would take money from General Administration funds instead of taking money from any specific program. This Amendment has been scored by the CBO, which has stated that my Amendment does not increase the budgetary authority and in fact decreases the outlays by $9 million. This Amendment is important because it strengthens our Nation in ways that will pay large dividends in the future. NASA exploration missions have taught us so much about our world and it would be a shame if we no longer led the world in this great field. I will withdraw this amendment at this time and work towards keeping NASA from being cut. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of The Patient Navigator, Outreach and Chronic Disease Prevention Act of 2005. As a co-sponsor of the bill last year, I am fully aware of the benefits the bill will provide. Specifically, the bill would establish a 5-year, $25 million demonstration program for patient navigator services through Community Health Centers, National Cancer Institute centers, Indian Health Service centers, and Rural Health Clinics, as well as certain non-profit entities that provide patient navigator services. Further, the goal of a patient navigator is to improve health outcomes by helping patients, particularly in underserved communities, to overcome the barriers they face in getting early screening and appropriate follow-up treatment. Patient navigators are individuals who know the local community and can help patients navigate through the complicated health care system. They help with referrals and follow-up treatment and direct patients to programs and clinical trials that are available to help them get the treatment and care they need to fight cancer and other chronic diseases. In addition, the patient navigator guides patients to health coverage that they may be eligible to receive. They also conduct ongoing outreach to health disparity communities to encourage people to get screenings and early detection services. Racial and ethnic minorities benefit from patient navigators because they ensure that patients will have someone at their sides who understands their language, culture, and barriers to care, helping them get in to see a doctor early and work their way through our complicated health care system to get the coverage and treatment they need to stay healthy. The same applies to those in rural communities who face significant geographic barriers and limited access to care. Again, I strongly support this legislation and I hope my colleagues will do the same.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the meeting between the Prime Minister of Britain and this administration. If one thing has come out of that meeting beyond the need for the $50 billion for the restoration of the continent of Africa, it is that we must act now to stop the bleeding, the bloodshed and the brutality in Darfur and Sudan. This week is the 10th year recognition commemoration of the million that died in Rwanda, and we are reminded that they died because of our nonaction, our inertia, our refusal to accept the fact that people were being brutalized and killed. The U.S. did not act. It is important that military assistance be sent to Sudan now and that the President of Chad be included in this process for the 300,000 refugees that are languishing in Chad without any resources from around the world. The United States must act, the Congress must act. A declaration of genocide has already been declared. Do we want another Rwanda on our hands, more blood, more bloodshed and loss of life? We cannot afford it. The African Union must be sent. We must stop the bloodshed in Sudan and return the people to their land.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today unfortunately with the news that the Rules Committee rejected several major Democratic amendments that could have greatly strengthened the National Defense Authorization Act. It is sad to see that so many relevant and necessary amendments to this Defense Authorization were not ruled in order. Among the most relevant amendment were those submitted by my distinguished colleagues including Mr. Waxman's amendment on government contracting, Mr. Skelton's amendment on women in combat, Mr. Tierney's amendment on the Truman Commission, Mr. Markey's amendment on torture, Mr. Salazar's amendment on Survivors Benefit Plans, Mr. Taylor's amendment on TRICARE, Mr. Marshall's amendment on concurrent receipt and Mr. Spratt's amendment on nonproliferation. It is truly unfortunate that such pertinent amendments were not ruled in order and debated by this entire body. When the amendment process is compromised like it has been here then the legislative process suffers and unfortunately that means our Armed Forces will suffer as a result of this Defense Authorization. I am most outraged by the fact that there will be no consideration of the Taylor amendment on TRICARE for reservists, the Salazar amendment on ending the Military Families Tax, and the Marshall amendment on ending the Disabled Veterans Tax. These amendments are three key provisions in the GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century, which House Democrats unveiled in March. It seems blatant, that the Rules Committee would not allow the full body to consider these vital amendments which could have greatly strengthened this Defense Authorization. My colleague Mr. Taylor's amendment would have provided full TRICARE to all members of the Guard and Reserve and their families. Currently, the Guard and Reserve are covered by TRICARE only when they are mobilized for active duty. Under the Taylor amendment, all members of the Guard and Reserve could buy into TRICARE for an affordable monthly premium. The Taylor amendment was in fact adopted by the Armed Services Committee by a vote of 32 to 30. However, after the mark-up, Chairman Hunter stripped the amendment from the bill based on a violation of the Budget Act, instead of allowing Representative Taylor to make a slight modification to his amendment which would have addressed the violation. It is the slightly modified version that Representative Taylor had sought the Rules Committee to make in order and which the Rules Committee has egregiously rejected for consideration. It is a travesty indeed because this amendment could have done so much good for so many Guardsmen and Reservists. The simple fact is that more than 433,000 of our National Guard and Reserves have been called up over the past two and one-half years. Reserve Components make up almost 50 percent of our forces in Iraq. It is time that we as a body recognize their service to our Nation by providing TRICARE for Reserve Component personnel on a permanent basis. It is disgraceful that this Congress will not demonstrate the level of commitment for its citizen-soldiers that they so richly deserve. I am also greatly disturbed by the fact that there will be no consideration of Mr. Spratt's amendment on nuclear nonproliferation. The amendment offered by Mr. Spratt would have provided an additional $80 million for nuclear nonproliferation activities. These vital activities would have been paid for by a modest decrease to future silo construction of ground-based missile defense. Clearly, this Administration and this Congress would rather waste money on futile missile defense systems that have proven not to work instead of safeguarding against the proliferation of nuclear weapons which pose a threat to our entire Nation and indeed the world. I can not even fathom how so many officials elected by the people can have such misplaced priorities. I can only pray that clearer judgment will prevail one day soon before we have to face the consequences of these misplaced priorities. Mr. Salazar's amendment would have ended the Military Families Tax. Currently, the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) penalizes survivors, mostly widows of those killed as a result of combat. These widows lose their survivor benefits if they receive Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefits because their spouse has died of a service-connected injury. The Salazar amendment would have ended this offset requirement--the Military Families Tax--for the 53,000 spouses who continue to pay this unfair tax, which affects families that have made the greatest sacrifice for our country. Again, I find it disgraceful that this Congress will not have the opportunity to aid those military families that are penalized under the Military Families Tax and who have made the ultimate sacrifice to our Nation. Mr. Marshall's amendment would have completely ended the Disabled Veterans' Tax for about 400,000 military retirees who were left behind under the partial repeal which the GOP-controlled Congress reluctantly enacted in 2003 and would speed up the end of the Disabled Veterans' Tax for the remaining disabled military retirees. For almost two years Democrats have been working to end the Disabled Veterans' Tax, and we have only been partially successful because the Republican leadership has put up roadblock after roadblock to eliminating this most unfair tax. Now, the Republican leadership and the Rules Committee have completed a hat trick of disgrace by rejecting the Marshall amendment for consideration which would have completely ended the Disabled Veterans Tax for all disabled military retirees. I can only hope in the future that such significant legislation as this will involve the debate and full consideration of all necessary and relevant amendments. The men and women of our Armed Forces and indeed the American people as a whole deserve as much.