Jesse Jackson

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Madam Chairman. There is a problem with the amendment that is at the desk.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I wanted to ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) a question if it's appropriate. I wanted to ask the gentleman a question specifically about his amendment and the hold-harmless clause and its impact possibly on Ryan White. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, what the chairman, I believe, and the committee sought to do by adding this language was to create a stop loss that does not prevent cuts, but rather reduces losses to a level that the jurisdiction can absorb in one fiscal year. For example, the San Francisco EMA, which includes San Mateo and Marin Counties, for example, will still receive about a $2.3 million cut. The language caps losses for eligible metropolitan areas like San Francisco at 8.4 percent, misrepresents the 5 percent hold-harmless loss that was agreed to in last year's reauthorization, plus the average loss for all title I jurisdiction, which was 3.4 percent. But I think it is important to note, and then I would be happy to yield if the gentleman would like to respond, here are some of the other jurisdictions that will benefit from the stop loss language which included in the chairman's mark: Hartford, Connecticut, 892,000; New Haven, Connecticut, 712,000; Nassau-Suffolk, New York, 432,000; Puerto Rico, 310,000; Caguas, 286,000; Sacramento, 195,000. And it goes on and on and on. So what we are trying to understand here is how the chairman's language, which seeks to remedy a particular problem, is fundamentally changed by the gentleman's amendment. I would be happy to yield for his response.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, I know my time is just about expired; I know the chairman may have some concluding remarks, but this has been very difficult from the beginning, and the chairman's language in the mark seeks to remedy ongoing problems, and I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentleman from California, but I think it's appropriate to recognize the gentlelady from California because I have struck the last word already. And if she will give me 15 seconds, I would be more than grateful.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Chairman, we agree that this is about people and not about cities, and that's why the committee has an overall increase in the Ryan White funding. San Francisco has more people living, not dying of AIDS, but living AIDS, than any other point in the history of the epidemic. The need is not going down in any of the 11 jurisdictions protected by this language and, therefore, the committee is correct in opposing the Barton amendment.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I want to thank the Chair for the time. Madam Chairman, I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 4033, the Labor-HHS bill. There is no bill that Congress produces on an annual basis that has such a profound impact on everyday people's lives like this bill. I want to congratulate Chairman Obey and the subcommittee staff on the product that is before us today. I also want to thank Ranking Member Walsh and the minority subcommittee staff working with us to produce this bill. I think former Labor-HHS Chairman Ralph Regula said it best when he described this bill as the ``people's bill.'' And I want to commend the gentleman for his statement in support of this product. This might seem obvious, but your view depends on where you stand. From where I stand, I see an America today where the overall unemployment rate is 4.5 percent. For African Americans it's 8.5 percent. The average life expectancy is 77.6 years. For African Americans it is 69.2. Sixty-three percent of white students graduate from college. For African Americans, it's 43 percent. These numbers represent real problems for real people that need real solutions, not tax cuts and amendments to cut 1 percent and .5 percent across the board. This bill is a solution that illustrates how Congress can solve real problems. We've heard from the other side already language like ``wrong,'' ``fiscally and recklessly irresponsible.'' The entire debate about earmarks is to divert our attention away from these very real problems that this bill seeks to solve. Specifically, this bill includes a $43 million nominal increase for Job Corps, projecting the administration's proposal to cut 4,310 student training slots. The administration's request for CDC would have reduced funding for our primary health activities by $159.4 million, cutting childhood immunizations, State and local public health emergency preparedness, and efforts to combat chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease and emerging infection. Madam Chairman, I encourage Members to look at the facts around this bill and to be supportive.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise to ask for unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 989.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from California for offering his amendment and thus for the opportunity to defend an important project to the people of the State of Illinois and the Nation. While the gentleman has served two terms in Congress, he has inadvertently entered in a three-decade-old conversation about expanding aviation capacity in Illinois. And his amendment profoundly impacts 12 years of my work in this body. In fact, the development of a new airport to service the Chicago metropolitan area was first advanced by a well-respected Republican governor, Governor Jim Edgar. Nationally, aviation is growing at roughly 4 percent, but in the Chicago region it's growing at only 2 percent. Because of capacity constraints at our existing facilities, Midway's runways are too short and O'Hare Airport reached operational capacity 10 years ago and is subject to annual review of capping the number of operations at this facility. ALNAC is a local airport commission constituted under Illinois State law and comprised of 21 home-rule municipalities in Cook, Will and Kankakee Counties. ALNAC has created an innovative public-private partnership to design, finance, build and operate a new commercial airport for the Chicago region located near University Park, Illinois. ALNAC is a legitimate airport commission. In fact, the Governor of the State of Illinois in his State of the State address said specifically, ``Congressman Jackson's plan to build the Abraham Lincoln National Airport at Peotone will not compete with O'Hare for needed Federal dollars, meaning the Airport Improvement Program, not small business or financial services problems, but the Airport Improvement Program construction funds. His plan to use private investment is both a welcomed and innovative way to build an airport. I strongly support it, and I hope you do too.'' The Illinois Department of Transportation said that ``ALNAC is a local airport authority that was formed through an intergovernmental agreement between its constituent members comprised of 32 Illinois municipalities located in the Chicago region.'' The Illinois Department of Transportation says that ``ALNAC and its provide partners submitted a comprehensive layout plan to the FAA and to IDOT in July of 2004.'' To give you some of the specific examples of the airport layout plan that we submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration that are presently before the FAA for review are under consideration as we await soon a record of decision. And lastly, the Illinois Attorney General, in her most recent opinion, said that ``ALNAC is a legitimate airport commission that only waits for the governor to lease its land to the State of Illinois or to the commission for the purposes of constructing an airport.'' This grant allows ALNAC to partner with local universities and/or small business development centers to conduct a study on how the region can maximize job creation and retention and ensure minority participation for local residents during all phases of the airport project. Specifically, the study will produce recommendations and guidelines and benchmarks to do the following: assure maximum participation for local female, disadvantaged and minority businesses in airport construction and financing operations; identify regional job training needs and relevant job training programs; develop, grow and improve local small business opportunities. Support all aspects of entrepreneurial activities and monitor progress. The gentleman might ask the question, why now? Many communities in the region have 60 people for every one job. Ford Heights, Illinois, according to Money magazine, is ``one of the poorest communities in America'' and it abuts the airport, and they deserve to participate in the economic boom that this project will bring. The Illinois Department of Transportation is in the process of submitting ALNAC's layout plan to the FAA for final approval. IDOT has said that a record of decision could come as quickly as 6 months. If that's true, now is the time to begin planning for local participation in the financing and the construction of this airport. ALNAC's airport plan, Mr. Chairman, also known as the ``Jackson Plan,'' has been repeatedly endorsed by every major newspaper in Chicago, including the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun Times, the Chicago Daily Defender, the Chicago Daily Southtown. Every major newspaper in the Chicago region, through our very transparent process at the local level, fully appreciates the extent to which for the last 12 years we have invested our time in helping solve the Nation's aviation capacity crisis problem by building a third regional airport. A 30-year conversation and a 12-year conversation for which I have almost been solely responsible for leading here in the Congress of the United States. In fact, I've been called a one-issue guy in the 12 years that I've been in Congress, and it's focused around this issue. I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. I thank the chairman for his consideration of this earmark. I would strongly encourage Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. [From the Chicago Sun-Times] No Need for Greed Since Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.) is mum about his reasons for tacking to a defense appropriations bill an amendment that would give Will County officials a majority stake in running an airport at Peotone and controlling airport contracts, we can only go along with Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.'s view that the move is designed to scare off private investors. If that's indeed the case, then shame on Weller. It's bad enough to be a Johnny-come-lately, but to act as saboteur on a project that could benefit the entire region is simply out of line. When few politicians gave Jackson much of a chance to succeed, he staked his career on building a third airport, even forging partnerships across party lines and finding entrepreneurs willing to do the project. According to Jackson, Will County officials have already been offered five of the nine seats on the commission that would oversee every phase of the airport's development and operation. So what's the problem? Rather than reach a compromise, Weller appears to be turning to political games to give Will County officials something--exactly what hasn't yet been disclosed. But any proposal that would undermine the work done thus far toward building a third airport should be viewed with a great deal of suspicion.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I understand I have the right to close, and I am the only speaker. So I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an extraordinary woman, a resident of the 2nd Congressional District of Illinois, Dr. Josephine Elizabeth Seaton Franklin on her 80th birthday. Dr. Josephine Elizabeth Seaton Franklin was born July 1, 1927, in Cleveland, Ohio. During her long career in education, she obtained a master degree and doctorate degree in education, having taught in Virginia, Michigan and Chicago, IL. She is a founding member and the first president of Theta Rho Omega Chapter, of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. The chapter has given more than $90,000 to scholars, and raises these funds through the Josephine Elizabeth Seaton Franklin Foundation. The foundation provides academic scholarships and funds for community projects. Through her foundation she has worked diligently to cultivate the scholarship program for 44 years. Dr. Franklin is the proud aunt of Maryland Delegate Marvin B. Holmes, Jr. Delegate Holmes was elected to the Maryland State Legislature in 2002 and currently serves on the House Environmental Matters Committee, is the Chair of the Natural Resources Subcommittee and is the Deputy Majority Whip. On her 80th birthday, I join with her community, friends, and family in saluting her for devoting her time and talents to make our country a better place to live. This gracious lady has unselfishly dedicated herself to educational and humanitarian causes. On behalf of a grateful nation, I thank and congratulate Dr. Franklin.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We have just provided $2.863 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq's diplomatic operations and reconstruction. As the gentleman has accurately noted in committee, the funding in this supplemental is tied up due to benchmarks; benchmarks that reflect the will of the American people and the Congress; benchmarks that presumably reflect the President's concurrence, as he signed them into law; benchmarks that can be argued are in the best interest of Iraq in becoming a stable democracy. Furthermore, I believe the gentleman's argument is not valid, as the $2.863 billion we just provided will be available long before this bill comes back from the President's desk signed. Additionally, while I believe we provided sufficient funds for Iraq, I want to point out that the administration should substantially expend the funds that we have provided before Congress provides additional funding for the exact same purposes. Besides, Congress provided an extension of the authority to deobligate and then to reobligate prior-year appropriations to the Iraq Relief Construction Fund, which, as of May 1, 2007, had $3.119 billion in unexpended balances. In the committee, the gentleman raised the issue of visible support, as my last colleague raised in his remarks. I take a little bit of offense to that, because I think that every day our troops, our diplomats and aid workers are in harm's way, we show the greatest levels of support. What's more, none of the funding in the gentleman's amendment would go towards providing a safer environment for our men and women serving in the country of Iraq. We just provided $2.863 billion. So let's take the gentleman's amendment apart for a moment and be clear on what we are considering. This amendment is requesting $140 million in additional funding for democracy, rule of law and governance programs. The supplemental provides $250 million for democracy activities; $67.6 million for civil society, and $57.4 million targeted for development, $125 million in governance programs, and $150 million in rule of law activities. On page 58, line 18, the amendment is requesting $16 million in additional funding for nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, and demining activities. I want to make a couple of points about that. The recently passed supplemental provided $7 million for demining in Iraq. We do not appropriate nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining- related program accounts by country. We appropriate this account by program to allow the administration the flexibility to adjust to emerging priorities and opportunities. This amendment would seek to change that and radically affects how the President performs his duties. Additionally, this bill, and I want to emphasize this, this bill for the first time fully funds the President's request for NADR, something I would note that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle could not claim when they were in the majority. The humanitarian demining account is funded at the President's requested level of $56.5 million. It does not need further funding. On page 63, line 23, of the gentleman's amendment, where he requests an additional $2 million, the amendment is requesting this $2 million for foreign language training of Iraqi Security Forces. To date, we have provided $18 billion in training for the Iraqi Security Forces. $2 million. Where does this figure come from? We have provided $18 billion, and, now the distinguished ranking member seeks an additional $2 million. We have provided sufficient funding. Most of these accounts and numbers are unexpended. The administration should substantially expend those funds we have provided before Congress provides additional funding for the exact same purposes, Mr. Chairman. Lastly, what is more, none of the funding in the gentleman's amendment would go toward providing a safer environment for our men and women serving in the country of Iraq. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for yielding.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairwoman for yielding me the time. The question here is one of unexpended balances. The amendment is requesting an additional $140 million for rule of law democracy-related programs, but the supplemental that is still warm on the President's desk provided $250 million for those democracy activities, and they have not been expended; $67.6 million for civil society and $57.4 million targeted for development for $125 million in governance programs, and they still haven't been expended; $150 million in rule of law activities that have not been expended as we move forward with the surge. So, Mr. Chairman, it is premature to request $140 million additional dollars, page 40, line 26 of the gentleman's amendment, for moneys that have not been expended that the Congress just voted on in this particular bill. The same can be said of the gentleman's request on page 58, line 18, and page 63, line 23, $2 million. We have $18 billion to date appropriated for Iraqi Security Forces. Where does the figure $2 million come from? It comes from nowhere, Mr. Chairman. Support the chairwoman's request to defeat this amendment.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I guess I am asking him to yield really to a question so I can have a better understanding of the gentleman's amendment. Is it the intent of the gentleman's amendment that these funds would somehow not be subject to the benchmarks established in the supplemental bill for funding and future funding in Iraq? Is this around the benchmarks?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, if in fact, I certainly hope the Iraqi Government is able to achieve the benchmarks, but if in fact, for whatever reason, they are unsuccessful in achieving the benchmarks and the Congress of the United States is to recontemplate elements of the supplemental and additional funding for the efforts in Iraq, does this gentleman's amendment appropriate dollars that are not subject to the specific requirements of the benchmarks established in the supplemental? Is this a funding in addition to that funding?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me be clear, we are in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I understand that the gentleman is going to withdraw his amendment, but let me be clear, the various international organizations for which this account is designated and the dues that we pay not only to the U.N. but to other member organizations that our country is a part of, believe me when I tell you, the State Department has made it very clear in each of those organizations that we are in a global war on terror and our contributions to those organizations, part of our mandatory obligations to those organizations for which the gentleman seeks to cut funding, would quite frankly undermine our ability to maintain our own status within those international organizations as we try to direct the global war on terror. The spirit of the gentleman's amendment, some aspects of it are actually covered in the supplemental bill and some aspects of it are obviously covered in our bill, is something that is very difficult to argue against, an additional $20 million for demining activities. Part of this amendment was offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) in his amendment, and it is something in principle that we can support. Sufficient in this bill are the resources to advance democracy activities and demining activities, but by cutting aid to international organizations and contributions, cutting our contribution, our mandatory contribution to those organizations, is something that I believe the chairman and the majority would reject.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Is my understanding correct that the gentleman was going to withdraw his amendment, and now he is not going to withdraw his amendment?

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Then let me make it clear on behalf of the distinguished chairman and the committee that we rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the chairwoman. Well, here we go again, cutting a multilateral account that allows us to hold our head up high in the international community as we organize the international community in the global war on terror in favor of unilateralism. To fight the war on terror, we must be multilateral and not unilateral. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Khalilzad said pay our dues on time and pay it in full. Every time there's a crisis that confronts our country, we run to the U.N., we run to the international community demanding their involvement to help provide security for the American people. Mr. Chairman, reject this amendment.