Barbara Lee

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, February 8, 2006, due to urgent personal matters I missed roll call votes nos. 5, 6, and 7. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H. Res. 670, H. Res. 657, and the Rangel motion to instruct on H.R. 4297.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is with a deep sense of sadness yet gratitude that I rise to pay tribute to the late Coretta Scott King, and offer my sincerest condolences and prayers to her family and friends. Today, we mourn the loss of an incredible woman--an American legacy. She joined her husband, the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on the frontlines of the civil rights movement and made it her life's work to ensure that the civil rights and non-violent struggle for justice and peace continued. You see Mrs. King's marathon for justice and peace transcended race, gender and national boundaries. Mrs. King was an example to us all; I remember her leadership in fighting to end apartheid in South Africa, and her determination to connect the dots of how social injustice affects us all. As a congressional staffer to my predecessor Congressman Ronald V. Dellums, I remember well the 15-year legislative battle led by Congressman Conyers to create a national holiday honoring Dr. King. It took a grassroots, national movement, and Mrs. King's tireless advocacy to finally have this legislation signed into law. That is when I first met this brilliant, beautiful woman. Mrs. King was a role model for many women, including myself. On several occasions, she reached out to me to offer her counsel, support and love. I'll always remember her words support and comfort during some challenging times for me. She hugged me, told me to stay the course and that would be what Martin would want. Several years ago, I was invited to keynote the MLK March and Rally in Atlanta on Dr. King's birthday. Again, Mrs. King encouraged me to remember Martin in his quest for peace through non-violence as part of my work as a Member of Congress. I will deeply miss this great woman. As the head of the first family of the civil rights movement, Mrs. King always handled everything with a distinct style and grace. As a single-parent to their four children--Yolanda, Martin III, Dexter and Bernice, she raised and educated her children while keeping Dr. King's dream alive. What a woman. Mrs. King stood tall when many would have been overwhelmed. Imagine how she coped with her husband being arrested, beaten and stabbed, her home being bombed, her phone ringing with hate calls at all times of the day and night. Imagine how she felt isolated and hunted by the very ones who swore to protect her family. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read an excerpt from Mrs. King's autobiography, My Life with Martin Luther King, Jr., just to give you a glimpse of how the King family persevered despite being under constant attack--by segregationists, by pro-war radicals, and even by her own government. She wrote: ``. . . By 1965 we were sure that the FBI was tapping lines and was treating the Movement as if it were an alien enemy. We accepted that as part of the evil and injustice that come with leadership which challenges the status quo. We knew we did not deserve that treatment from our government. . . . We believed in our vows; we never became embittered or disillusioned; we held on to our faith. . . . We were not intimidated; we just realized that it was too much to try to take on an organization like that while maintaining our struggle for civil rights. How much farther we still had to go!'' Mrs. King endured warrantless domestic spying. In Northern California, many continue to look to Coretta Scott King as a beacon of dignity in the face of adversity. We are a cultural and ethnic mosaic and continue to strive to realize the goals of the Kings' dream--peace, equality, and freedom. Today as we pay tribute to Mrs. King's legacy, we must never forget her sacrifices and contributions to protect the liberties and rights that so many of us take for granted. And we need to recommit ourselves to the goals and ideals that she envisioned and embodied. Wars and rumors of wars permeate our existence. Many of our young people see violence as an option to solve their problems. Mrs. King's life was about non-violence, and those who mourn her loss should embrace her ideals of peace and non-violence. It is in times like these that we must recall the legacy of Mrs. King embodied in places like Oakland's Martin Luther King, Jr. Freedom Center which brings together our community to develop peaceful, nonviolent solutions to the challenges we all continue to face. My thoughts and prayers are with the King family this evening as we honor and celebrate the life of this great woman. Let us ensure that the flame of nonviolence and peace burns in her memory.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership and say to him what an honor it is to serve with him. Mr. Conyers is truly an icon and someone for us all to follow. It is with a deep sense of gratitude and yet a deep sense of sadness that I rise tonight to pay tribute to the late Coretta Scott King and offer my sincerest condolences and prayers to her family and friends. Today we mourn the loss of an incredible woman, an American legacy. She joined her husband, the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on the front lines of the civil rights movement and made it her life's work to ensure that civil rights, a nonviolent struggle for justice, continued. You see, Mrs. King's marathon for justice and yes, for peace, transcended race, gender and national boundaries. Mrs. King was really an example for us all of us. I remember her leadership in fighting to end apartheid in South Africa and her determination to connect all of the dots of how social injustices affect us all. As a congressional staffer to my predecessor Congressman Dellums, I remember the 15-year legislative battle, led by the great Congressman Mr. John Conyers to create a national holiday honoring Dr. King, but it took a grassroots national movement and Mrs. King's tireless advocacy to finally have this legislation enacted into law. That is when I first met this brilliant, beautiful woman. Mrs. King was a role model for many women, including myself. On several occasions she reached out to me to offer her counsel, support and love. I will always remember her words of support and her comfort during some very challenging times for me. She hugged me, and would always tell me to stay the course, and she would say that is what Martin would want. Several years ago I was invited to keynote the Martin Luther march and rally in Atlanta on Dr. King's birthday. Again, she encouraged me to remember Martin and his quest for peace through nonviolence as part of my work as a Member of Congress. I will deeply miss this great woman. Mrs. King stood tall when many would have been overwhelmed. Imagine how she coped when her husband was arrested, beaten and wiretapped. She was an amazing woman, and we are going to miss her. Mr. Speaker, my thoughts and prayers are with the King family this evening as we honor and as we celebrate the life of this great woman. Let us ensure that the flame of nonviolence and peace burns in her memory. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Conyers for making sure that we have the opportunity to reflect on this great woman tonight.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in total opposition to the extension of this unpatriotic act. The NSA's warrantless domestic spying scandal has shown how this President has a tendency to overstep the rule of law. Expanding the administration's powers, in light of these recent developments, may even be unnecessary. That said, we should be repealing these undemocratic provisions, not continuing to expand government's reach into the private lives of the American people. Since 2001, the PATRIOT Act has been used more than 150 times to secretly search private homes, and nearly 90 percent of those cases had nothing to do with terrorism. Americans have rejected provisions in this legislation like sneak- and-peek searches, national security letters, and roving John Doe wiretaps. And Americans have rejected unwarranted searches of private residences, libraries, businesses, and medical records. I don't know how much clearer we need to be. All the administration's word games and sugar-coating will do nothing to change the fact that we can protect our nation and protect civil liberties at the same time. The PATRIOT Act fails to do so. Vote ``no'' on this extension, and keep our civil liberties and our civil rights off the chopping board.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor The Links, Inc. Oakland Bay Area Chapter on the occasion of its 55th year of service to our community. The Links, Inc. was founded in 1946 by Sarah Scott and Margaret Hawkins of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who envisioned an organization of African American women ``linking together in a chain'' to improve the quality of life in their community. Today, that vision has been realized, with The Links, Inc. being comprised of 296 chapters and more than 10,000 women as its members. The Links, Inc. is located in 39 U.S. States, as well as in the Bahamas and in Germany. The Oakland Bay Area chapter of The Links, Inc. was founded in September 1950 when eighteen inspired women saw a need in our community and joined together to make a positive difference. Currently, there are more than fifty dedicated women who are members of this chapter which, since its founding, has worked continuously to support charitable organizations and community groups. Each year, often times on the occasion of its Annual Cotillion, the Oakland Bay Area Chapter of The Links, Inc. presents philanthropic grants to a number of community and public organizations, particularly those that focus on youth & family development, community health, social justice, education, and the arts. This year will mark the Oakland Bay Area Chapter of The Links, Inc.'s 50th Annual Cotillion. These events feature not only the community services of The Links and other organizations, but also the selection of each year's Debutantes. These young women are selected based on excellence in academics and extracurricular activities, as well as for a strong commitment to serving their community. The list of Debutantes who will be featured at the Oakland Bay Area Chapter of The Links, Inc.'s 2005 Cotillion include: Ashley Burns, Ebony Campbell, Jessica Charles, Mickala Cheadle, Kimberly Clincy, Raphael Cobb, Robyn Cross, Kristen Davis, Vanessa Domenichelli, Dominique Drakeford, Joya Dupre, Morgan Frazier, Laura Green, Ashley Greene, Jazmyn Hammons, Victoria Harrell, Britney Jaymes Harrison, Jenevieve Harrison-Toney, Yasmine Hassan, Alehxa Jones, Jamela Joseph, Danielle Oliva, Brittany Pakeman, Jessica Pugh, Lauren Savage, Ashley Sewell, Ashley Shaw, Kaitlyn Sheehan, Jade Smith-Williams, Allison Greer Tillman, Mareesa Allyse Valentine, Erika Walker, Tierra Williams, and Erica Williams. On Saturday, December 17, 2005, the Oakland Bay Area Links 50th Annual Cotillion will be held in San Francisco, California. On behalf of the California's 9th U.S. Congressional District, I congratulate tonight's Debutantes, and I salute past and present Oakland Links members for their many years of invaluable service to our community.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Pacific Gas & Electric PG&E, Company's Black Employees' Association on the occasion of its 25th year of service to our community. The PG&E Black Employees' Association, BEA, was founded in 1980 by a group of African American PG&E employees who wanted to enhance the social and intellectual exchange of ideas among the growing number of African American employees at the company. Over the past 25 years, this exchange has resulted not only in networking, collaboration and workplace adjustment opportunities for African American employees, but has also been integral to PG&E's outreach efforts to the African American Community and our community at large. The primary focus of PG&E's outreach efforts in this regard has been on providing educational opportunity, namely in the form of college scholarships. Since its founding, BEA has awarded upwards of $700,000 in college scholarships, with the majority of those funds coming directly from BEA member contributions. In addition to the significant contributions it makes to nationwide educational funds, BEA reaches out to young people and members of our community in a variety of other ways. In addition to its consistent support of the National Society of Black Engineers, the Black Employees Associations of Northern California, the Museum of African Diaspora and numerous diversity awareness efforts within PG&E, BEA provides mentoring and job shadowing opportunities to young people seeking career guidance. Furthermore, BEA sponsors regular events which address issues related to retirement, financial management and other forms of career management for current employees. In addition to its efforts in the areas of education and professional development, BEA is known for its charitable involvement with a number of local community organizations, as well as its members' regular volunteer efforts. Recently BEA awarded $25,000 to five community based organizations through its partnership with PG&E and other groups, and has also awarded funds to local hospitals and community service organizations. BEA is a regular participant in events and fundraisers at local K-12 schools and projects, such the Beacon Project and E. Morris Cox Elementary School in Oakland. BEA members also volunteer regularly for major health initiatives such as the AIDS Walk, Juvenile Diabetes Fund, the Breast Cancer Awareness Campaign, and many other community building efforts. This year marks the PG&E Black Employees' Association's 25th Anniversary. On behalf of the California's 9th U.S. Congressional District, I salute all BEA for their many years of invaluable service to the African American community and to the community at large. I congratulate BEA on this very special occasion, and thank its members for their invaluable contributions to California's 9th Congressional District and to our country.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong opposition to this $453 billion defense appropriations conference report. As the proud daughter of a veteran of two wars, I believe that our nation is best defended by funding priorities that truly make our nation and world safer. But what does it say about our priorities when Congress puts another $50 billion downpayment for the Bush administration's unnecessary war in Iraq? This is outrageous particularly when the administration has failed to articulate a clear strategy for bringing our troops home or conduct any oversight on the war or demand accountability for funds spent to date. And the Bush administration is set to come back for another $100 billion war supplemental in January. Where does it end? The main purpose of this funding bill is to provide for our national defense. Yet in the same way that the war in Iraq has made us less safe, the funding priorities in this bill are for weapons systems and military contractors, and billions of additional funds are unaccounted for in waste, fraud, and abuse. This only undermines our national interest. But what's even worse, Mr. Speaker, is not only does this bill fail to address our security priorities, with the inclusion of provisions to open the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to commercial drilling, it's also a prime example of how the Republican majority pays off its generous campaign contributors in the energy industry. Mr. Speaker, we must get our funding priorities right. It's incredible to me that we are provoking unnecessary wars and pursuing outdated defense paradigms while at the same time we are sacrificing the funding needs for our critical efforts here in America like housing, healthcare, and education and our environment. That's why, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, on December 14, 2005, the House voted on H. Res. 575, a resolution stating that Hamas should not be permitted to participate in Palestinian elections. I voted ``no'' because this resolution is based on a faulty premise; that democracies should limit who participates in elections. First, I want to be clear: I unequivocally denounce and condemn any and all terrorist acts, whether committed by Hamas or any other terrorist group. I believe that the United States should do everything within its power to strengthen President Abbas's ability to establish and ensure respect for the rule of law, to demand that all individuals renounce violence, and to successfully disarm all militant groups. Participation of Hamas in elections and integration of Hamas into mainstream Palestinian politics is a risky strategy. However, demanding that President Abbas exclude Hamas from participation--and threatening consequences if he does not meet this demand--also involves risks, including undermining the nascent Palestinian democracy and sparking more bloodshed and possibly even civil war. There is no question that Hamas can and must be disarmed. However, I do not believe the best way to achieve this is necessarily through ultimatums. I believe that the administration and Congress should be working with President Abbas to strengthen his authority, bolster moderates, and ensure that his own strategy for taking on militants-- from Hamas and from other parties, including his own Fatah--succeeds. Our shared vision is for a stable and democratic Palestinian state where views are expressed through legitimate political channels rather than violence--a state where there is, as President Abbas has repeatedly stated, one authority and one gun. Our goal must be to find ways to make this happen. As the former military governor of the West Bank and Israeli Deputy Defense Minister, Ephraim Sneh, wrote in the Washington Post on October 19, 2005: ``Attempts to postpone the elections yet again, or to prevent Hamas's participation, or Israeli disruption of the elections as `punishment' for the participation of Hamas, will strengthen Hamas in the Palestinian street instead of weakening it. The short time left before the elections must be used to empower all who oppose Hamas, first and foremost the supporters of the elected Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas.'' Mr. Speaker, I am committed to doing all we can to support the fragile peace in the Mideast. Sabre-rattling resolutions like this are only counterproductive.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. I congratulate the Iraqis for their election. It is time to bring our troops home with no permanent bases in Iraq.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report and thank Mr. Obey, Ranking Member of Approps Committee, for the time. This morning I greeted hundreds of faith leaders on the steps of the Cannon building. They gathered from across the country to march together and pray together and to deliver a message to Congress. Their message was simple: the budget is a moral document and we have a moral obligation to ensure its priorities reflect our values. Mr. Speaker, I have to ask why aren't we listening to them? Who better than faith leaders, who serve on the front lines, who feed the hungry, who clothe the naked, who house the homeless, to tell Congress about the impact of this immoral budget on our families and our communities? They recognize that the priorities reflected in our budget are not a partisan issue, but an issue of who we are as a Nation, and what our values are. We know that the Republican budget cuts and this conference report, which is a critical part of their budget, is nothing more than an assault on the least among us--and it does not reflect our values. That is why I encourage my colleagues to vote with their values and let's defeat this bill just like we did a month ago. Don't tell me we can't do better.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and for his leadership and for making sure that we in this entire country understand what this so-called immigration reform bill is really about. I rise in strong opposition to this bill. At best, this legislation is unbalanced; it is harsh, and it is unfair. Quite frankly, I think it is very un-American. It criminalizes millions of hardworking people simply for being undocumented. It would turn local law enforcement into deputies of the border patrol, and innocent people will be needlessly scrutinized and jailed. I can only imagine how this irresponsible provision will affect racial profiling of Hispanics and other minorities. This bill also ignores due process and would expand the government's ability to keep noncitizens locked up behind bars if they cannot be deported to their native countries. Jailed immigrants will lose the ability to appeal a deportation order. Mr. Chairman, these are only a few of the reasons why this bill really makes no sense for our great country. Let us address the real issues of immigration reform that include a clear path to citizenship and commonsense protections for our borders. We need full immigration initiatives that make sense, not these very punitive and very un- American provisions that are included in this bill. We cannot, and we must not, forget the undeniable history, our history, American history, that we have as a nation of immigrants and the contribution that immigrants have had on our economy, on our diversity and our way of life. This bill, quite frankly, just flies in the face of that history, and it should be rejected. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman again for his leadership and for yielding me the time.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership. Madam Speaker, I rise in total opposition to this rule and to the reauthorization of this unpatriotic act. We should be repealing these undemocratic provisions, not expanding government's reach into the private lives of the American people. Since 2001, the PATRIOT Act has been used more than 150 times to secretly search private homes, and nearly 90 percent of those cases had nothing to do with terrorism. Americans have rejected provisions in this legislation like sneak- and-peek searches, national security letters, and roving John Doe wiretaps. Under this renewal, we will see more of the same. Private residences, libraries, businesses, medical records, not even your DNA, are safe from the PATRIOT Act. I now understand why many have called this bill yet another Big Brother attack. Requiring an A on the 9/11 Commission recommendations instead of Ds and Fs is how we protect the American people from terrorist attacks, not taking away our civil liberties, which this unpatriotic bill does. Preserving medical privacy, the right to read and congressional oversight should not be partisan issues, Madam Speaker. Our constituents deserve better. I hope that we all vote ``no'' on this rule and vote ``no'' on this very unpatriotic PATRIOT Act as they call it.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report and thank Mr. Obey, Ranking Member of Approps Committee, for the time. This morning I greeted hundreds of faith leaders on the steps of the Cannon building. They gathered from across the country to march together and pray together and to deliver a message to Congress. Their message was simple: The budget is a moral document and we have a moral obligation to ensure its priorities reflect our values. Mr. Speaker, I have to ask why aren't we listening to them? Who better than faith leaders, who serve on the front lines, who feed the hungry, who clothe the naked, who house the homeless, to tell Congress about the impact of this immoral budget on our families and our communities? They recognize that the priorities reflected in our budget are not a partisan issue, but an issue of who we are as a Nation, and what our values are. We know that the Republican budget cuts and this conference report, which is a critical part of their budget, is nothing more than an assault on the least among us--and it does not reflect our values. That is why I encourage my colleagues to vote with their values and let's defeat this bill just like we did a month ago. Don't tell me we can't do better.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his leadership, for his support in recognizing this important date in our Nation's history, and also for ensuring that this resolution comes to the floor in a bipartisanship way, and for your support and for really reminding the entire country now of this important date. Let me also take a moment to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), our minority leader, who worked very hard with the gentleman from Wisconsin to bring this resolution today. The gentleman continues to lead Congress in the civil rights tradition that actually began 140 years ago. From renewing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to protecting the victims of Hurricane Katrina, he is a tireless advocate for civil rights and civil liberties for all Americans. Let me also take a moment to thank our staff on both sides for their diligence and very competent work in bringing this resolution, especially Kanya Bennett, Perry Applebaum, David Lachmann of the House Judiciary Committee and Jamila Thompson of my staff, who have worked together for over a year now on this very, very important effort. Let me also express my appreciation to the 13th Amendment Foundation, located actually in my district. They have worked diligently to honor and to recognize this momentous occasion. And as the gentleman from Wisconsin said, it is very important that our young people, especially, are reminded of the importance of this 13th amendment and read and understand why what happened 140 years ago is very, very important to today in 2005. I hope that everyone will support this effort to honor the 140th anniversary of the ratification of the 13th amendment. On December 6, 1865, slavery ended and the deep roots of the modem civil rights movement were planted. The 13th amendment was a response to the Dred Scott decision of 1856, a ruling that actually declared that Congress lacked the power to prohibit slavery in our country. If the Dred Scott ruling were still in effect today, Mr. Speaker, I would not be standing here, quite frankly, as a Member of Congress, nor would the 43 great Congressional Black Caucus Members. As someone of African descent, whether free or enslaved, I would be considered only three-fifths of a person. I would never qualify as a citizen of this country. As the descendant of people who survived the Middle Passage, who survived the cruelty of slavery, who survived reconstruction, who survived Jim Crow, I know that my life, like the lives of millions of African Americans, our lives have been inextricably linked to the 13th amendment. As we return from celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Montgomery Bus Boycott which launched the modern civil rights movements, we really are obliged to remember this 140-year history. In the 1860s, Representative James Ashley of Ohio, Representative James Wilson of Iowa, and Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, all Republicans, led the congressional fight to abolish slavery. This debate is a very important debate. And again, let me just talk about the vote. It was a vote of 119-56 right here on this floor. Our predecessors voted to add the following words to our Constitution: Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Although the abolition of slavery did not necessarily mean equality for all Americans, the process actually began. According to historical accounts, on the day of the House vote on January 31, 1865, the gallery, which had just been opened, mind you, to African Americans, the gallery erupted into cheers and Representatives on the House floor were visibly moved, crying and hugging each other. Twelve months later, the requisite three-fourths of the States in the Union ratified the 13th amendment and more than 100 years later another 8 States followed suit. Although not necessary, President Lincoln signed the 13th amendment to show a united front to abolish slavery in the United States. A treacherous and divisive burden was finally removed and our Nation was allowed to unite and truly begin to commit to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness for all. In fact, the 13th amendment was the foundation for future equal rights and legislative actions, like the 14th amendment, which ensured Federal and State rights to all individuals; the 15th amendment, which granted African American men the right to vote; and the 19th amendment, which expanded suffrage to all women, also the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Protecting civil and human rights is not something that really should be taken lightly, quite frankly. It requires constant vigilance and review. As we honor this great act of our predecessors, we pay tribute to the visionaries who sacrificed and fought for our civil rights and liberty. In 140 years, our country has fought and continues to fight to be a united country seeking liberty and justice for all. But it has been a long, hard journey; and countless individuals dedicated and continue to dedicate their entire lives towards this end. We must all pay tribute to the abolitionist movement leaders like Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, William Lloyd Garrison, Nat Turner, and John Brown. And we have all reaped the benefits of the bravery and sacrifices of civil rights trail blazers like Dred Scott, Homer Plessy, Linda Brown, Ruby Bridges, Rosa Parks, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. There are many more individuals whose names will never ever be mentioned in the history books; but they worked hard, they fought, they sacrificed for the freedom that we all appreciate today. Collectively, we must pay homage to their legacy. It is important that we not only honor this great day in history but make sure that our children and our grandchildren understand its importance, not just to African Americans, but to all Americans and to the world. This year, with all overwhelming bipartisan support, Congress passed resolutions that recognized the hemispheric survivors of the transatlantic slave trade and great historical trailblazers like the great Honorable Shirley Chisholm and Judge Constance Baker Motley. These resolutions actually show how far we have come since the 19th century, but we also have a long, long way to go. One hundred forty years after slavery was abolished, African Americans and other minorities continue to experience social and economic injustices, as the recent Hurricane Katrina disaster magnified. Within our own borders and throughout the world, human trafficking is rampant. It is a modern version, quite frankly, of slavery; and it must be abolished. And, of course, we witness every day discrimination against those who have no voice. Our work in Congress should be straightforward. It is our duty to reaffirm this tradition of justice, equality, and liberty for all. We have an obligation to ensure that everyone has equal access to health care, education, livable wages, housing, and of course economic opportunities. Clearly, we still have much work to do. We have much work to do to ensure that discrimination is eliminated, and I mean totally eliminated, and that all people are considered equal in the eyes of our laws. The movement that began with the ratification of the 13th amendment must continue. This has not ended. We owe it not only to those who suffered and who sacrificed in the past, but more importantly we owe it to future generations. The 13th amendment liberated African Americans from the yoke of slavery. It liberated America, and we must not forget that. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) again for ensuring this resolution is bipartisan.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add for the record the support of the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Melancon, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Jackson, and the gentleman from New York, Mr. Bishop of H. Res. 196. I submit the opening statements from the Congressional Globe 1865 House debate on floor consideration of S.J. Res. 16, the proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States by abolishing slavery. And I also include the House vote on final passage of what would become the 13th Amendment to our Constitution. Abolition of Slavery The SPEAKER stated the question in order to be the consideration of the motion to reconsider the vote by which the House, on the 14th of last June, rejected Senate joint resolution No. 16, submitting to the Legislatures of the several States a proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States; and that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ashley] was entitled to the floor. Mr. ASHLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McAllister] to have read a brief statement. Mr. McALLISTER sent to the Clerk's desk and had read the following: ``When this subject was before this House on a former occasion I voted against the measure. I have been in favor of exhausting all means of conciliation to restore the Union as our fathers made it. I am for the whole Union, and utterly opposed to secession or dissolution in any shape. The result of all the peace missions, and especially that of Mr. Blair has satisfied me that nothing short of the recognition of their independence will satisfy the southern confederacy. It must therefore be destroyed; and in voting for the present measure I cast my vote against the corner-stone of the southern confederacy, and declare eternal war against the enemies of my country.'' [Applause from the Republican side of the House.] Mr. ASHLEY. I now yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Coffroth]. Mr. COFFROTH. Mr. Speaker, I speak not today for or against slavery. I am content that this much-agitated question shall be adjudicated at the proper time by the people. It is my purpose to state in all candor the reasons which prompt me to give the vote I shall soon record. The amending of our Constitution is fraught with so much importance to the American people that before it is accomplished the amendments proposed should be scrutinized with the strictest criticism. No frivolous, vague, or uncertain experiment should be for a moment tolerated. The life and existence of this nation is centered in the observance and faithful execution of the powers conferred by the Constitution upon the servants of the people. The joint resolution before us proposes: ``That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the said Constitution, namely: ``Art. XIII, Sec. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Sec. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'' The first inquiry is, has Congress this power? I turn to the Constitution, and find article fifth provides--``The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.'' It is not claimed that Congress itself can engraft this amendment into the Constitution without being ratified by three fourths of the States. Then, sir, under the Constitution, Congress has no power beyond discriminating what shall or ought to be submitted to the people. The members of this House assume no responsibility, they enact no amendment, but as faithful Representatives they submit to the people, the source from whence their power comes, the proposed amendment. ``Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.'' All political power is invested in the people. At their will constitutions can be remodeled and laws repealed. The amending of our Constitution is no new experiment. Already at three different times amendments have been submitted to the Legislatures, and by them adopted. The first amendment was ratified in 1791, the second in 1798, and the third in 1804. It never was intended by the wise men who adopted the Constitution that it should remain unchanged. The growth of the nation, its progress and its advancement, will, as time passes, demand new articles and additional provisions. The people are the guardians of the Constitution, and I am not convinced that any danger is to be anticipated, as presented in the following illustrations of the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Pendleton,] put with such admirable compactness and scholastic force: 1. ``I assert that there is another limitation, stronger even than the letter of the Constitution, and that is to be found in its intent and spirit and its foundation idea. I put the question which has been put before in this debate, can three fourths of the States constitutionally change this Government, and make it an autocracy? It is not prohibited by the Constitution.'' 2. ``Can three fourths of the States make an amendment to the Constitution of the United States which shall prohibit the State of Ohio from having two Houses in its Legislative Assembly? It is not prohibited in the Constitution.'' 3. ``Sir, can three fourths of the States provide an amendment to the Constitution by which one fourth should bear all the taxes of this Government? It is not prohibited.'' 4. ``Can three fourths of the States, by an amendment to the Constitution, subvert the State governments of one fourth and divide their territory among the rest? It is not forbidden.'' 5. ``Can three fourths of the States so amend the Constitution of the States as to make the northern States of this Union slaveholding States?'' I do not think there is any power in the Constitution which would permit three fourths of the States to change the form of government. The Constitution provides for a republican form of government, and to establish an autocracy would not be amending the Constitution, but utterly destroying it, and establishing upon its ruins a new form of government of self- derived power. I would not give one of the new copper two-cent piece for the insertion into the Constitution of explicit prohibitions against every other supposition brought forward by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Pendleton:] ``Long before three fourths of the States can become so debauched and demoralized that they would practice such monstrous injustice, they must have lost the sense of honor that would be bound by a compact, and the fear of God that would keep an oath. When these virtues have died out, no matter what safeguards a written constitution might contain, they would be of no more value than so much waste paper. There are certain things which can never be attempted so long as there is public virtue enough not to evade, explain away, or openly violate the Constitution. It is for this reason so little limitation was put upon the amending power. ``The actual limitations on that power operated against natural equity, and hence the necessity for their insertion. One of them restrained Congress from putting an end to the slave trade prior to 1808, and the practical effect of the other is to give New England, which has a smaller population than New York and only a fraction more than Pennsylvania, twelve Senators, while New York and Pennsylvania have each only two. The Constitution presumes that the majority of the people in three fourths of the States cannot be corrupted; or that, if they should; they would not afterward respect paper restraints on their passions. A constitution is no stronger than the sense of the moral obligation of the parties bound by it. It is futile to take men's engagements against crimes more heinous than breaking an engagement. You might as well swear a man not to commit highway robbery. If he has conscience enough to respect an oath, it would be needless, and if he has not, an idle precaution.'' Again, it is argued that this amendment is unconstitutional; that the Congress of the United States has no legal authority to propose this amendment, not have the States in ratifying it the constitutional power to destroy or interfere with the right of property. Learned gentlemen of this House differ on this subject. The Constitution itself provides the remedy by which all these differences of opinion can be legally adjudicated. Section two of article three provides: ``The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution.'' In my opinion, if any person is injured by this amendment, he has a judicial remedy before the highest court of the country. If the States of the South desire to retain slavery, they can do so by refusing to ratify this amendment. There are thirty-five States. In order to adopt this amendment twenty- seven States must ratify it. Eleven States have seceded from the Union. This is more than is required to defeat the amendment. Certainly no one will pretend to argue that this amendment can be adopted without being submitted to the eleven seceded States. If it was, these States would not be considered a part of the Union. In fact it would be, to all intent and purpose, recognizing them as independent States, and not being under the control of the Federal Constitution. If this view is taken, then this amendment can do no harm to the people of the States in the Union. In June last, my objection to this amendment was that it was taking away the property of the people of the States that remained true to the Union; that the Constitution was made the means to oppress rather than protect the people. Since that time Missouri and Maryland have abolished slavery by their own action, and the Governor of Kentucky in his message recommends to the Legislature of that State gradual emancipation. The same objection which was then urged against this amendment cannot now be urged. It is argued that new State governments will be formed in the seceding States under the control of military governors, and this amendment ratified by them. Whether this amendment would be binding upon the people of the seceded States thus ratified will depend entirely upon the results of this war. If after a long struggle, and each of the contending armies or Powers will conclude to adopt the wise and humane policy of a peaceful solution of the difficulties now existing, all of the acts of the State governments formed by military power will be invalid, and the old organization of these States recognized. In this event the ratifications by the new-made State governments will not be worth the paper upon which they are written. If the South achieve her independence, then this amendment will only apply to that which does not exist. If the people of the South are subjugated and their State lines obliterated, and they are ever admitted into this Union under new constitutions, each and every one of the constitutions will have to come free from slavery before the State will be admitted. The South would not remain in the Union under the Constitution as it now is; they demanded stronger guarantees for their institution of slavery. Can any intelligent person believe that after fighting as they have for nearly four years they will accept that which they rejected before the war? If they will not come back under the Constitution, why not abolish slavery; strike from our statute-books every enactment which protects it; make our Constitution and our laws free from the subject of slavery? And then, when this unfortunate, inhuman, barbarous, and bloody war has been prolonged until every heart shall turn sick with its carnage and the reports of its wrongs and outrages, and the people demand a cessation of hostilities until it be ascertained if glorious peace cannot be accomplished by compromise and concession, there will be no obstacles in the Constitution to defeat the accomplishing of a much desired result. We will be free to give new guarantees or new amendments to protect the rights and property of every person who shelters himself under the American Constitution. Again, I have voted for every peace resolution offered in this House. My heart yearns for peace. The gentleman on the other side of this Chamber refused to appoint peace commissioners, but they tell us this amendment will do more to secure peace than any resolution proposed in this House. Although they would not try the remedy we presented, I am willing to try the one they present; and if by my vote this amendment is submitted to the States, and it brings this war to a close, I will ever rejoice at the vote I have given; but if I am mistaken, I will remember it is not the first time. Mr. Speaker, I desire above all things that the Democratic party be again placed in power. The condition of the country needs the wise counsel of the Democracy. The peace and prosperity of this once powerful and happy nation require it to be placed under Democratic rule. The history of the past demonstrates this. The question of slavery has been a fruitful theme for the opponents of the Democracy. It has breathed into existence fanaticism, and feeds it with such meat as to make it ponderous in growth. It must soon be strangled or the nation is lost. I propose to do this by removing from the political arena that which has given it life and strength. As soon as this is done fanaticism ``Writhes with pain, And dies among its worshipers.'' Then the rays of truth will be unshaded, and once more our people rejoice in the salvation of their country, and of the reinstating in power that party which made this country great, and which has done so much to secure to man civil and religious liberty. Many of the honorable gentlemen of this House with whom I am politically associated may condemn me for my action today. I assure them I do that only which my conscience sanctions and my sense of duty to my country demands. I have been a Democrat all the days of my life. I learned my Democracy from that being who gave me birth; it was pure; it came from one who never told me an untruth. All my political life has been spent in defending and supporting the measures which I thought were for the good of the party and the country. My energy, my means, and my time were all given for the success of the Democratic cause. I am no Democrat by mere profession, but I have always been a working one. If by my action today I dig my political grave, I will descend into it without a murmur, knowing that I am justified in my action by a conscientious belief I am doing what will ultimately prove to be a service to my country, and knowing there is one dear, devoted, and loved being in this wide world who will not bring tears of bitterness to that grave, but will strew it with beautiful flowers, for it returns me to that domestic circle from whence I have been taken for the greater part of the last two years. Knowing my duty, I intend to perform it, relying upon the intelligence and honesty of the people I represent to do me justice. If this action shall be condemned by my people, I will go back with pleasure to the enjoyment of private life, free from the exciting political arena; but no power on earth will prevent me from quietly depositing my ballot in behalf of the candidates of the Democratic Party. I hope I will be granted the pleasure of reading the eloquent speeches made by my Democratic associates, and admire their rise and onward march to distinction. This boon I pray you not to take from me. If, on the other hand, the course of the Democrats who will vote for amendment will meet the approbation of the people, and we are greeted with the plaudit of ``Well done, good and faithful servants,'' it will be the desire of our hearts to open our arms for your reception and shelter you as the hen shelters her brood, satisfied you were honest in your belief but mistaken in your opinions. The previous question was seconded, and the main question ordered; which was on the passage of the joint resolution. Mr. DAWSON called for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for his leadership, for his support in recognizing this important date in our Nation's history, and also for ensuring that this resolution comes to the floor in a bipartisanship way, and for your support and for really reminding the entire country now of this important date. Let me also take a moment to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), our minority leader, who worked very hard with the gentleman from Wisconsin to bring this resolution today. The gentleman continues to lead Congress in the civil rights tradition that actually began 140 years ago. From renewing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, to protecting the victims of Hurricane Katrina, he is a tireless advocate for civil rights and civil liberties for all Americans. Let me also take a moment to thank our staff on both sides for their diligence and very competent work in bringing this resolution, especially Kanya Bennett, Penny Applebaum, David Lockman and Jamila Thompson of my staff, who have worked together for over a year now on this very, very important effort. Let me also express my appreciation to the 13th Amendment Foundation, located actually in my district. They have worked diligently to honor and to recognize this momentous occasion. And as the gentleman from Wisconsin said, it is very important that our young people, especially, are reminded of the importance of this 13th amendment and read and understand why what happened 140 years ago is very, very important to today in 2005. I hope that everyone will support this effort to honor the 140th anniversary of the ratification of the 13th amendment. On December 6, 1865, slavery ended and the deep roots of the modern civil rights movement were planted. The 13th amendment was a response to the Dred Scott decision of 1856, a ruling that actually declared that Congress lacked the power to prohibit slavery in our country. If the Dred Scott ruling were still in effect today, Mr. Speaker, I would not be standing here, quite frankly, as a Member of Congress, nor would the 43 great Congressional Black Caucus Members. As someone of African descent, whether free or enslaved, I would be considered only three-fifths of a person. I would never qualify as a citizen of this country. As the descendant of people who survived the Middle Passage, who survived the cruelty of slavery, who survived reconstruction, who survived Jim Crow, I know that my life, like the lives of millions of African Americans, our lives have been inextricably linked to the 13th amendment. As we return from celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Montgomery Bus Boycott which launched the modern civil rights movements, we really are obliged to remember this 140-year history. In the 1860s, Representative James Ashley of Ohio, Representative James Wilson of Iowa, and Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, all Republicans, led the congressional fight to abolish slavery. This debate is a very important debate. And again, let me just talk about the vote. It was a vote of 119-56 right here on this floor. Our predecessors voted to add the following words to our Constitution: ``Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. ``Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'' Although the abolition of slavery did not necessarily mean equality for all Americans, the process actually began. According to historical accounts, on the day of the House vote on January 31, 1865, the gallery, which had just been opened, mind you, to African Americans, the gallery erupted into cheers and Representatives on the House floor were visibly moved, crying and hugging each other. Twelve months later, the requisite three-fourths of the States in the Union ratified the 13th amendment and more than 100 years later another eight States followed suit. Although not necessary, President Lincoln signed the 13th amendment to show a united front to abolish slavery in the United States. A treacherous and divisive burden was finally removed and our Nation was allowed to unite and truly begin to commit to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness for all. In fact, the 13th amendment was the foundation for future equal rights and legislative actions, like the 14th amendment, which ensured Federal and State rights to all individuals; the 15th amendment, which granted African American men the right to vote; and the 19th amendment, which expanded suffrage to all women, also the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Protecting civil and human rights is not something that really should be taken lightly, quite frankly. It requires constant vigilance and review. As we honor this great act of our predecessors, we pay tribute to the visionaries who sacrificed and fought for our civil rights and liberty. In 140 years, our country has fought and continues to fight to be a united country seeking liberty and justice for all. But it has been a long, hard journey; and countless individuals dedicated and continue to dedicate their entire lives towards this end. We must all pay tribute to the abolitionist movement leaders like Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman, William Lloyd Garrison, Nat Turner, and John Brown. And we have all reaped the benefits of the bravery and sacrifices of civil rights trail blazers like Dred Scott, Homer Plessy, Linda Brown, Ruby Bridges, Rosa Parks, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. There are many more individuals whose names will never ever be mentioned in the history books; but they worked hard, they fought, they sacrificed for the freedom that we all appreciate today. Collectively, we must pay homage to their legacy. It is important that we not only honor this great day in history but make sure that our children and our grandchildren understand its importance, not just to African Americans, but to all Americans and to the world. This year, with all overwhelming bipartisan support, Congress passed resolutions that recognized the hemispheric survivors of the transatlantic slave trade and great historical trailblazers like the great Honorable Shirley Chisholm and Judge Constance Baker Motley. These resolutions actually show how far we have come since the 19th century, but we also have a long, long way to go. One hundred forty years after slavery was abolished, African Americans and other minorities continue to experience social and economic injustices, as the recent Hurricane Katrina disaster magnified. Within our own borders and throughout the world, human trafficking is rampant. It is a modern version, quite frankly, of slavery; and it must be abolished. And, of course, we witness every day discrimination against those who have no voice. Our work in Congress should be straightforward. It is our duty to reaffirm this tradition of justice, equality, and liberty for all. We have an obligation to ensure that everyone has equal access to health care, education, liveable wages, housing, and of course economic opportunities. Clearly, we still have much work to do. We have much work to do to ensure that discrimination is eliminated, and I mean totally eliminated, and that all people are considered equal in the eyes of our laws. The movement that began with the ratification of the 13th amendment must continue. This has not ended. We owe it not only to those who suffered and who sacrificed in the past, but more importantly we owe it to future generations. The 13th amendment liberated African Americans from the yoke of slavery. It liberated America, and we must not forget that. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution. I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) again for ensuring this resolution is bipartisan.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am disgusted by the course of events today. As the daughter of a veteran of two wars I am offended and outraged by this personal assault on decorated war veteran Congressman John Murtha. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has lost any sense of decorum or decency. Their abuse of power is obscene. There will be a reckoning though. Because the American people want accountability, not more Republican cover-ups. The American people want honesty, not more misleading and manipulation. They want to end this unnecessary and senseless war, not a policy of `stay the course' that has no goals, no benchmarks, no plans, and no end. The Republican majority's effort in distorting and politicizing the resolution offered by a decorated war veteran is nothing short of despicable. The reality is that these are desperate actions by a desperate majority and a desperate administration. This last minute effort isn't about a debate on the issues the Murtha resolution raises. It isn't about how intelligence was misused by the administration. But it should be. It isn't about how we are going to bring our troops home. But it should be. This resolution is just about politics. I support the Murtha resolution and this is not the Murtha resolution. Reject this cynical and disgraceful stunt from a party devoid of ideas on ending the war in Iraq and how to safely bring our troops home. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the resolution.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life and achievements of David P. Kramer of Oakland, California. Serving the working people of California for 34 years, David Kramer has been known throughout his career for his dedication to civil rights as well as his unwavering commitment to the labor movement. Today our community comes together to celebrate his career and achievements on the occasion of his retirement from SEIU Local 535 in Berkeley, California. David Kramer was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1941. After graduating from Scott High School in North Braddock, Pennsylvania in 1959, he attended the Carnegie Institute of Technology, now known as Carnegie Mellon University. Following his studies there, he was hired by the Ford Motor Company, where he worked toward honing the skills he had acquired in school. However, in 1964 he quit his job and immersed himself in the burgeoning civil rights movement that was gaining strength throughout the United States. As part of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), David was involved in countless picketing and protest efforts that were aimed at achieving integration and equal employment. He was part of a crew of 60 involved in testing and enforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through the integration of public facilities and voter registration procedures in Monroe, West Monroe, New Rhodes, and Baton Rouge, among other places in Louisiana. When he returned to Detroit in the spring of 1965, he became the first community organizer to work for the West Central Organization, which rallied members of the African American and rural Appalachian communities, together with neighborhood churches, union halls, block clubs, and social organizations. This coalition organized around issues such as school and police community relations, tenant rights, and urban renewal. In 1967, David enrolled in the University of Michigan Graduate School of Social Work, where he graduated with a Masters of Social Work degree in Community Organizing in 1968. As part of his studies, he served in the Wayne County Office of Equal Opportunity and Detroit People Against Racism (PAR), an organization of which he eventually served as the executive director. During this time he also became deeply involved in the anti-Vietnam War movement, participating in demonstrations across the country, including at the Democratic Convention in 1968. In 1969 he worked as a ``lumper'' on the night shift in a warehouse in Detroit, where he began to get more involved with the labor movement as a member of Teamsters Local 299 and from which he still holds his honorable withdraw card. In 1971, David was appointed as a field representative of SEIU Local 535. His was first assigned to represent the Santa Clara County social workers and to organize county eligibility workers for Local 535, and was instrumental in securing representation rights for the workers. From 1971 to 1976, David worked with the Santa Clara County, Sacramento County, Stanislaus County, Berkeley, St. Vincent's School, Irwin Memorial Blood Bank, Sunny Hills, and Alameda County chapters of SEIU, and was elected to the Executive Committee of the Central Labor Council of Alameda in 1975. In the following year, David underwent an intense and unforgettable experience in which a 49-day strike involving 5,000 members took place, the longest county-wide strike in California history. In October 1976, he became the Executive Director of SEIU Local 616, where he served until May of 1980. He ultimately resigned from 616 in order to pursue a career as a self-employed carpenter. In 1982, David returned to the labor movement and joined the Alameda County Tri-Local agency shop campaign to serve as an organizer, and in 1983 he once again became an organizer for Local 535, albeit for only a short period of time. During this time, he aided in the largest union security election in the history of the labor movement to date, involving more than 80,000 State workers and four bargaining units, of which 3 were won. When David permanently returned to Local 535, he succeeded in organizing the North Bay Regional Center. He also made negotiations for the first contract for the Clinica de la Raza, and served the San Francisco chapter of Local 535 for 2 years. In November 1988, he became the northern regional director of Local 535, where he supervised 14 field staffs in 535's Sacramento, Oakland, Santa Clara, and Fresno offices. David Kramer was eventually named Executive Director of Local 535 in the fall of 1996. Less than a year later in June of 1997, he was elected to serve on the SEIU's International Executive Board, a position he will continue to hold until February 2006. David also serves our community on the Oakland Board of Port Commissioners, a post to which he was nominated by former Oakland Mayor Elihu Harris. He has been reappointed three times since, making his record fourth appointment a first in the history of the Port of Oakland, and making David the Port's longest serving commissioner. Today David Kramer's family, friends and colleagues come together to celebrate the impact of his life and work not only on the innumerable lives, particularly the lives of working people, he has touched here in Alameda County, but the lasting effects his dedication and leadership have had and will continue to have on our community. On behalf of the 9th Congressional District of California, I salute and thank David Kramer for his invaluable contributions to the people of Alameda County, the 9th Congressional District, the State of California and our entire country.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life and achievements of World War II veteran Suey W. Gee of Oakland, CA. This weekend Mr. Gee celebrates his 79th birthday, his 80th birthday according to the Chinese lunar calendar. On this special occasion his friends and family will gather to honor him for the immeasurable contributions he has made not only to their lives, but also to our country. Suey W. Gee was born in Canton, China on November 19, 1926. As a youth, he emigrated to the United States with his father to find work and help support his family back in China. In March 1945, at the age of 19, he enlisted into the U.S. Army to aid his newly adopted country during World War II. He served in the 128th infantry and trained as an anti-aircraft gunner. His unit was ultimately deployed to Hiroshima, Nakasaki and Okinawa following the atomic bombings that destroyed those cities, where he served as part of the occupation army and helped to facilitate the disarmament of Japan. Mr. Gee was honorably discharged from military service on November 22, 1946. Though Mr. Gee was awarded the World War II Victory Medal, the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal and the Army of Occupation Medal under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, due to the metal shortage during the war era, in addition to the fact that he moved around frequently in search of work, he did not receive his medals at that time. In 1948, Mr. Gee traveled back to China where he married Sue King Gee, and they subsequently returned to the U.S. together. Mr. Gee became a proud citizen of the United States of America on September 18, 1957, and Mrs. Gee became a citizen soon after. Like many immigrant families who come to America, Mr. and Mrs. Gee faced many obstacles, overcoming poverty, hardship and discrimination as they persevered toward achieving their dreams. They worked in the food service, cannery and sewing industry for over 55 years, remaining steadfastly committed to providing greater opportunities for their children than what they had themselves. Married for over 58 years, Mr. and Mrs. Gee have three daughters and one son, all of whom are currently living or working in the city of Oakland as active and productive members of our community. Mr. Gee is retired now and spends his time keeping up with local and national politics. At almost 80 years old, he still votes regularly and remains civically engaged in the country that he served in the U.S. Army more than 60 years ago. On this very special occasion, Mr. Gee's friends and family will come together not only to celebrate his birthday, but to present him with his hard-earned and well-deserved military service medals over six decades after his honorable discharge. On behalf of California's Ninth Congressional District, I would like to take this opportunity to salute and thank Mr. Suey W. Gee for his brave service to our country, and for his invaluable contributions to our community.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to recognize and honor and pay tribute to the extraordinary life of Congressman Edward R. Roybal. Throughout his career, including 30 years in the United States Congress, Congressman Roybal championed the rights of the underprivileged and broke down barriers for social justice. I would like to express my deepest sympathy to his family and his friends, especially to his devoted daughter, my colleague and friend, Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, and say with the passing of her father, we lost a great man, a man who stood up for his convictions, a man who stood up for what he believed, and one who stood up for those who needed a voice who did not have a voice in our country. He will be deeply missed. Like many, I feel very blessed to have known Congressman Roybal personally. He lived his life and I always noticed how he did this: by his actions and by his words. He had principles. He had principles that guided each and every one of his actions, and I think all of us should really understand that those principles are absolutely necessary for us to fight for the rights and the well-being of all human beings, especially those who have been shut out of the American Dream. His life was not only extraordinary; it was an example to follow for generations to come. Each one of us, I believe, has a duty to carry on the legacy of this great man. Our young people must get to know Congressman Roybal, for he made history taking on tough issues when they were not popular. What a role model he was. Congressman Roybal not only cared about his own congressional district, which he did very deeply, but he also worked very hard to help communities throughout our country. As a member of my predecessor's, Ronald Dellums, staff, I vividly remember Congressman Roybal's unbelievable efforts to help bring a Federal building to downtown Oakland. Congressman Roybal and Congressman Dellums had a deep friendship and mutual respect for each other. As a result of their partnership, we have a beautiful Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building where my congressional office is presently located. And in the Federal Building, we also have an Edward R. Roybal Auditorium. And each time I walk into this beautiful building, I am reminded of this great man and his magnificent spirit and his love for his country and for our district. The 9th Congressional District of California, we owe Congressman Roybal a debt of gratitude; and we thank you and his family for really sharing this giant of a human being with us. I have several personal and professional affiliations with Congressman Roybal. His son, Eddie, headed up a successful legal services center called Centro Legal De La Raza in Oakland, California. This center provides badly needed legal services to families otherwise unable to afford them. Many years ago after leaving Ron's staff, Congressman Roybal called me and he said, Barbara, please, you have to do this for me. I really want you to help us raise money for Centro Legal De La Raza. Of course I was honored to receive this call from Congressman Roybal, and how could I say no. It was such a great honor to be able to work with him and his family to make sure that we raised the money for many years to provide these badly needed services. His commitment to justice was unparalleled. His ability to use his clout for those without access to the halls of power, not for himself personally, but for all of those shut out, his love for human kind, his great spirit will be with me forever. He was such a gentleman, a kind human spirit. He was a respectful man, and many of us loved him so much. So tonight, on behalf of the 9th Congressional District of California, we salute a great warrior; we thank him for a job well done. We also thank Congressman Roybal for a life well lived. In his memory, I think we should all rededicated ourselves to Congressman Edward R. Roybal's ideals and his vision for a better world. Mr. Speaker, my thoughts and prayers are with you and your family, Lucille. May God bless you.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life and work of Madeline Duckles of Berkeley, California. A longtime peace activist and community leader, Ms. Duckles will soon celebrate her 90th birthday, an occasion which will coincide with the 90th Anniversary of a group in which she has been active for several decades, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF). Born in Loomis, California, Ms. Duckles was the youngest of five children. After her older siblings left for school, Madeline went to live with her school music teacher in a household filled with opportunities to read books, learn music, and explore the outdoors. In this household she was encouraged to attend a university despite the opposition of her father, who felt that sending a girl to college was a waste of money. Ms. Duckles nonetheless went on to attend college, graduating in 1937. At that time Ms. Duckles also became involved at the local YWCA, which at that time was the only place where she was able to discuss social issues. She received much of her early political education through the time she spent there, which coincided with the Spanish Civil War and a high incidence of labor strikes on the domestic front. Upon her graduation, Ms. Duckles left California for New York City, where she married Vincent Duckles, who was doing graduate work at Columbia. Over the next several years they moved around to several different states while Vincent completed his studies and they both worked a number of jobs, working at different times as teachers, in retail service and other industries. Eventually they returned to Berkeley, California, which is where Ms. Duckles became active in WILPF. Still outraged at the Japanese internment and the use of atomic weapons against Japan in World War II, she was part of a group of women who in 1961 went on strike across the country to protest atmospheric nuclear tests. Another issue of growing concern among these women was the increasing involvement of the United States in Vietnam, an issue regarding which Ms. Duckles would become progressively more active in years to come. Even with five children to care for, Ms. Duckles devoted immeasurable amounts of time and energy into the movement for peace and justice in the years that followed. She attended meetings with the World Council of Peace in Europe and Asia, and even went on a speaking tour through Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Italy. Even following the Vietnam War, Ms. Duckles has remained an outspoken advocate for peace and justice for all people throughout the world, continuing to travel and host international delegations of visitors to the United States as well. This week Ms. Duckles' friends and family come together to celebrate her many years of activism, and the immeasurable impact she has had on our community. On behalf of the California's 9th U.S. Congressional District, I salute and thank Madeline Duckles for her many years of work toward creating a peaceful world for all.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. I would first like to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. Hobson, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Visclosky, for their work in putting together the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill, and in negotiating with the Senate on this conference report. I also want to thank both of them for including $48 million in the conference report to continue funding the Port of Oakland's 50-foot dredging project in my district in California, and for including $5,585,000 for Operations and Maintenance. As the fourth largest container port in the country, the Port of Oakland serves as one of our premier international trade gateways to Asia and the Pacific. The 50-foot dredging project will underpin an $800 million expansion project funded by the Port that will improve infrastructure, expand capacity and increase efficiencies throughout the distribution chain. Once this project is finished, the Port projects that an additional 8,800 jobs will be added, business revenue will increase by $1.9 billion, and local tax revenues will go up by $55.5 million. Best of all, 100 percent of the dredged materials will be reused for wetlands restoration, habitat enhancement, and upland use within the San Francisco Bay Area. I appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this project and I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman and ranking member to complete it.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, on November 7, 2005, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 570-572. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H. Con. Res. 260, a resolution recognizing the 40th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council's promulgation of Noestra Aetate; ``aye'' on H.R. 1973, the Water for the Poor Act of 2005; and ``aye'' on H. Res. 444, the Gynecological Resolution for Advancement of Ovarian Cancer Education.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1973, the Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005. I want to congratulate my colleague, Mr. Blumenauer for bringing this bill to the floor today, and I want to thank Chairman Hyde and the Ranking Member for their support of this important legislation Mr. Speaker, it is a sad fact that here in the United States many of us take clean, plentiful water for granted. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, we use on average about 90 gallons of water per person per day. We expect it to be immediately available for us to drink, to cook with, to shower, to wash our cars, to water our lawns, to fill our swimming pools, and to flush our toilets. Most of this water is needlessly wasted, and we must do more to reduce our usage. But for most people in the developing world, clean water is a precious commodity not to be wasted. In Sub-Saharan Africa alone, the average person uses 3-5 gallons of water per day. That's why this bill is so important. As a co-sponsor of H.R. 1973, I am a strong believer in providing clean water and sanitation systems for developing countries to protect public health and reduce the spread of water borne diseases. According to a recent report by the United Nation's Children's Fund and the World Health Organization, 1.1 billion people worldwide still lack safe water and 2.6 billion have no sanitation. In Africa, only 58 percent of Africans live within 30 minutes walk of an improved water source and only 36 percent have access to a basic toilet. In rural Africa, 19 percent of women spend more than one hour on each trip to fetch water, a back breaking and exhausting chore that often puts them at risk of abduction or rape, and robs them of other opportunities to work and learn. Unsafe water, inadequate sanitation and poor hygiene habits play a major role in Africa's high child mortality rate. Each year, diarrhea kills over 700,000 children throughout the continent, and contributes to the problem of chronic malnutrition. Access to clean water is literally a life or death issue for many Africans. By passing this bill today, we can take a significant step forward to improve access to clean water throughout Africa and the developing world. I want to again thank Mr. Blumenauer for his work on this bill, and for working with me to ensure that we receive appropriate reporting on the balance of funding going to urban, rural, and peri-urban communities. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and send it to the other body for its swift approval.