MONDAY

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Blogs
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• Rep. Lee's official site

• Houston Chronicle article on FEMA

• Article on the Congressional Children's Caucus

E-mail a friend

Tavis: Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, a Democrat of Texas, is the co-sponsor of an amendment that will extend federal housing benefits to thousands of victims of Hurricane Katrina. The House passed legislation earlier this week. She's also a member of key House committees, including Homeland Security, Judiciary and Foreign Affairs, so there are a couple of things I want to ask her about tonight. We're glad that she can join us tonight from Capitol Hill. Congresswoman, as always, nice to have you on the program.

Sheila Jackson Lee: A pleasure to be with you and your viewers.

Tavis: Let me start by asking what with regard to this Katrina amendment extending FEMA vouchers, etc., what about this legislation? First of all, tell me what the legislation was specifically and what about it the Republicans we read were so opposed to?

Lee: Well, the good news is that we have Chairwoman Maxine Waters who heads the subcommittee that addresses the question of housing for all of the country. One of the members on that committee is Congressman Al Green and a number of others, including former Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Mel Watt.

You know that this issue was taken up not only by members of the Congressional Black Caucus, but members of the Democratic Caucus. We made this a high priority. In fact, in 2005 right after this enormous tragedy and then national disaster and, of course, a disaster of leadership, we began to try to reconstruct the lives of people in the Gulf region. This now is the first opportunity to do that.

One, to provide opportunities for public housing, more Section Eight vouchers and to be able to extend the time for voucher spending or voucher utilization for people still in trouble. I, frankly, am frustrated by the debate that was on the floor this afternoon because it was as if memories had faded of people floating in oil and body-infested water, of the huge waves of levy waters that came over the city of New Orleans, the conditions that people in Mississippi are living in.

Frankly, the opposition was that we have spent too much money, that these people were getting handouts as opposed to overdue benefits. Some wanted to have individuals be engaged in community service projects. You know, I would like for them to be engaged in a project of rebuilding the Ninth Ward and I can assure you that many in Houston who now live in Houston would rush home to help rebuild their homes.

There were others who wanted to put more stringent regulations that even exist in current law because they believe that we must in essence chastise or teach lessons to individuals who are still suffering in New Orleans, in Houston, in Salt Lake City, Utah and Los Angeles and New York and other places around the country because they have not been able to return home.

Tavis: With regard specifically, Congresswoman, to public housing, I, and I know you as well, have been to New Orleans many times in fact over the years before this storm hit. Let's be honest about it. Public housing in New Orleans and many other places, for that matter, is nothing to brag about.

In New Orleans, public housing was nothing to brag about before the storm hit, so if the argument of Republicans was "Let's not rebuild the same stuff that was there. Let's find a better way to do it", wouldn't that argument hold some sway with you?

Lee: Well, you know what? Your representation of the argument is both potent and correct, if you will. The argument has been in the past one that I don't typically agree with because I frankly believe that there are conditions that require public housing. Houston, for example, is way under the numbers of units needed for those who actually need public housing.

In this instance, the argument may be that it wasn't good in the past, let's not restart it. However, when you have undamaged public housing and people who are not housed, people who are homeless, people who are moving from place to place in a city like Houston or a city like Atlanta and they could in fact come home and rebuild their lives with untouched public housing units, why are you keeping them out?

Frankly, the United States government is supposed to be the umbrella during rainy days, and this would be an umbrella during a rainy time. If we want to project into the future of how we can better house Americans, then I'm willing to discuss that with you.

But as Chairwoman Maxine Waters said, "If you have under-utilized and non-utilized units and people who are in these units with their belongings still there can come back and either reclaim their goods or live there while we're looking for better housing and it is healthy and safe or we can make it healthy and safe, then why are we allowing the tragedy to continue, families to be broken, minds, if you will, to be destroyed?" Because people are suffering. There are high suicide rates. The elderly are dying. Many of them live in my community. The disabled have no place to go, frankly, because of some [technical difficulty].

Tavis: If I have read and followed this story correctly -- I could be wrong. You're the expert. You sit on the committee. I'm just a lowly talk show host -- but if I've read this correctly, it's my understanding that President Bush does in fact have the authority to repeatedly extend these FEMA vouchers, to extend the same programs that you all were debating earlier this week on the Hill, why is legislation required as opposed to the president just doing it?

Lee: Well, I have in my hands a number of pieces of paper, of letters that many of us have sent over the last two years asking for benefits to be extended, but also asking for the Stafford Act to be waived. That's a simple question that we asked ourselves, a rhetorical question. We couldn't get an answer. In fact, it wasn't answered and it wasn't acted upon.

I must give credit to Director Paulson really at a level not at the level of the presidency, but certainly in the Executive, who was sensitive enough to come to many of our districts and, over a period, would have argued and did argue for an extension by administrative act.

So we've had these periodical extensions, but you know what that's like? That's like taking people to the cliff and having them almost drop and then saying, "Wait. We're giving you one more lifeline." It was getting ridiculous. So frankly, it was important to have this Hurricane Recovery Act legislation to include all of those elements and to do it legislatively.

It has to go to the Senate and the president has to sign it. But it's to say, "Mr. President, this is a unique set of circumstances. Never in the history of this country have you had this long-term evacuation or this human tragedy for this long a period of time. It takes extraordinary efforts and it takes ordinary people to work on extraordinary efforts. We're ordinary members of Congress who have the compassion and the sensitivity to know that people are hurting and they need an administrative fix. They didn't get it. We're giving them a legislative fix."

Tavis: I started this show by referencing the fact or mentioning the fact that this issue has not received media attention this week. I mean, a huge debate on Capitol Hill about whether or not these victims of Katrina were going to have their benefits extended. They're literally up against the wall and all we're talking about this week are the attorneys being fired, etc., etc.

I'll come to that in just a second because you're on the Judiciary committee and I want to get your thoughts on that. But the question right quick is, what's your sense of whether or not the media along with the Congress and the White House has forgotten this story?

Lee: Well, the media, of course, we're grateful to them and, Tavis, let me thank you and a number of those who felt this deeply enough to continue this story. Early on, of course, this has been or was a human interest story. Certainly we viewed the throngs who were at the Civic Center and certainly at the Superdome. We viewed, of course, the buses going into Houston and others going into other cities, so we had media attention for a period of time.

But when the lights become dim, if you will, and it allows I must say elected persons -- in this instance, it happens to be much in the minority party -- to then feel comfortable enough to charge people with laziness or charge that people need to be doing community service or that we've given enough money to the region, then you know that there needs to be greater media attention to be able to show the lack of sensitivity that is occurring, which had occurred in the debate that was happening on the floor of the House.

Tavis: I got a quick minute here and there are two issues I want to get to right quick because you sit on two other very powerful committees. In no particular order, first you're on the Judiciary committee. Your thoughts right quick on what's going to happen with this constitutional showdown on who's going to testify and what they're going to say and under what conditions they're going to testify with regard to these attorneys being fired.

Lee: You know, I respect executive privilege. I happen to be a student and an advocate for the separation of the three branches of government and the respect of the three branches of government. Frankly, Tavis, I think we need to move forward. It was interesting that, when executive privilege was asserted by then President William Jefferson Clinton, it was, of course, ignored and somewhat ridiculed.

Here is the issue. It is the respect that the president as any boss has a right to hire and fire. The question that we are asking and the Senate is asking is the question of the abuse of power, whether for political reasons, perfectly legitimate individuals who were doing their job, for reasons that they didn't prosecute Democrats, for reasons that they didn't answer the call of an elected official to do A or B, that they were in essence terminated, fired.

The U.S. Attorneys came forward to us and traditionally these are individuals that accept their appointment and accept their, if you will, termination or accept the request for their resignation. But I believe that the showdown may be a compromise and we'll look at that, but the showdown is not partisan.

It is to do the oversight the American people have asked of us to ensure that those who get in power know that they are not dictators and cannot violate the Constitution and breach, which is a separation of the branches of government, here legislation, executive, and more importantly, that indicates that the judicial system, the legal system, must be a just and fair system.

Tavis: And finally right quick, to your legislation with regard to the Iraq War and funding where deployment is concerned or cutting off funding for deployment, quite frankly.

Lee: My legislation, very quickly, says this. I frankly believe that the angst or the crux of our problems is that we have continued to give the president of the United States authority under the Resolution in 2002 which gave him what I call limited authority to go forward with military force if we could not find, or if he believed that we needed to do so in order to protect us against, weapons of mass destruction.

The key element of my legislation which will cover all these aspects that you've asked is, one, to congratulate the military and say that all the benchmarks that we sent you there to do, you've done. Now we want to terminate -- terminate -- the authority of the president to be engaged in war. That will answer all the questions.

Not repeal, but terminate. Terminate the Resolution of 2002 which means that, if he wants to do any more in Iraq, Iran and anywhere else, he would have to come back to the United States Congress for a full debate on his request. That has not been done. I would like to see that being done.

Obviously, in this recent debate that we've had, we're in the crosshairs of a decision to be able to bring our troops home, finding the best way and, hopefully, we've made that decision to do it in the best way. But we still have opportunities to go forward. My resolution is one that would go forward, which is to terminate the authority of the president to even be in Iraq, and that means it would help to work toward bringing our soldiers home.

Tavis: Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, Democrat from Texas, it's always nice to have you on. Thanks for your insight.

Lee: Thank you so very much for having me.