[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12139-12146]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                MATTERS NOT YET FINISHED, ISSUES UNDONE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cole). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 
is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have been 
able to celebrate with the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) the 
importance of Asian American and Asian Pacific Month.
  I would like to add some additional points that I think are very 
important on this matter, and just add my thoughts regarding the 
information that we have shared this evening.
  I would like to call this special order, Mr. Speaker, ``Matters Not 
Yet Finished, Issues Undone.''
  I believe it is important to note, as we are facing challenges with 
respect to homeland security, that as we look to protect our Nation it 
is important to find the right kind of balance.
  This morning I was able to join a number of my colleagues at the 
homeland security hearing held in the district of the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter). I thank her for her hospitality. It was a 
very important hearing. As we listened to the residents and Federal 
officials in the northern New York-Canadian area, the theme was, of 
course, that we should be effective and efficient and proficient, but 
also we need to balance the needs of that region as relates to the 
commerce of people and as well goods. So there should always be a 
balance.
  That is why I think it is important to remind this Nation of the 
Japanese internment in the 1940s, done by a President, of course, that 
thought what he was doing was the correct thing. But in many instances 
the Japanese that were interred did not even speak the language, did 
not speak Japanese, may not have had any relationship to Japan, and 
certainly posed no threat to the United States. They lost their jobs, 
their property, their family.
  So as we move through society and as we begin to look at these 
questions, I think it is extremely important that homeland security and 
the securing of this Nation be balanced with civil liberties and the 
refusal and rejection of racial profiling.
  I might also want to add just a note as we are focusing on the Asian 
Pacific Month, it is just to pay tribute for a moment to our former 
colleague, our late colleague, Patsy Mink. We truly miss her. Certainly 
she was the first Asian Pacific woman to be elected to the United 
States Congress and the first minority woman. It is clear that her 
leadership was not a leadership that focused solely on the issues of 
her heritage. She focused on issues of social justice. She is known to 
be the Mother of Title IX, that opened the doors of opportunity for 
women athletes.
  But I think it is very appropriate during this month to again 
compliment all of the Asian Pacific and Asian American elected 
officials throughout the Nation, our two Senators in the United States 
Senate, the many Members of this House of Representatives who serve us 
today. But certainly it would be remiss of all of us if we did not make 
mention of the fact that Patsy Mink served amongst us, and she was a 
dynamic and wonderful representative.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, I believe that as we look at the issues 
confronting us there are many things that are left undone that I would 
like to make note of.
  The first is that I would like to emphasize again a tribute to the 55 
Texans that took it upon themselves to stand and be counted against a 
runaway legislature that wanted to do a number of legislative 
initiatives that were to undermine the representation of these members, 
51 in Ardmore, and four others, a total of 55, a very unique and 
extraordinary procedure that was utilized.
  I think the headline in the Washington Post on Tuesday, May 13, gave 
the right tone. ``GOP plan prompts a Texas exodus. Democrats stall 
State legislature's redistricting vote. Moving with exceptional stealth 
and tactical coordination, more than 50 Democratic State lawmakers in 
Texas packed their bags and quietly slipped out of the State under 
cover of darkness late Sunday and early today.''
  Of course, it is alleged that the officials there dispatched various 
police officers and others to track them down. I do not think they 
reported, however, some of the abuses that occurred during that time; 
the fact that law enforcement, under the direction of State officials, 
went into hospitals, went into the homes of legislators whose children 
were home alone, tracked legislators' cars whose whereabouts were well-
known because they were in Ardmore, simply, I believe, an inappropriate 
use of the legal authority of that State.

[[Page 12140]]

  I would hope that there will be a great study of what occurred with 
these 55. I hope the Nation points sunlight on that political process 
so that the misrepresentation that they absconded or they left in the 
dark of night would not be the accurate characterization of what 
happened.
  What happened was as important as those early settlers who threw, if 
you will, the tea into the Boston Harbor. It was an act of objection, 
defiance, in a democratic manner. It was a nonviolent defiance of a 
governmental process that was oppressive.
  And what was the oppression? The refusal of the legislature to even 
allow amendments by the Democrats on any issues, amendments that would 
deal with the saving of children who had lost their health care, 
amendments dealing with fixing Medicaid, amendments dealing with fixing 
the pension problem with respect to teachers in Texas, amendments 
dealing with the fact that schools were firing teachers. There was 
absolutely no respect of the bipartisan process that Texans had grown 
used to and certainly no respect of the balance between majority and 
minority.
  So the Democrats did not just walk out, Mr. Speaker, on the issue 
dealing with redistricting, though let me share with you the plan that 
was supposed to be a redistricting plan. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, that 
not in 50 years had there been this kind of interim redistricting 
request by any State. So it is unfortunate that we would have the 
majority leader of this body to interfere with the State process on the 
grounds that the State of Texas is a Republican State.
  This is what we would have been subjected to if the redistricting 
plan would have existed.
  First of all, District 25, that is now an existing district in the 
State of Texas, would have been extinguished, moving it some hundreds 
of miles away from its original base. That means an incumbent Member 
would have been totally eliminated. Not that the incumbent Member is 
the question. It is the question of the people having the right to 
select a person of their choosing and for communities of interest to be 
able to be together.
  When I told constituents of the 25th that their district no longer 
existed, and these are individuals of different political persuasions, 
not only were they shocked, but they were outraged that they did not 
have the opportunity to have a hearing in their community to be able to 
address the question.
  Mind you, Mr. Speaker, those of us from Texas wrote letters. The 
legislators there requested of that body, the State House, to allow for 
field hearings to occur. But, lo and behold, they were totally 
rejected. Not rejected as elected officials, but I would like to remind 
Speaker Craddick of the House of Representatives in Austin that he 
denied the people of the State of Texas.
  But this plan would totally move the 18th Congressional District that 
I am now representing, again a district that belongs to the people, 
totally away from its historic communities of interest. It means the 
historic homes of Barbara Jordan and Mickey Leland would no longer be 
in the 18th Congressional District and that historic location in 
Houston, Texas, but would be connected hundreds of miles away to a 
district that would be in Beaumont, Texas, next to Louisiana. So a 
downtown community, downtown Houston, would be connected under this 
plan that the legislators saw fit to leave town on to Beaumont, Texas.
  The real key is the rights of the people, and I believe that the 
rights of the people have been undermined and, maybe in some instances, 
abused. I believe it is important as a member of the Select Committee 
on Homeland Security that we clarify and make sure that in the rush to 
judgment of last week that no Federal resources were utilized.
  So I would like to offer into the Record language from a letter that 
was sent by a number of Members of Congress dated today to request 
formally the audio tapes and transcripts of all conversations or 
transmissions pertaining to any aspect of the alleged attempts to use 
any Federal resources of any type with regard to any member of the 
Texas legislature. This request includes all communications of any type 
to and from employees and consultants, wherever they may be located.
  I would like to offer this into the Record at the appropriate time, 
Mr. Speaker.

                              {time}  2215

  The letter is joined by a letter that was sent last week by myself 
and a number of Members of this body to insist that this was not a 
Federal question. There had been no criminal acts that had been 
perpetrated by the legislators, and their constitutional rights 
protected them from their expression of opposition to the process of 
the Texas legislature, and that no Federal resources or no Federal 
intervention should occur.
  Apparently, we were ignored; and already at that time inquiries were 
made to the Department of Justice to utilize their resources. Also, it 
appears that homeland security resources were used at that time and 
that there were trackings, if you will, of legislators.
  That is an abomination, Mr. Speaker, an outrage. I hope that, out of 
the sense of respect and dignity for this House and the Members of this 
body, an appropriate response will be coming forth from the Homeland 
Security Department. I think it is absolutely a necessity, Mr. Speaker, 
that we engage in doing that immediately. Without that, I think that we 
are barking up a very wrong tree.
  As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am here to discuss issues left unstated and 
matters still to be done. I want to speak to the question of the news 
item of last week, and we do not know how long it will continue. I do 
so because I am a strong believer in the first amendment and the 
freedom of the press. It is certainly imperative and the responsibility 
of the press to be accurate; I do not disagree with that. Many of us 
who serve in elected office have seen many instances that we have 
challenged some of the accuracy of the reportings of the press.
  At the same time, we hold very dear that privilege of the first 
amendment. In fact, the first amendment entitles us to the freedom of 
speech, the freedom of association and movement, and the freedom of 
religion, among others. So this is not a challenge, if you will, to the 
idea that we must protect the first amendment.
  I recall working with a writer a year or two ago on the issue of 
ensuring that she had the right to hold her sources, a very sensitive 
issue. She was so convinced of this that she remained in jail for a 
period of months, almost a year, to protest against the grand jury 
demanding of her her sources. I sided with the privilege that she had 
to protect those sources of her particular articles that she had 
written and books that she was intending to write.
  But this is about The New York Times and Jayson Blair. All of a 
sudden, it grew into a larger issue. Mr. Speaker, Jayson is an African 
American. The whereabouts of Jayson I do not know if anyone knows at 
this point, but I would like to raise as a commentary an article by Bob 
Herbert written in The New York Times. It is seemingly May 19, late 
edition.
  I believe this is an important commentary, because what we saw last 
week was an uproar about Mr. Blair's writings and the mea culpa of The 
New York Times, and the challenging of the editorial staff. I would 
like to support the editorial staff. I cannot support them personally 
in terms of their professional and management style, but certainly I 
believe that all heads should not roll because of an incident with an 
obviously unfortunate individual who has certainly deep and unfortunate 
problems.
  But what began to happen is the trickle-up effect, that they wanted 
to throw the management out with the water. They also wanted to label 
Mr. Blair as a representative or a symbol of affirmative action. So I 
stand here today to take issue with all of the editorials and all of 
the commentary that will probably continue, that Mr. Jayson Blair's 
problems were because he was an African American hired on affirmative 
action and protected by affirmative action.

[[Page 12141]]

  I would like to take from Mr. Herbert's commentary: ``I've seen 
drunks, incompetents and out-and-out lunatics in the newsrooms I've 
passed through over the years. I have seen plagiarizers, fiction 
writers and reporters who felt it was beneath them to show up for work.
  ``I remember a police captain who said of a columnist at the daily 
News, `I didn't mind him making stuff up as long as I looked okay. But 
now he's starting to tick me off.'
  ``I was at NBC when some geniuses decided it was a good idea to 
attach incendiary devices to a few GM pick-up trucks to show the trucks 
had a propensity to burst into flames. That became a scandal that grew 
into a conflagration that took down the entire power structure at NBC 
News.''
  Then he refers to the Jayson Blair scandal: ``For those who have been 
watching nothing but the Food Network for the past weeks, Mr. Blair was 
a Times reporter who resigned after it was learned that his work 
contained fabrications and plagiarized passages on a monumental scale. 
The truth and Jayson Blair inhabited separate universes. If there were 
a blizzard raging, Mr. Blair could tell you with the straightest and 
friendliest of faces that the weather outside was sunny and warm.
  ``Now, this story would be a juicy story under any circumstances. But 
Mr. Blair is black, so there is the additional spice of race, to which 
so many Americans are terminally addicted.
  Listen up: the race issue in this case is as bogus as some of Jayson 
Blair's writing and reporting.'' A great comment and an important 
comment.
  ``The idea that blacks can get away with the journalistic equivalent 
of murder at The Times because they are black is preposterous.
  ``There's a real shortage of black reporters, editors and columnists 
at The Times. But the few who are here are doing fine and serious work 
day in and day out and don't deserve to be stigmatized by people who 
can see them only through the prism of a stereotype.
  ``The problem with American newsrooms is too little diversity, not 
too much. Blacks have always faced discrimination and maddening double 
standards in the newsroom, and they continue to do so. So do women, 
Latinos and many other groups that are not part of the traditional 
newsroom in-crowd''; and I might add, Asian Americans.
  ``So let's be real. Discrimination in the newsroom--in hiring, in the 
quality of assignments and promotions--is a much more pervasive problem 
than Jayson Blair's aberrant behavior. A black reporter told me angrily 
last week, `After hundreds of years in America, we are still on 
probation.'''
  Mr. Speaker, that is why I think this is extremely important. Thank 
you, Mr. Herbert, for your commentary. How striking and how truthful, 
to be able to highlight the fact that what we really have a problem 
with is not enough African Americans on editorial boards and newspapers 
across the Nation, or African Americans behind the camera making 
editorial decisions in the electronic media, whether it be radio or 
television.
  Jayson is not the problem; Mr. Blair is not the problem. We all hope 
and wish for him some sort of recuperative regrouping, and certainly 
whatever penalties will come to him personally. But his downfall at The 
New York Times should not be the downfall of all reporters all over the 
Nation. I would just simply ask my colleagues to make sure that we are 
not pointing to someone who clearly has his own severe problems.
  I believe that we can get past this by working very hard together on 
establishing what should be the right kind of attitude about 
affirmative action. That is, of course, that it brings about the 
opportunity for diversity and it brings about the opportunity for 
improving the access of all Americans to the great workplaces and the 
talents that all of us deserve to see.
  I wish all of those in newsrooms around America the reckoning and the 
respect for all who may be there. Certainly I hope that they will 
encourage diversity and reach out for diversity.
  To all of those who happen to be African American, Hispanic, women, 
Asian American and others who are in the newsroom, they should do the 
right kind of job, stand up and be proud, and reflect upon the 
wonderment of their heritage, so that as readers are reading, they can 
see in actuality a different perspective reflected by their uniqueness, 
their talent, their intellect, and their ability to write.
  Might I also make note of the fact that I am very proud of my young 
son, Jason Lee, who just recently won a writing contest. He is in the 
11th grade. I would encourage all who are involved in training young 
people to encourage them to write. It is one of the most important 
skills that I think we can have, and I would hope that we would do so.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that as we look at these issues, it is important 
as well to continue to look at civil justice and civil rights issues. I 
would like to again focus on a civil rights issue by focusing on the 
predicament of individuals in Tulia, Texas, where tens of individuals 
were locked up on the testimony of an errant police officer.
  Now, I have the greatest respect for law enforcement. We work a lot 
together. I am a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. I want to 
salute much of the law enforcement in the State of Texas and Houston 
that I have had a chance to work with, so I do not broad brush. But I 
know that we have had our share of enormous difficulties and racial 
incidents that law enforcement personnel have, unfortunately, 
contributed to.
  We have a large problem in this country regarding racial profiling, 
and we have yet to pass a serious racial profiling legislative 
initiative in this Congress. We have a problem that we have not passed 
a hate crimes bill, and we have difficulties in getting that bill even 
to be heard in the Committee on the Judiciary. I believe that we have a 
lot of work to do.
  In this instance, in Tulia, Texas, and I want to applaud the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Rangel) for a briefing I joined them in, and as well to applaud 
the Committee on the Judiciary of the House, because we expect to have 
a hearing on this very point in the very near future.
  I will be authoring a resolution to condemn what occurred in Tulia, 
Texas, and that is tens of African Americans not only arrested but 
convicted on bogus drug charges. They were individuals who were 
charged, and they were released after they could document that they 
were not even in the town at the time the incidents occurred. But it 
was so reckless and random, and the justice was so fleeting. In fact, 
there was no justice, because individuals were able to be indicted and 
convicted on the testimony of one law officer, or police person, who 
subsequently was then undermined and shown to be lacking in integrity 
and the truth.
  It is time now to have those who are in prison released immediately. 
Might I applaud Senator John Whitmire for his courage and his 
legislation in the State senate of Texas indicating and requesting and 
demanding that these individuals be released.
  It would be a shame if the legislature that tried to bombard a 
redistricting plan that had no sense and was obviously developed by a 
meat cutter, there would be a tragedy if there could not be some good 
after this incident. That would be to pass Senator Whitmire's 
legislation on unanimous consent. Forgive me if I am suggesting a 
procedural point that is not allowed in the Texas senate.
  But if it is to be considered in that manner, I would encourage my 
friends in Texas to take up Senator Whitmire's bill and to have those 
individuals released. If that is not the case, then what would be the 
best thing to occur? Mr. Governor, Governor Perry, why do you not do 
the right thing and why do you not, by executive order, ask that these 
individuals be pardoned and released from the prison, because it has 
been shown without a doubt that the sentences that they have been 
rendered are sentences that are inappropriate, and that they have been 
convicted on false charges, and that they should be released?

[[Page 12142]]

  It is very important that we do so, and I hope that out of the work 
of Senator Whitmire, out of the hearing we will have in the Committee 
on the Judiciary, I hope that we will find an opportunity, if you will, 
to release these innocent persons.
  I had the opportunity to meet the mother and another individual, I 
believe, that had been impacted, of some of the incarcerated persons. 
What a sad occasion that mothers were celebrating Mother's Day without 
their children. Some mothers had two and three and four children 
arrested, convicted, and jailed. What an outrage.
  Then they found out that the actual basis of this case was on one 
single individual's testimony. That individual, upon further hearing, 
when they were brought to trial on the basis of the lawyers that had 
been retained or chosen to help these individuals that are 
incarcerated, they found that his case was made of nothing but a bag of 
air and a bucket of water with holes in it.
  I think it is time now that we address the inequity. I would say it 
is time we free the Tulia incarcerated persons, free them now. I would 
ask the Governor to do the right thing, the Governor of the State of 
Texas to do the right thing and release these individuals. It is 
outrageous.
  Mr. Speaker, I might say that this has gained a lot of support in the 
State of Texas. This is not an isolated and, if you will, covered-up 
circumstance. It is appropriate for the Governor to act. I would hope 
that he would do the right thing and the respectful thing and allow 
these individuals to go free.
  I want to step aside from civil rights issues for a moment and just 
go into, again, as I said this is a litany of issues that I think is 
very important. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Meek) in his work with Haitians. Preceding him was his mother, 
Congresswoman Carrie Meek.
  I would join him in the resolution that he has filed today in 
celebration of Haitians, Haitian-Americans to acknowledge that there 
are 1.2 million Haitian-Americans in this country, 700,000 in the 
Florida area, and to also celebrate and commemorate with them Flag Day, 
May 18, and to salute the kind of friendship that Haiti has had with 
the United States and apologize to them for not keeping that friendship 
at the level it should be.

                              {time}  2230

  Frankly, I believe that we have done a disservice to our Haitian 
friends by not giving them parity as it relates to immigration laws and 
allowing them to have, because of the oppressive nature and the 
unfortunate economy in Haiti and over the years the oppressive nature 
of the government, we are now trying to work with the present 
government. I am not suggesting that the government is not trying, but 
I am saying that the Haitians live in abject poverty and there is a 
great need to respond to their immigration needs as they seek 
opportunity. Some of them are, if you will, in jeopardy of losing their 
lives because of the political viewpoint they take.
  I would suggest that we look closely at the legislation many of us 
have offered over the sessions, and that is to allow Haitians who flee 
because of political oppression and also abject poverty, where there is 
no opportunity whatsoever for them to survive, I would suggest that we 
look closely at providing them the kind of status that the Cubans 
receive when they are able to reach the shores of the United States of 
America.
  This will of course upset many, but we have always had a disjointed 
immigration policy in the United States, and I think we do ourselves a 
disservice by not understanding that we are not gaining by having an 
immigration policy.
  I have heard my good friend on the floor of the House day after day 
after day, month after month after month. I do not disagree with those 
who believe that we have to find a way to stem the tide of illegal 
immigration. I certainly agree with that. I also agree that we must 
secure our borders, and it certainly would be hypocritical for me to be 
on the Select Committee on Homeland Security and not provide the 
resources of increased border patrol agents, of high technology, with 
the kind of radioactive equipment that can detect illegal goods and 
persons coming across the border. But we have to recognize as well that 
we are surrounded by nations whose economy is in shambles, and people 
look to the United States with great hope and inspiration. And, 
unfortunately, sometimes they have gotten a one-way ticket to death.
  So as I mention the Haitians I think it is important to note that 
that country is in shambles. We are working with it. I hope the 
President of the country will be able to restore democracy and 
governmental procedures and law and order and the economy. That is not 
the case now, and so people seek opportunity. They do not come here 
just to do us harm. And as they do not come here to do us harm, I think 
it is important then that we find a sensible way to have the right kind 
of immigration policy, and some of the policies that my colleagues want 
to project, it just makes simply no sense.
  You will absolutely never close the borders of the United States in 
totality. Why? Because the United States benefits economically from 
trade with Canada and trade with its friends in the southern 
hemisphere.
  Today we were told that the largest amount of trade comes in through 
Canada. So you are not going to be able to just absolutely close our 
borders with no punitive measures coming towards you. It is just 
absolutely not going to happen. So what do we do?
  Well, I have filed legislation called Earned Access to Legalization, 
a bill that saw one million petitioners in the last Congress petition 
so that we could find an intelligent, reasonable, compassionate, 
humanitarian way to deal with individuals who are already here. And 
these are undocumented aliens who are working, owning homes, paying 
taxes, maybe even have bank accounts but are still under what we call 
the radar screen because we are not allowing them to access 
legalization. Their children are not legal. Their extended family is 
not legal. What sense does that make, Mr. Speaker, when we could have 
these individuals documented or give them access to legalization?
  My legislation does not say to bestow citizenship automatically 
without any other procedures in place. It does not say give them 
citizenship if they have a criminal record. What it says, Mr. Speaker, 
that if you have continuously been in the United States from 3 to 5 
years we will allow you to access the process of becoming a citizen. We 
will pull the sheets off of those who are hiding. We will let the 
sunshine come down on those hard-working immigrants who are paying 
taxes and simply want to make good.
  I want to pay tribute to a constituent of mine who owns the 
restaurant Hugo. He was highlighted in the Houston Chronicle. He came 
across the border illegally but yet today owns one of the fastest-
growing restaurants, the most attractive restaurant. He did not come to 
do harm. He pulled himself up by the bootstraps.
  I am sure this is not going to be a welcoming sound to those who may 
be listening. Hugo tried five times to come to the United States, and 
others who helped bring him did as well. And they came illegally, no, 
not to do harm but because they were living in abject poverty, but 
because their family needed the resources, because they were given the 
impression that there was a golden rainbow in the United States of 
America.
  What are we going to do? Turn off all the televisions of those in the 
world who believe we live in a world of democracy, in a Nation that is 
rich and prosperous, and that the people have an opportunity to work? I 
do not believe that we are going to be able to dispel the myth or the 
real story that we live in grandeur here in the United States, so we 
must find a way of balance.
  Hugo should be celebrated for the fact that he did pull himself up by 
his bootstraps, and here he is providing and contributing to the 
economy of the United States, providing jobs to hard-working 
immigrants, people with legal status and working throughout the 
community to be someone who we are very proud of.

[[Page 12143]]

  That is what we need to do in providing a balance with our 
immigration policy: Document those who are here and find a way to 
provide an economic engine in the countries that are to our southern 
border in order to ensure that people who live there have the right 
kind of economy, that they can live in their country in dignity.
  President Vicente Fox had raised this discussion with President Bush, 
of course. It has been dropped like a hot potato, unfortunately. The 
tragedy of 9/11, of which we do not give any disrespect to, it is an 
enormous tragedy, and we are still working to overcome the pain of 
those families. We must now address again this question of immigration. 
We realize that the individuals who perpetrated that horrific tragedy, 
most of them came in on illegal visas. That is not immigration. That is 
a visitor's visa. And so we must tighten the requirements.
  But we must be fair as well as it relates to countries around the 
world and not penalize one group of countries versus another, but we 
must ensure that we restrict and put in place the right kind of 
procedures dealing with those who are seeking visas.
  As I visited Doha, Qatar I was able to sit in, in India I was able to 
sit in on the visa procedures in our embassies, and I must say I see a 
new and different approach, and certainly there are those who are 
turned away.
  As I look at that process I want to turn back to the process of 
illegal immigrants or aliens and I want to say, Mr. Speaker, by putting 
our heads in the sand we will not have a cogent immigration policy that 
addresses the question of the individuals who want to come here and 
seek an opportunity. Might I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we utilize 
these individuals.
  In fact, there are many Members of Congress, and I know our committee 
will be holding a hearing, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims 
will be holding a hearing dealing with the guest worker program. We 
actually create vehicles for individuals to come in temporarily and 
work for industries that could not do without them.
  So why are we trying to come to the floor of the House and bash 
immigrants when we know full well that this economy is churned by those 
who have come to work? What we must ensure, however, is that we do not 
eliminate the work opportunities for the many Americans who are 
unemployed, but we have got to get a handle around our immigration 
policy and make it have some sense.
  For that reason, let me also bring up and raise and suggest that this 
past weekend Texas experienced an enormous tragedy again, Mr. Speaker, 
tied into the immigration issue. Individuals crossing the border, no 
matter what tragedies they have heard of before, what obstacles they 
have to overcome, what frightening experiences they have, they are 
still coming because they view the United States as a place of 
opportunity.
  Well, there are ways of addressing this question; and tragically this 
weekend we saw this past week the deaths of 19 individuals being 
smuggled into the United States, including a father and son who had 
just been abandoned by the son's mother and were coming to the United 
States for a new opportunity, for a fresh look at life, and that 5-
year-old boy died in that heated and horrible and horrific truck in the 
trailer part of the truck where people literally smothered to death, 
where there was no air. A more vicious death one could not expect.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it impacted the Houston area more than we could 
ever imagine. Memorials were held this past Sunday because so many of 
those individuals had relatives that lived in the Houston area. My 
sympathy goes out to them. For those who look in mockery saying that 
this did not have to happen if they had not done it in the first place, 
you can continue to stick your head in the sand, but I can tell you 
this will continue to happen. But we must stamp out the illegal aspect 
of what is going on.
  Mr. Speaker, I am authoring the Anti-Smuggling Prevention Act of 2003 
because I believe that the participants of this terrible and horrific 
crime believed that this was easy money. The truck driver, I believe, 
thought that this was an easy deal. He did not live in the State of 
Texas. I understand it was a possible cash payment of upwards of 
$5,000. He thought that there was going to be no problem, just driving 
some folk over the border and into certain areas up to Houston, Texas, 
but not knowing the dastardly deed that was about to occur. Certainly 
was not a physician, was not a medical professional, was not a 
scientist and did not bother to worry about whether there was air in 
the trailer.
  So who is now counting the dollars? The smuggling ring, and that is 
who we need to stamp out. I believe we need to enhance the penalties, 
not on the issue of death, because we already have penalties that are 
severe if death results. But we need to enhance the penalties just on 
the fact that you involved yourself in smuggling human beings. The fact 
that you are smuggling human beings is so horrific and tragedies can 
occur that you should realize that your jail time is going to be 
painful and long.
  I think also that we should reward informants who actually bring out 
information that will result in a conviction, and the informants should 
be given cash rewards.
  I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that we should look at on a humanitarian 
case-by-case situation for those individuals who are illegal aliens who 
are able to smash the smuggling ring, the big guys, the guys who are 
counting the dollars, they are money laundering, they are smuggling 
human beings, they are smuggling drugs, to smash those smuggling rings 
on a humanitarian basis. I believe it is important that those 
individuals be looked upon to be able to access legalization.
  It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that this was an enormous 
tragedy in Houston, and I want to share just some of the description. 
This is taken from an article out of USA Today on May 19, 2003:
  ``Temperatures in Texas already reach into the 90s and 100s daily. 
That raises the risk enormously for those hiding in 18 wheelers and 
railcars which have replaced panel trucks and vans as a preferred way 
to smuggle larger groups.
  ``A trailer is not a mode of transportation for human being, says 
Xavier Rios, a supervisor agent for the Border Patrol in Harlingen. 
Neither is a train or car.''
  If I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that I mentioned Hugo who now owns a 
restaurant, that is how he first came to the United States, I believe, 
in a railcar.
  Until the week before the 9/11 attacks, President Bush and Mexican 
President Vicente Fox were working on a safer way for Mexicans to 
travel back and forth. I think this should be broadened to all 
immigrants because we are certainly going to face this over and over 
again.
  It is time for a change. I would commend my colleagues to look at the 
Earned Access to Legalization legislation. We can reform, if you will, 
our immigration policy. We need to understand that people are going to 
continue to come no matter how much we go to the floor of the House and 
preach otherwise and speak against the idea of immigration. The only 
way you are going to beat this is to have a rational immigration policy 
that keeps out the terrorists and the guys that want to do bad things 
and the criminals and others but allows a reasonable way to address the 
question of those who are simply begging to come to this country for 
greater opportunity.
  The advocates clearly note that this was a tragedy, and this article 
also says, It is like a big splash of cold water on people's faces when 
they see and hear that a 7-year-old died because he could not get 
enough air and all he wanted to do, says Angela Kelley of the National 
Immigration Forum, but all he wanted to do was to simply be with his 
father and to be able to come to the United States. The victims near 
Victoria reportedly range from a 5-year-old boy to a man in his 90s.
  So this is a question that should be addressed immediately, and I 
have asked the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims

[[Page 12144]]

for us to have an immediate hearing so that we can address this larger 
question and also address the question of truckers who may think that 
this is easy money. I believe we have not done an effective job in 
getting to trucking companies and to truckers and to union halls about 
the tragedies that could occur.

                              {time}  2245

  And I believe also that after providing this outreach and 
informational campaign, that trucking companies which the trucks may 
belong to should lose their license along with the truck driver. This 
is not an attempt to penalize those persons who are simply seeking a 
livelihood. What it is, however, is an attempt to keep them from doing 
things that will harm them or to keep them from taking actions that 
will have them wind up in jail for a very long period of time. We 
failed in educating the public about how dastardly an act smuggling is, 
and I think it is high time to do so.
  So I hope that my colleagues will join me on the Anti-Smuggling 
Prevention Act to toughen prison terms for these violators. And this is 
to do so on a preventive basis, so that if they know they are going to 
be incarcerated for a period of time, if they even think about doing 
smuggling for someone else, if they think about doing their bidding, 
then they will find out they will spend a lot of time in jail. I hope 
that we can begin to save lives.
  This was such an enormous tragedy, Mr. Speaker, that we will probably 
not overcome that for a very long period of time.
  In looking at the world from a different perspective, I think it is 
also important to come home a little bit and to look at what we have to 
do to fulfill the promise that was made to America as relates to the 
Iraqi war. First of all, I think we should just restate the fact that 
the war in Iraq did not solve the problem of terrorism.
  We do need to acknowledge, as we move this week toward commemorating 
and honoring those who lost their lives, that they will be forever 
heroes in our minds, and as well to make note of those who have 
recently lost their lives in Iraq in a recent helicopter crash. We 
mourn their lives and, more importantly, we send our deepest sympathies 
to their families. We will never divide this Nation on the question of 
supporting our troops and honoring them and their families who lost 
loved ones during this period of time. That was an enormous tragedy.
  But we must build on what was represented to be an effort to bring 
democracy to Iraq. I believe that we are not moving in the right 
direction. It is important that we work on the aftermath of Iraq and we 
do so in a way that clearly suggests to the world that the United 
States and Britain are still not trying to go it alone and that we draw 
into the understanding of the importance of rebuilding Iraq a 
collaborative effort.
  We have to be sensitive about a U.N. resolution that only puts the 
names or only focuses on Spain, Britain, and the United States. We have 
to begin to collaborate with our long-standing allies, our European 
allies, allies like India. We have to recognize that it was Doha, 
Qatar, that allowed us to have the central command hosted there. So we 
must work with our other Arab allies, as well, as we seek to rebuild.
  The reason is because we have a larger fight, as evidenced by the 
incidences that occurred in Morocco and Saudi Arabia last week, the 
loss of lives of Americans. We do not know when the next unfortunate 
terrorist act may occur. We do not stand here to promote hysteria, but 
reason and rationale. It is important the President realize we cannot 
go and do this alone. We cannot go it alone as the United States of 
America. It seems that we are attempting to do that.
  We have to be able to draw in the United Nations and our NATO allies, 
and it is important that we begin to establish a stable currency that 
will be tied to not only the U.S. dollar but the Euros and other 
currency; to find an appropriate balance between debt forgiveness and 
debt repayment; to engage the WTO and IMF to ensure an international 
commitment to Iraqi success. But also, as we look to those possible 
support systems, we have to look to the NGOs, the nongovernmental 
organizations around the world, including those smaller ones that may 
be located in Los Angeles; Houston, Texas; New York; Jackson, 
Mississippi; Paris, France; or London, England.
  We must begin to formulate an NGO advisory committee. We know the Red 
Cross is there. The American Red Cross has done an outstanding job. But 
I believe it is important to draw on NGOs from around the world that 
may have a commonality with the people of Iraq, either by way of the 
faith that they are professing or the understanding of their culture, 
and begin to have that coalition work in collaboration to put in 
democratic structures in Iraq.
  We can already see that there is massive disorder, lack of law and 
order; that there is confusion; that systems are not working. And even 
as Ambassador Bremer attempts to work very hard to do so, it is 
important to note that we cannot do it alone. I would encourage the 
work of Ambassador Bremer to be inclusive and to work alongside 
nongovernmental organizations. And, in fact, I am proposing a Marshall 
Plan, alongside the plan that we need to rebuild America. We want to 
make sure that we have a somewhat similar focus that we had after World 
War II, and it worked, and we did so with our allies. I believe that is 
extremely important, and I hope we will pay heed to that.
  Let me say also that I intend this week to denounce, if you will, the 
lack of urgency and speed that the administration has utilized in 
reaching out to small, medium-sized, minority, and women-owned 
businesses in helping to rebuild Iraq. One of the things that I gleaned 
from visiting in Doha, Qatar, is that part of the success of diplomacy 
is relationships, relationships with Members of Congress, relationships 
with members of government, of the administration. We are losing 
relationships in the Arab world, with our Arab allies. I believe to 
ensure that we regain those relationships, it is extremely important 
that we include small, medium- sized, and minority-owned businesses to 
be able to not only do the work in helping to rebuild Iraq but to 
develop relationships with the people in the Arab countries and to 
develop relationships with the people in Iraq.
  It is interesting and confusing, though certainly some of these are 
Texas companies, that we have these major companies, huge 
multiconglomerates, if you will, and large contracts with the 
Department of Defense; and they cannot find the opportunities for other 
sized companies who have the same or equal expertise, just smaller, to 
collaborate with or do joint ventures with. I think the Defense 
Department needs to respond immediately on the processes used to select 
Halliburton and Bechtel; and I believe that these companies should work 
immediately with minority-owned businesses, medium-sized businesses, 
and small businesses.
  I am informed that USAID has about $2.5 billion, and we are looking 
forward to working with USAID in using smaller minority-owned companies 
and women-owned businesses; but the Department of Defense has the 
largest share, and there seems to be some doubt that we can find 
minority, small, and medium-sized and women-owned businesses that can 
collaborate and do the engineering work, the technological work, the 
oil and gas work, the protecting of the oil well. But I am here to tell 
you I am from Texas, and that is not true.
  It is extremely important, and I encourage these small, medium-sized, 
minority-owned, women-owned businesses to begin to seek information 
from the Department of Defense. And those of us who are interested in 
this topic will continue to pursue that closely.
  Let me quickly move, Mr. Speaker, to two very important items that 
have been disturbing me and have been misrepresented, I think, to the 
American public. First, let me say that I have the greatest respect for 
NASA, as a member of the House Committee on Science. The greatest 
respect. And I am honored to have been able to serve on the House 
Committee on Science

[[Page 12145]]

since 1995, and particularly on the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics. I am delighted to serve there with very esteemed 
colleagues, the ranking member of the committee, the chairman of the 
committee, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics, and the chairman. I know, in particular, that the ranking 
member of the subcommittee has been extremely vocal on expressing the 
need for a review by this Congress of Columbia VII.
  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, even though the investigatory body is still 
proceeding, I sense an urgency that they do their job and do it well 
but that the Congress and the House in particular begins to have 
hearings. And let me suggest to you why, as I read to you some very 
disturbing testimony and commentary in an article from the Houston 
Chronicle dated May 17, 2003. And, Mr. Speaker, might I say that we 
have been speaking about the issues of safety now for at least 6 to 8 
years, the question of whether NASA has spent enough money.
  This is not a question of Republicans and Democrats, not a question 
of a Democratic administration or a Republican administration. It is a 
question of me being outraged that time after time in putting the 
question on the record: What about safety? Are we funding safety? Do we 
have enough money for safety? Have we looked at an escape module? Even 
before this terrible tragedy. There are those of us from Texas who 
lived through the Challenger tragedy. I watched the Challenger as it 
exploded, and I know the family members. I know the family members that 
are living through this now. If we do anything to give them homage or 
to pay tribute to their loved ones, it is to insist that NASA begin to 
address through funding needs as well by design a safety program that 
can make this the right kind of program.
  I am an avid supporter of human space flight, Mr. Speaker. An avid 
supporter. And I want to see humans in space and the Shuttle 
reinvigorated, as well as the work we have done, the cargo we have 
taken, the research, the discoveries regarding diabetes, the 
discoveries regarding HIV/AIDS, as well as stroke and heart disease. 
Miracles have occurred. But here is a commentary from Admiral Gehman:
  ``The safety organization sits right beside the person making the 
decision, but behind the safety organization there is nothing there, no 
people, money, engineering, expertise, analysis,'' said Gehman. ``The 
engineers sit right to the other side, but the engineering department 
is not independently funded. The engineers all have to obtain funding 
from the space flight program. So their allegiance is to the program. 
The system is so flawed that even sweeping changes in leadership would 
be ineffective,'' Gehman argued. ``We find the safety organization on 
paper is perfect, but when you bore down a little deeper, you don't 
find anything there,'' he said. ``You will get the same wrong answers 
no matter how many times you convene the boards. It doesn't make any 
difference who the chairman is.''
  Mr. Speaker, this is indicting. Safety is there on paper, but there 
is nothing there? And year after year, no matter what kind of 
administration we had, Mr. Speaker, they kept saying over and over 
again, oh yes, we are funding safety. It's safe. They are well trained.
  Now, I am not here, Mr. Speaker, to call any names or to castigate 
any unfortunate soul who happened to have been part of that launch and 
who will ultimately have to answer to those who will raise the 
questions. I am here, Mr. Speaker, to save lives and to remind my good 
friends at NASA that we have repeatedly questioned you about safety 
factors and you have repeatedly, administrator after administrator, two 
that I have known, said the same thing. How in the world can we do this 
to the brave men and women that we challenge to go into space not for 
themselves but because of us?
  So I am demanding, Mr. Speaker, immediate hearings to be held in the 
United States House of Representatives on the question of safety and 
the potential of an escape module, and I believe it is imperative that 
all of the documents that relate to this issue be presented to this 
body immediately. I think we fail in our job, we abdicate our 
responsibility if we, the Members of the House of Representatives, 
cannot join in having a full hearing on this matter and as well to move 
through the appropriations process and actually put in a mark that has 
the word NASA, and then under it, safety; shuttle, and under it, 
safety, and a line item of funding. This is an abomination and it must 
stop now.
  Let me, Mr. Speaker, mention, if we are talking about money, and to 
sort of come to a reasonable conclusion, that we look at where we are 
and why we have so many difficulties as relates to our funding. And 
that is, of course, the $550 billion tax cut that is now making its way 
through the United States Congress. And of course for those of us who 
vigorously opposed this tax cut, it seems that we are continually 
trying to defend ourselves.

                              {time}  2300

  Let me provide Members with a very simple explanation why I am 
opposed to it: because we have the largest unemployment that we have 
had I believe in the last 2 decades; because I believe Chairman 
Greenspan is hesitant about moving this Nation towards this huge tax 
cut; because the war on terrorism requires us to invest deeply, if you 
will, in homeland security and to promote terrorism as our number one 
issue of trying to thwart.
  So utilizing this money to give the top 1 percent of our population a 
tax cut is not an engine that will boost the economy. Using this $550 
billion to give $40 billion to those making $374,000 is not going to 
gain any number of jobs, nor is the cut in dividends going to infuse 
the economy with any great amount of activity.
  In fact, those corporations say that a dividend tax cut is not going 
to do anything but cause them to escrow their money and those who get a 
tax cut on the dividends I imagine are simply going to put it in their 
savings accounts.
  But out of the $550 billion, the number of jobs you will create are 1 
million. That means it will take $550,000 to create 1 million jobs, so 
one job will cost $550,000. So when you spend $1 million under the 
President's plan, you only get two jobs. If you were to take the plan 
that the Democrats are offering and invest $1 million into 
transportation, for example, you get 13 jobs. If you invested $1 
million into local passenger rail, you get 15 jobs. If you invested it 
into State and local health care programs where States are seeing their 
health budgets implode, Medicaid going down the tube and people being 
thrown off Medicaid every day, 26 jobs would be created.
  If we did it in public education, where in the State of Texas they 
are firing teachers, you would create 28 jobs. And if you invested it 
in fire and police, my good friends in Texas but also all over the 
Nation, the first responders who are still waiting for their homeland 
security money, they would get 27 jobs. Under the President's plan, a 
$550 billion tax cut, the number of jobs that it proposes to create are 
1 million that cost $550,000 per job; and out of a million dollars, out 
of this plan, you only get two jobs per $1 million.
  Down here, and I am saying it again because it is so shocking: 
transportation, 13 jobs; local passenger rail, 15 jobs; State and local 
health care, 26; public education, 28; and, of course, police and fire, 
27.
  Mr. Speaker, we can do better in this Congress. I can show that the 
tax cuts do little for my constituents. Those average tax cuts get 
$136, and those who are the high income get $13,000. I am going to get 
a $136 check for most of my constituents, and a few will get $13,000.
  Mr. Speaker, this has been an attempt to remind this Congress that we 
have come here not to work for ourselves but to work for our 
constituents. There are many grievances that we are facing around the 
Nation; and, unfortunately, these issues have not been solved.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to have this opportunity to 
present these issues, and I hope that my colleagues will continue to 
roll up

[[Page 12146]]

their sleeves and address the grievances of America and realize that we 
have come here to represent all of America and fight for those who 
cannot fight for themselves.

                          ____________________