Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support of H. Con. Res 127, which recognizes the significance of National Caribbean-American Heritage Month.

As a child of Jamaican grandparents, I understand the importance of recognizing the influence Caribbean cultures continues to have on all facets of these United States. Growing up, my grandmother who hails from Jamaica, instilled in me a strong appreciation for her Caribbean values. As a result of my upbringing, I have adopted a strong work ethic and tremendous pride in my heritage. As a parent, I have passed on these same values to my own children, so they will develop a sense of pride in their Caribbean heritage and acknowledge the many roles Caribbean people play in shaping this nation. I whole-heartedly support this resolution that commemorates Caribbean heritage, history, culture and contributions to the United States.

In her 1970 autobiography, Shirley Chislom, the first black woman elected to Congress, credited her success to the education she received while attending school in Barbados. She wrote, ``Years later I would know what an important gift my parents had given me by seeing to it that I had my early education in the strict, traditional, British-style schools of Barbados. If I speak and write easily now, that early education is the main reason.''

This is a nation built by immigrants. From as early as the 17th century there have been individuals from the Caribbean Islands, working here in the United States as indentured servants in the colony of Jamestown, Virginia. They worked in fields picking cotton, tobacco and crops just as the slaves did.

Caribbean immigrants have been contributing to the well-being of American society since its founding. Alexander Hamilton, the First Secretary of the Treasury, was from the Caribbean island of St. Kitts. We count among our famous sons and daughters, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Cicely Tyson, W.E.B. Dubois, James Weldon Johnson, Harry Belafonte and Sidney Poitier to name a few.

H. Con. Res. 127 recognizes the significance of Caribbean people and their descendants in the history and culture of the United States. Our nation would not be what it is today without these significant contributions of the Caribbean people and we should honor these accomplishments with the passing of this legislation. The contributions of Caribbean-Americans are a significant part of the history, progress, and heritage of the United States and play an important role in shaping the ethnic and racial diversity of the United States, which ultimately enriches and strengthens our nation.

By passing this legislation we continue to honor the friendship between the United States and Caribbean countries. We are united by our common values and shared history, and we should celebrate the rich Caribbean Heritage and the many ways in which Caribbean Americans have helped shape this nation.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to pay tribute to the common culture and bonds of friendship that unite the United States and the Caribbean countries.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 535, to commend the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions for their call to action for the nations of our world to work toward peace and mutual understanding. Established in 2003, the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions is comprised of our world's major religions, including Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Shinto, and Taoism. Since its founding, the Congress has promulgated the tenet that religion should not be seen as a divisive limitation within the global community, but rather world religions should be the benchmark and arbiter for resolving ongoing international political conflicts. Accordingly, we turn to our global religious leaders to be the driving force in maintaining peace.

As a Member of Congress from Houston, Texas, my district is one of religious diversity. I represent constituents from all faiths and religious beliefs, and I stand here before you Madam Speaker to say that as a Representative of the 18th District of Texas, I am a humanitarian first and foremost. I believe in celebrating our differences in global theology, and in utilizing these differences as the basis of tolerance as we engage in multilateral interfaith dialogue.

As a Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have worked hard to pass legislation in the foreign affairs arena which speaks to the importance of tolerance and recognizes the need for multilateralism. With respect to Pakistan and Afghanistan, I have worked to pass H.R. 2410 and H.R. 1886 which allocate U.S. support for both Afghanistan and Pakistan respectively. In turn, H.R. 2410 and H.R. 1886 emphasize the necessity of ongoing multilateral engagement with the U.S. in order to forge strong and enduring partnerships with these countries in a united effort to bridge global security disparity.

In his internationally esteemed doctrine on nonviolent protest, Mahatma Gandhi so eloquently stated, ``All faiths constitute a revelation of Truth, but all are imperfect and liable to error. Reverence to other faiths need not blind us to their faults. We must be keenly alive to the defects of our own faith, and must not leave it on that account but try to overcome those defects. Looking at all religions with an equal eye, we would not only not hesitate but would think it our duty to adopt into our faith every acceptable feature of other faiths.'' In deference to Gandhi's wisdom, we must work toward our own ``Revelation of Truth,'' in an international context. Despite the imperfections within every world religion, we must turn to our religious leaders to set the tone for understanding. We must work in concert to engage in interfaith dialogue to maintain peace and security in the world.

H. Res. 535 applauds the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions for regularly holding forums that address the need for religious freedom. Its inclusion of more than 26 nations, such as Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Armenia, South Korea, China, India, and the United States as its representatives is to be commended. The third Congress will be held in Astana, Kazakhstan, July 1-2, 2009, and I would like to recognize Kazakhstan for having been selected by the Secretariat to host the second and third Congress. As we move forward to promote freedom of religion and engage in interfaith dialogue as the foundation to global security, we turn to the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions to guide us in multilateral reform. I urge passage of this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1211, ``Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act.'' I would like to thank my colleague, Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin, for introducing this bill, and providing leadership on this important issue.

In the wake of the recent Democratic Presidential victory, we witnessed an historic time in our electoral system. Now is the time to address the major ongoing disparities that exist for our minority and women. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton once said, ``There cannot be true democracy unless women's voices are heard. There cannot be true democracy unless women are given the opportunity to take responsibility for their own lives. There cannot be true democracy unless all citizens are able to participate fully in the lives of their country.'' And today, there cannot be true democracy unless women receive the same care and treatment in the military as their male counterparts. In addition to the health care reform debate, H.R. 1211 ``Women's Veterans Health Care Improvement Act'' will be an essential piece to the health care reform bill.

As the 111th Congress and 44th President of the United States undergo swift actions to reform our health care system it's important we get reform right! It will be a long-term problem if we don't implement the right kind of change now, which needs to include all Americans of every race, every gender, and in every condition. Without comprehensive reform, our government will have failed to serve our people in a time when the people elected for change.

This legislation will expand and improve health care services available to women veterans, especially those serving in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Women Veterans Health Care Improvement Act requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to: (1) study barriers encountered by women veterans to the provision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) of comprehensive health care; (2) assess all health care services and programs provided by the VA for women veterans; (3) provide graduate education, training and certification for mental health professionals who provide counseling, care, and services to women veterans suffering from sexual trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); and (4) carry out a pilot program of child care for certain women veterans receiving health care from VA facilities.

For 19 out of the past 22 fiscal years, appropriated funds for medical care were not provided to the Department of Veterans Affairs before the commencement of its new fiscal year, causing the Department great challenges in planning and managing care for enrolled veterans.

By providing the access and care for women in the military, we will meet the vital obligation to provide health care to all veterans. Congress must take action in ensuring our veterans who return home sick, injured, or even healthy will receive the quality health care they deserve. As acts in an unprecedented time, I urge my colleagues to set aside the bickering and come together on a united front to ensure all of our citizen's happiness in a quality health care system. Only then can we live out the true meaning of our country, democracy.

Madam Speaker, thank you for letting me stand before you today in order to mourn a great American icon, Farrah Fawcett. She died today, Thursday, June 25, 2009, shortly before 9:30 a.m. after battling cancer. She was 62.

I would also like to express and send my condolences to her family and friends. I know the actress fought a very public battle with cancer and I am proud to say that this beautiful, talented and courageous woman was an American legend, icon and a TEXAN.

Mary Farrah Leni Fawcett was born on Feb. 2, 1947, in Corpus Christi, Texas. Her father, James William Fawcett, was an oil pipefitter who later founded a pipeline construction company and a custodial service. She enrolled at the University of Texas in Austin, where she initially planned to study microbiology but later switched her major to art.

Farrah Fawcett is a true Hollywood success story. Winning a campus beauty contest got her noticed by an agent, who encouraged her to pursue acting. After graduating, she moved to Los Angeles and her healthy style and beauty was immediately noticed. She quickly got roles in various television commercials and also made appearances in some TV series.

Eventually, she came to the attention of the highly successful producer Aaron Spelling, who was impressed by her beauty and vivacious personality which won her a role in the TV series ``Charlie's Angels'' (1976). She played a private investigator who worked for a wealthy and mysterious businessman, along with two other glamorous female detectives. The show immediately became the most popular series on television, earning record ratings and a huge audience. All three actresses became very popular, but Farrah became by far the best known.

She was America's sweetheart, and found herself on every celebrity magazine and pursued by photographers and fans. While she enjoyed the success and got along well with her co-stars (both of whom were also of Southern origin), she found the material lightweight. Also, the long hours she worked were beginning to take a toll on her marriage so the following year, when the show was at its peak, she left to pursue a movie career.

September 2006, Fawcett, who at 59 still maintained a strict regimen of tennis and paddleball, began to feel strangely exhausted. She underwent two weeks of tests and was told the devastating news: She had anal cancer. Farrah fought a long, difficult brave battle against the cancer for three years and we must admire her determination and strength through it all. According to the American Cancer Society, an estimated 5,290 Americans, most of them adults over 35, will be diagnosed with that type of cancer this year, and there will be 710 deaths. She was able to give many people hope for a cure while documenting her own personal battle, so we must continue to search for a cure for this abhorrent disease that is cancer.

I would just like to leave her friends and family and all Americans who have lost a loved one with this poem by Henry Van Dyke:

Gone From My Sight

(By Henry Van Dyke)

I am standing upon the seashore. A ship, at my side, spreads

her white sails to the moving breeze and starts for the

blue ocean. She is an object of beauty and strength.

I stand and watch her until, at length, she hangs like a

speck of white cloud just where the sea and sky come to

mingle with each other.

Then, someone at my side says, ``There, she is gone''

Gone where?

Gone from my sight. That is all. She is just as large in

mast, hull and spar as she was when she left my side.

And, she is just as able to bear her load of living freight

to her destined port.

Her diminished size is in me--not in her.

And, just at the moment when someone says, ``There, she is

gone,'' there are other eyes watching her coming, and

other voices ready to take up the glad shout, ``Here

she comes!''

And that is dying. . .

I would like to thank the gentlelady from California, and I would like to express my recognition that this is heavy lifting.

This is for the courageous and the willing who want to see a new vision. I am well aware of the hard task that our friends on the Rules Committee had, so I am voting for the rule, and I come from the energy capital of the world. We are proud to say that. We have obviously lived in the clothing of the energy of this past century and what continues in the century to come.

But I realize it should be a seamless energy policy. I represent the city of Houston, hardworking Americans. And so it's important as we listen to our friends on the other side of the aisle, this is a challenging time. It is a time for heavy lifting, to be able to look at what happened in the past. We realize that under the Bush administration, the increase in what we pay for gasoline went from 2,000-plus to 4,000-plus. We also realize that in this legislation there is a great effort to ensure that the American people are addressed fairly.

So 40 percent of American households will face almost no cost as a result of this bill. Let's get the facts. We know that the CBO score of the bill that had been utilized by our friends on the other side of the aisle is incorrect because the increase on building our energy resources will wind up being $770 per family. But there are issues that we should continue to be focused on, and, therefore, we should look to ensure that no American who may be displaced for any reason, new technology, is not, in essence, overlooked.

There are millions of dollars for green energy job training in this bill. I am looking to offer amendments that focus on making sure that any dip in job positions will be monitored by the Labor Department and, in fact, that resources be available for all Americans.

But what we are trying to do here is to build a new culture and work with what we have, to build the seamless resources that we have across the country and guide the carbons out of the air and make our quality of life better and at the same time give us a new vision for how we handle the energy needs of our Nation.

And so it is important that we recognize that there is a structure to capture that carbon. There is a response to those who are, in essence, impacted. There are credits that are going to be given.

At the same time, I was concerned about the labeling of different buildings, and we are working on language that would ensure that older buildings won't have to participate in the assessment of whether your building is energy efficient. It will be for new construction.

So we are making our way because, in fact, this is a beginning. We will be working with the Senate. We will be working with the President. We will be working on behalf of the American people.

We have to get started. We have to be innovative. We have to claim the 1.7 million jobs that this bill will create. I think America wants us to do that.

I thank the gentleman very much. As he

knows, we've been working on this because I come from an area that certainly has vested in the energy industry with a number of jobs that are tied, huge numbers of jobs.

To my constituents, we are working on your behalf today. This bill does not discount your jobs or your commitment to this Nation because 1.7 million jobs will be created, $750 per household will occur in savings and $29 billion in consumer savings will occur.

Also, I appreciate the chairman for working with me to ensure that we are investing in small business, guaranteeing that minority- and women- owned businesses will be involved in energy-innovative competition, language and amendments that I got into this legislation.

In addition, we are still working on the question of whether or not our older homes will be impacted negatively. The language in the bill says new construction only. I want to continue to work with the chairman to ensure that we will also have additional protection for older homes. Jobs--we are going to protect jobs.

There is language in the bill that I wish my friends would read because we insist that the Secretary of Labor shall monitor the potential growth of affected and displaced workers, if any, and continue to have the funding that I got in the bill to ensure that they're not left out in the cold. Mr. Chairman, in spite of the good work, there are those who are saying that our breakthroughs in alternative low-carbon technologies will not be fast enough, that we're going to lose petroleum jobs, we're going to lose jobs. I believe we can work through this and we will not lose jobs but gain jobs because of the new technology. However there is still time to work on this issue of the large and small refineries so that can be efficient and operational. Also manufacturing under this bill will only be efficient not extinguished.

I would like to yield to the chairman.

Will you continue to work with me?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 89, which supports the goals and objectives of the Prague Conference on Holocaust Era Assets. From June 26, 2009, through June 30, 2009, the Government of the Czech Republic will host a Conference in Prague of utmost importance, which will focus exclusively on the reparation of Holocaust Era Assets. The Prague Conference will facilitate a review of the 1998 Washington Conference on Holocaust Era Assets, which had participation of 44 nations, 13 nongovernmental organizations, scholars, and Holocaust survivors.

In his internationally recognized and critically acclaimed novel, ``Night,'' Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Weisel so chillingly depicted the Holocaust in the following vivid description:

``Never shall I forget that night, the first night in camp, which has turned my life into one long night, seven times cursed and seven times sealed. Never shall I forget that smoke. Never shall I forget the little faces of the children, whose bodies I saw turned into wreaths

of smoke beneath a silent blue sky. Never shall I forget those flames which consumed my faith forever. Never shall I forget that nocturnal silence which deprived me, for all eternity, of the desire to live. Never shall I forget those moments which murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to dust. Never shall I forget these things, even if I am condemned to live as long as God Himself. Never.''

And never again shall we forget the atrocities that transpired during the Holocaust. As we go forward into the 21st Century, it is our job to make sure that the history of the Holocaust is re-told, so that such crimes against humanity never again recur. It is our job as humanitarians of the world to restore to victims of the Holocaust the private property and real property, chattels and assets which were so wrongfully taken by the nefarious acquisition of the Nazi regime during World War II, and restore to Holocaust Survivors and to their heirs that property which is rightfully theirs.

I sit on the Advisory Board of the Houston Holocaust Museum, and I understand the urgency and necessity expressed by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, when she delivered the keynote address at the Washington Conference on Holocaust Era Assets. Former Secretary Albright articulated the U.S. commitment to Holocaust survivors and urged conference participants to ``chart a course for finishing the job of returning or providing compensation for stolen Holocaust assets to survivors and the families of Holocaust victims.'' The Prague Conference is expected to do just that. The Conference will take stock of issues agreed on at the Washington Conference, including financial assets, bank accounts, insurance issues, and other financial property. United States participation and leadership at the highest level is critically important to ensure a successful outcome of the Prague Conference. The Prague Congress supports further inclusion of Holocaust survivors and their advocates in the Prague Conference planning and proceedings, to provide direct testimony as to the ongoing repercussions of the Holocaust on survivors and the families of survivors.

While it is largely unspoken, many Holocaust survivors lack the means for even the most basic necessities, including proper housing and health care. We have a moral obligation to uphold and defend the plight and dignity of Holocaust survivors and to ensure their well-being. The Prague Conference is a critical forum to effectively address the increasing economic, social, housing, and health care needs of Holocaust survivors in their waning years.

On his visit to the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Israel in July 2008, President Barack Obama stated ``Let our children come here and know this history so they can add their voices to proclaim `never again.' And may we remember those who perished, not only as victims but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed like us and who have become symbols of the human spirit.''

I urge my colleagues to support this important Resolution today, which advocates for an immediate and just restitution or compensation of property illegally confiscated during the last century by Nazi and Communist regimes. I applaud the Government of the Czech Republic for its decision to host the Prague Conference and its unwavering commitment to address outstanding Holocaust-era issues. Furthermore I express strong support for the decision to make the economic, social, housing, and health care needs of Holocaust survivors a major focus of the Prague Conference. Finally, this Resolution urges the countries in Central and Eastern Europe, which have not already done so, to return looted and confiscated properties to their rightful owners or, where restitution is not possible, pay equitable compensation to the rightful owners in accordance with principles of justice and in an expeditious manner that is just, transparent, and fair. I urge passage of H. Con. Res. 89.

The concurrent resolution was agreed to.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. Speaker, I too wish our Nation a very happy birthday. But I rise in sadness to celebrate, but yet mourn, the passing of Michael Jackson, to celebrate a life that was full of artistry. It was, in essence, a joy to many who listened and those who danced.

Michael Jackson loved America. He was truly a story that came from the very dreams that Americans have. Starting in the very bowels of a city called Gary, Indiana, living in a two bedroom bungalow, he rose to the highest pedestals of entertainment and, of course, iconic state.

He was the King of Pop. But he was also a quiet man, a man who, in fact, loved to give back and a humanitarian. For those of us who remember the words of ``We Are the World,'' one of the first conglomerations of bringing people together, to be able to emphasize that we do have a responsibility to others. And then the song, ``The Man in the Mirror,'' we can make a difference.

Born on August 29, 1958, in Gary, Indiana, he was one of the Jackson Five. But more importantly, he was a father. He was someone who would bring a face to America. I intend to introduce a resolution in honor of Michael Jackson because we believe in the good. And he was good. He saw our soldiers. He fought against HIV/AIDS. He wanted to show that he cared. And he did.

It is my pleasure to have hosted Michael Jackson on Capitol Hill in 2004 when he came to stand against AIDS and to fight that devastating disease.

Today I stand and recognize that he truly was a man who loved America.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to remember and honor the memory of the King of Pop, Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson who was a charismatic musician and beloved American musician from a tender age, suffered from cardiac arrest today and died at the age of 50.

Michael Jackson truly was the King of Pop and a true icon that was world renowned. We watched a boy grow into a superstar before our eyes and enjoyed the music he brought to the world. The Jackson 5 were the first act in recorded history to have their first four major label singles (``I Want You Back'', ``ABC'', ``The Love You Save'', and ``I'll Be There'') reach the top of the American charts.

Jackson was born on Aug. 29, 1958, in Gary, Indiana, the seventh of nine children. Five Jackson boys--Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, Marlon and Michael--first performed together at a talent show when Michael was 6. They walked off with first prize and went on to become a best-selling band, The Jackson Five.

Once Michael Jackson went solo we enjoyed such hits as Thriller, Beat It and Billie Jean and of course the legendary moonwalk. ``Thriller'' released in 1982, which became a smash hit yielded seven top-10 singles. The album sold 21 million copies in the United States and at least 27 million worldwide. It was a monumental moment in music history.

Not only an iconic singer and performer, Michael Jackson was a philanthropist and advocate for AIDS awareness and Child Hunger. Jackson co-wrote the charity single ``We Are the World'' with Lionel Richie, which was released worldwide to aid the poor in Africa and the US. He was one of 39 music celebrities who performed on the record. The single became one of the best-selling singles of all time, with nearly 20 million copies sold and millions of dollars donated to famine relief.

I was honored to personally meet with Michael Jackson on Capitol Hill in 2004 and am deeply saddened by his passing. He is survived by his three children, his brothers and

sisters, family, friends and a world full of fans. I will leave you all with a quote from Michael, ``If you enter this world knowing you are loved and you leave this world knowing the same, then everything that happens in between can be dealt with.''

I want to take this time to say to the distinguished Speaker that I have enjoyed working with him and I thank him for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I love America. There is no better country. And I think it is well to express it at the same time of acknowledging the importance of the world family and the respect and dignity that all people around the world deserve.

So as I stand before my colleagues today recognizing that in a few days we will celebrate America's birthday, it reminds me of the uniqueness of this country, that we have the opportunity to agree and disagree but that democracy stands. We have an opportunity to show people what they disbelieve. We have an opportunity to correct what others may have had a chance to misrepresent.

So it is important that we had a vigorous debate today on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. It is important that we respect the differences of our regions, my good friends on the other side of the aisle, Midwesterners, Southwesterners, people from the west coast, the east coast, the southeastern part of the United States, our friends as far away as Hawaii and Alaska.

But it is important to note that there was a value that we were discussing. It was not a value to eliminate jobs, to punish certain regions or certain industries. For having been an oil and gas lawyer for a number of years, having worked in natural gas pipeline companies, I know the value of all of the hard work of those who are in that industry. In fact, it has been my argument that we should have a seamless energy policy that continues to enhance and to work with those who are existing in our energy industry today, but let's make it better.

Mr. Speaker, when the Wright Brothers created that small plane, almost a glider, in the Carolinas, it probably was flown by one person. But as we improved, we began to do jetliners and planes that could fly across the ocean, and we created jobs: pilots, flight attendants, airlines, and all the employees that come with it. So, in essence, even as our technology changes, jobs may change but jobs are created.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act will create some 1.7 million jobs and will unlock billions in industry investment and be a major job creator. And $750 per household will, in fact, be part of the savings that many Americans will see. This doesn't include the new benefits that will come from new technology, reduced pollution, economic growth, or job creation.

I live in Houston. I live in the refinery corridor. So we know what pollution is all about, but we know what jobs are all about. So I believe we can have both.

This is the first step for this bill, Mr. Speaker. It moves to the Senate. And I have told my constituents that you have a guardian against the loss of jobs and that you will see savings, $29 billion in consumer savings. The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy found that energy-efficiency provisions in this bill will save $29 billion. It is important to note as well that we have the opportunity to listen and change.

Let me just share with you some of the work after reading the bill until 5:30 a.m. in the morning on Thursday morning, reading the manager's amendment, which could actually be done, and knowing what is in front of us.

First of all, I discussed and got taken out the impact of building labeling on old buildings, old homes. So the bill was limited to new construction. And we are going to work to ensure that if they do a building-labeling program, as was brought to my attention by the National Realtors, that old buildings, old homes will not be labeled. Your value will not be devalued because of a lack of energy-efficiency efforts in your home. We worked on that because we believe a home is to be cherished.

Then we opened up the opportunities to minority-owned and women-owned businesses, along with small businesses, to ensure that they would be guaranteed the right to be involved in energy-innovative companies. We did that because we were concerned about creating jobs and we know that small businesses do create jobs.

In addition, I was concerned about displacement, temporary displacement, even though some of these jobs, 1.7 million, will come to my community. So we have language that says the Secretary of Labor will monitor the potential growth of impacted and displaced workers to ensure that necessary funding, funding for training, funding for giving people a bridge to go into a new job, will be, in fact, included. We know that there are issues between big refineries and small refineries. Mr. Speaker, it is crucial that those issues be addressed as we make our way through the Senate.

We also know that the energy industry was divided. Some were supporting this legislation. Others were taking a backseat. Now they've come full circle and they believe that this is a time that they should rally to provide information.

Mr. Speaker, as I close, let me just say we are going to work this bill. We're not going to lose jobs. We are going to have an investment of green jobs and we're going to have an investment in our energy industry. And Houston will be fine. Texas will be fine. We will be working together.

I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record how I would have voted because I was unavoidably detained at a 2-hour meeting with the President on the issue of immigration.

I would have voted ``yes'' on the adoption of the McGovern-Jones. I would have voted ``yes'' on the adoption of the McGovern-Sestak. I would have voted ``no'' on the Franks-Cantor. I would have voted ``no'' on the Akin-Forbes amendment. I would have voted ``yes'' on the Holt amendment. I would have voted ``yes'' on the Connolly amendment and ``no'' on the Republican motion to recommit.

I offer my appreciation to the appropriators, Mr. Price and Mr. Rogers, and would ask that as we make our way through this process that we continue to collaborate and work on issues that will move forward the whole issue of security and safety.

Quickly, I would hope that as we move through conference we'd have an opportunity to ensure that the Office of Risk Management is, in fact, the lead office that analyzes the issue of risk, risk-based assessment as it relates to security.

But, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Price, I would like to speak to you specifically about the Transportation Security Authorization bill, which just about a week or so ago was passed with a reemphasis or a new emphasis on the security of surface transportation.

We know that just a few days ago we had an enormous tragedy here in Washington, D.C. That question may have fallen upon the issue of safety, but it could have been an issue of security, an issue dealing with terrorism. And we

know, as it relates to the Department of Transportation safety inspectors for rail, pipeline, and highway, there are over a thousand of them; but as it relates to security, transportation security, a mere 175.

Of course, you know I had an amendment that would have simply moved $4 million in order to ensure that we would have an increase in safety or security inspectors under the Transportation Security Administration pursuant to the legislation that was passed by this House.

I would like to continue to work with the appropriators as this bill moves toward conference and moves toward the Senate. And I would ask the chairman, I would like to yield to him, that we have a focus on the authorizing language that says that we need to do more with respect to security for surface transportation, rail, buses, trains, and other resources, and work with him to ensure that we would have dollars to increase the number of transit security inspectors.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the chairman.

I thank the chairman very much for his continued leadership and the leadership of the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to raise three points, and I'd like to refresh the memory of the chairman. As he well knows, over a period of congressional terms, I brought to his attention the inability of families to publicly acknowledge their loved ones who lost their life in battle coming back from a foreign land as they came into Dover Air Force Base. I want to recognize the fact that this new administration, even though we had a number of legislative initiatives in previous defense authorization bills, have now allowed families to be able to have their loved ones publicly acknowledged as they have come in from losing their life on a foreign field. I think that is an important note, and I hope families of America will recognize that the fallen are respected the moment they hit the soil of the United States.

I also wish to make note of the increased coverage of TRICARE, but I would like to work with the committee as we go forward to expand the number of facilities which our active duty soldiers and others can access. In particular, I would like to see an emphasis on inner-city facilities that would allow or have TRICARE accreditation.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the GAO study that asked for a strategic response to Afghanistan and Iraq. As someone who has persistently or continuously expressed her opposition to the present Iraq war and the status, I want to keep the pressure on that we begin to downsize but, more importantly, that we have a strategy for doing so that we can do it safely. And then as it relates to Afghanistan to make sure that we also have a strategy so that we can ensure that our troops are, in fact, fighting a battle that we can win. We want peace. We want freedom. But we want to make sure that we can bring our troops home.

I thank the chairman for the time and the ranking member, and I appreciate their leadership on this legislation.

Madam Speaker, it is evident by my colleague's remarks that Iran and the dilemma and complexity of its situation has grabbed hold of the hearts and minds of Americans and freedom-loving people around the world.

What struck me was the expression and the tragic incident that caused Neda, who is now known around the world as a symbol of the Iranian movement, to claim democracy in a free election. A 16-year-old who was shot through the heart, who lay bleeding in the street as her father feverishly tried to save her life.

No, Americans are not trying to tell the Iranian people whom they should vote for or whether the election was, in fact, a true election, a fair election. But we as freedom-loving people, who love democracy, who believe in our own country that we should have fair elections, we are standing with them as they petition their government to stand for the right side of the issue, which is to ask for a new election or a recount.

We also ask that lives are preserved and violence ends. We ask that the opposition be allowed to be heard. And we certainly ask for the ending of the interception of cell phones and the Internet where freedom-loving people would like to be able to speak to each other.

No, we are not advocating violence. We're not advocating intrusion. We are only advocating freedom for Iran.

I think it is important for all of us to recognize the solemnity of this day, and I thank the managers and the task force members that I believe worked in that spirit.

As I come from Texas and Houston, I think it is important to note that the judge, as all people may have in America, has his defenders; and he will have an opportunity for those defenders to continue to raise their voice and to continue to emphasize their beliefs. As my colleague from Texas indicated, he had debilitating conditions, and he had faced tragedy. And so that should be recognized.

But I believe what I've come to acknowledge on the floor of the House and, in fact, I am coming to acknowledge is that there is the responsibility constitutionally to follow the law. So article II, section 4, in fact, says that we are to proceed with impeachment specifically if civil officers have engaged in partly or been convicted of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Specifically in count six of the plea agreement, we find language that says that this judge willingly agreed that he had obstructed justice. He admitted to falsely stating to the Special Investigative Committee of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, lying to an official judicial body that the extent of his unwanted sexual contact with person B was one kiss, and that when told by person B his advances were unwelcomed, he then further said they were consensual; and that is to block person A from coming forward or having any veracity or anyone to back up what that person has said. I use A and B because I want to, again, respect that these are more than troubling comments and actions against two women who deserve to have a safe and secure workplace.

Then article III indicates that judges must hold their position and they must, in essence, be persons of good behavior. To create a workplace that does not allow the safety and security of your employee and, in particular, witness A and B, that poses a serious problem. So I am interested in making sure that we track the constitutional roadmap that we are now in and that we are aware of the fact that we can track the constitutional provisions and, in essence, say that this judge is not of good behavior. He now sits incarcerated. He has been convicted of a felony. The felony is obstruction of justice, and he did it knowingly.

I would like a moment to just say that in the proceedings where he had to proceed with his plea, the court specifically said, ``You have the right to persist in the prior plea of not guilty that you have entered in this case. And in that event, the burden is entirely upon this government to prove your guilt''--you don't have to go forward with this--``to a jury's satisfaction with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a very high standard of proof.

``And under the law and the Constitution''--to the judge who was standing there--``you are presumed innocent,'' which means you do not have to prove your innocence or prove anything at all, meaning that the judge was questioned on his plea that involved the obstruction of justice, misrepresenting and denying witness A, who has alleged of his activities with her and person B, that everything was consensual and that person A is not telling the truth. He did not have to proceed.

And so the court says, ``However, if I accept your guilty plea this morning, each of those rights will be denied.''

And after the defendant said, ``Yes, sir,'' the court proceeded and said, ``And knowing that, is it your intent to enter a plea of guilty this morning to this charge?'' The defendant answered, ``Yes, sir.'' That was, in essence, a plea to the felony of obstructing justice.

Sad as it may be, as we proceed to the constitutional procedure of the voting here and then a trial in the Senate, it lays down the framework that we must act. We have no inability to ignore it. We must act. High crimes and misdemeanors, worthy behavior, all of them have been counted by a willing expression of this individual, this judge, that he has committed this offense.

It is crucial that we proceed in moving on the articles of impeachment.

Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the Impeachment Task Force of the House Judiciary Committee, I rise today in support of a recommendation for impeachment of Judge Samuel B. Kent. First and foremost it is necessary to establish the legal authority of Congress to make impeachment determinations. The Constitution clearly places many of the operations of the Judiciary under the oversight of Congress--a power not granted reciprocally to the Judiciary. This is made clear in the Federalist Papers (described by James Madison as ``the most authentic exposition of the heart of the federal Constitution''), which confirm that subjugating the Judiciary to Congress was deliberate and intentional. Federalist #51 declares: ``the legislative authority necessarily predominates.''

Furthermore, Federalist #49 declares that Congress--not the Court--is ``the confidential guardians of [the people's] rights and liberties.'' Why? Because the Legislature--not the unelected judiciary--is closest to the people and most responsive to them. When the Court did claim that it is the only body capable of interpreting the Constitution--that Congress is incapable of determining constitutionality, the Founding Fathers vehemently disagreed. For example, James Madison declared: ``[T]he meaning of the Constitution may as well be ascertained by the Legislative as by the Judicial authority.''

After establishing that the Congress has jurisdiction to preside over impeachment proceedings, it is imperative to outline the legal

standard for impeachment. Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution delineates the standard for removal from office of all civil officers by stating that: ``The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.''

The Constitutional Standard is further buttressed by the intent behind Article II, Section 4. The Founders' intent for impeachment was to protect the fundamental principle of ``the consent of the governed.'' The Constitution carries no title but ``We the People,'' and impeachment removes from office those officials who ignore that standard of adhering to the values of the people--that sexual abuse and pleading to a felony is not good behavior. It is important to note that the Constitution does not guarantee a federal judge his position for life, but only for the duration of ``good behavior'' (Art. III, Sec. 1).

For this reason impeachment was used whenever judges disregarded public interests, affronted the will of the people, or introduced arbitrary power by seizing the role of policy-maker. Previous generations used this tool far more frequently than today's generation; and because the grounds for impeachment were deliberately kept broad, articles of impeachment have described everything from drunkenness and profanity to judicial high-handedness and bribery as reasons for removal from the bench. Historically speaking, sixty-one federal judges or Supreme Court Justices have been investigated for impeachment; of whom thirteen have been impeached and seven convicted. The noted legal scholar from Yale University Professor Charles Black writes in his Impeachment Handbook that, ``In the English practice from which the Framers borrowed the phrase, `High Crimes and Misdemeanors' denoted political offenses, the critical element of which was injury to the state. Impeachment was intended to redress public offenses committed by public officials in violation of the public trust and duties, offenses against the Constitution itself. In short, only `serious assaults on the integrity of the processes of government,' constitute impeachable offenses.''

One of our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, wrote in the Federalist Papers No. 65 that, ``Those [impeachable] offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, [in] other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which . . . relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself.''

As Hamilton makes clear, criminal conduct alone was and is not enough. The conduct also should involve public office. That should be the standard here as we proceed. Given the context of the Constitutional standard for impeachment coupled with the intent of the Framers, the issue at hand is whether Judge Kent's conduct constitutes high Crimes and Misdemeanors, within the framework of the Constitution. On review of the facts, we find that Judge Kent's obstruction of justice charge based on providing testimony to the FBI and the DOJ on the nature and extent of his relationships with his former employees while the Judge was in office, does in fact meet the standard of high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Furthermore, Judge Kent's felony conviction for obstruction of justice raises issues of fitness to the bench. While Judge Kent's felony conviction on its face satisfies the Constitutional standard of impeachment, the numerous allegations of sexual misconduct on behalf of the Judge made by former employees continue to call into question Judge Kent's fitness for Office.

Pursuant to witness testimony the Impeachment Task Force heard from Cathy McBroom, Former Case Manager for Judge Kent, Ms. McBroom recounted over ten episodes of sexual misconduct she experienced while working for Judge Kent. Ms. McBroom noted that Judge Kent's physical presence was imposing at 6'4", 260 pounds, and coupled with his frequent self-references to his power, this made it difficult for her to believe that she would be able to prove the Judge's misconduct and successfully pursue outside employment in the Galveston legal community.

Donna Wilkerson, Judge Kent's former Legal Secretary also testified before the Task Force. Wilkerson stated that during her tenure as Kent's legal secretary, she suffered seven years of psychological abuse and sexual misconduct. Wilkerson noted that each episode of sexual misconduct always took place in the office, and seemed to follow lengthy lunches where the Judge returned to work intoxicated.

While the issue of Judge Kent's possible alcohol dependency and the condition of his mental health may be mitigating factors in this Committee's impeachment determination, the real issue is whether Judge Kent is fit for the position he holds. Accordingly, the conduct of Judge Kent while in office as 5th Circuit Court Judge of Galveston, Texas yields him unfit for office under constitutional standards.

Kent did submit a letter to President Obama and to our Task Force requesting permission for withdrawal from the bench one calendar year from now. Pursuant to Judge Kent's felony charge, it would not be appropriate for him to collect a salary and pension over the course of the next year. Additionally, under the guidelines of Judge Kent's proposal, his withdrawal from office would not go into effect until the day of the withdrawal, which means that Kent's decision to remove himself from office would be revocable at any time up until the final date of withdrawal.

Mr. Speaker, it pains me to take action against a member of the bench from my own state, but the Constitution imposes upon us a duty that we must uphold. As such, on the issue of whether Judge Kent's conduct constitutes high Crimes and Misdemeanors, I believe that all of us should agree that he has. Given our Constitutional duty, I urge my colleagues to support this extremely important and difficult decision of impeachment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to continue to bring attention to Ms. Ling and Ms. Lee, who are being held today by North Korea. I realize that we have had over the years Six-Party Talks and that engagement is important.

I am not advocating war. I am advocating a resolution to the holding of two innocent Americans, one a mother, both renowned journalists, both loved by their family members. I believe it is important for North Korea to be part of the world community and imagine the concerns that would be expressed by anyone holding a North Korean.

I look forward to working as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee with the administration for the best approach and ongoing continuing discussions, discussing nuclear nonproliferation, along with the release of these two hostages. But we must make a statement and act to have the release of Ms. Ling and Ms. Lee, and we must do it now.