Barbara Lee

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, and thank you to my colleague on the Rules Committee for your leadership and for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule to gag the strong, growing, and justified opposition to this $87 billion blank check bill and to prohibit its amendment. Mr. Speaker, if the Republican majority had not issued this draconian, unfair rule to prohibit amendments to this wrong, blank check to President Bush, I would have offered a very important amendment that deserves this body's consideration. My amendment was simple. It would have added $1 billion to our global AIDS initiative this year, in order to reach the original $3 billion authorization that this Congress and the President approved in May. If the President can ask for a blank check of $87 billion, for the life of me I don't understand why he won't ask for this $1 billion. He promised it, he traveled to African and touted his commitment, but in what has become his MO (modis operandi) he has mislead us again. And in failing to live up to his commitment on AIDS, he is also neglecting a vital matter of national security. Make no mistake about it, in Sub-Saharan Africa, the region worst hit by AIDS, the disease has contributed to the destabilization of whole communities, tearing at the very fabric of society by killing mothers, fathers, teachers, farmers, health professionals, business-people, and soldiers, and undermining the governing authority and political stability of entire nations. In short, AIDS is creating chaos. Secretary of State Colin Powell has already described the global AIDS pandemic as something far worse than terrorism. And even our own national intelligence council has already concluded that a wholesale political, social, and economic collapse is very likely to occur in those countries that are already severely affected by AIDS. Millions of lives are hanging in the balance, and we have the power to save them. We cannot allow further delay, and AIDS will not wait for us to act. I urge the Republican leadership and the administration to wake up to this reality. And I urge all members to join me in voting ``no'' on this rule which denies us the opportunity for continued debate on this and denies members the opportunity to offer important amendments, like the one I would have offered today.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I stand tonight in absolute opposition to the Goode amendment. Peacekeeping forces in Liberia are critical and we should be increasing funds for these forces, not cutting vital funds. Mr. Chairman, we watched the bodies mount at the U.S. embassy, the child soldiers take up arms, and water and food become scarce; the United States dragged its feet and produced a short, lackluster peacekeeping effort. Today, Liberia needs more than temporary military assistance; they need a significant peacekeeping force which will allow the transitional government to take control in an environment of security and opportunity. The United States must play a role in helping create the conditions for peace, prosperity, and long-term democracy. The Bush administration has pulled out U.S. peacekeeping troops and now is the time to commit financially to the U.N. and Ecomil effort. Today we have an opportunity and obligation to Liberia. To foster peace and ensure freedom, we must develop a comprehensive strategy that includes security and peace throughout all of Liberia (not just the capital of Monrovia), support the transitional government and democratic elections in 2005, and finally we must revive our commitment to Africa financially and diplomatically. Diplomacy is the mechanism to bring about a peace, and playing our part to finance the U.N. peacekeeping mission is the way to preserve it. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Goode amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, thank you Congresswoman Watson for bringing this resolution to the floor. I proudly stand here today to honor the extraordinary accomplishments of Dr. Dorothy Irene Height. Dr. Height's diligent service over the past 65 years has improved the lives of countless people, not only in the United States, but across the globe. Her dedication to the promotion of civil rights, social justice, and equality make here a true inspiration and model leader. Dr. Height worked passionately on African-American women's issues and HIV/AIDS issues, two of the primary issues that I strive to address in my work here in Congress. Dr. Height message resonates especially deep within my heart. Through Dr. Height's work with the National Council of Negro Women and by acting as a consultant to Eleanor Roosevelt, Height was, and continues to be, instrumental in the advancement of civil rights in America. As president of the National Council of Negro Women (NCNW) Height oversaw several programs which encouraged the empowerment of women throughout America. These programs included; Operation Woman Power, The Black Family Reunion, the Women's Center for Education and Career Advancement, and the Bethune Museum and Archives. In addition to programs that aid women in the U.S. Dr. Height continues to empower women internationally on HIV/AIDS issues throughout third world countries, specifically in West Africa and South Africa. In addition to her contributions through the NCNW, Dr. Height's work with the Delta Sigma Theta sorority and the Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA) has increased citizen participation in government and furthered the status of at risk peoples. Dr. Height's emphasis on the value of service is exemplified in her own words; ``Without community service, we would not have a strong quality of live. It's important to the person who serves as well as the recipient. It's the way in which we ourselves grow and develop. . .'' Dr. Height's worldview is one which we could all do well to adopt. This Congressional medal will place Dr. Height's among the ranks of other celebrated leaders such as Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Lady Bird Johnson, and Rosa Parks, to name a few. Like her predecessors, Dr. Dorothy Height's exemplary leadership enhances the lives of all people throughout America and the world. I thank my colleagues for this resolution and for their support.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in very strong opposition to this $87 billion installment payment on the war in Iraq. Like all of my colleagues, I support our troops. And I must remind my colleagues that I am the daughter of a career military officer, and, as such, I could do nothing less. My heart and my prayers go out to our troops and their families. I want to see them safe at home. I want to see them reunited with their families as soon as possible. In the meantime, I want them to have the health benefits that they deserve, the bulletproof vests that they need, and the basic supplies that they have been denied. I want to know that our wounded and that our veterans receive proper treatment and proper respect. But we do not protect our troops, and the Congress will not have done its job if we blindly sign this $87 billion check. We have not had an accounting of how the last $78 billion was spent. And we still do not have anything close to sufficient proof that the allegations raised by the administration that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States was real. We do not have an exit strategy that leads the Iraqi people to control their own government, their own resources, and their own obligations that leads us out of this quagmire. We have none of this. We did not have to go down this path. We could have pursued containment and inspections, multilateralism and saved hundreds of American lives and potentially hundreds of billions of dollars. We have urgent, unmet needs here at home. We have schools here that need to be constructed and reconstructed, housing that needs to be built, and jobs that need to be created. Mr. Chairman, 44 million Americans have no health insurance. We had choices before we went to this war, and we have choices now. We should not appropriate another cent without a clear vision of how and when the United Nations will assume real authority over the political and economic transition in Iraq and how and when American troops will come home. As Dr. Martin Luther King said, even though this is not his birthday month we must remember what he said throughout the war, he said, In the wasteland of war, the expenditure of resources knows no restraint.'' Now, we owe it to our children and grandchildren not to mortgage their future. I will vote no on this bill.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. That is right. As I said earlier, I believe that it is very important that our troops are supported. This initial $78 billion should have gone to support our troops, with all of the necessary equipment and protective vests and everything that they need. We do not know where that $78 billion went. We do not know where we are going with this. This is just the second installment, and all of the estimates have been $400 billion-plus, 5 years-plus. We have got to say no to this, I would say to the gentleman, I believe. I think that it is about time that we ask the hard questions; and if we do not receive the answers, we must try to figure out a way to ensure that America understands what the stakes are and what the risks are. Finally, with regard to education, yes, I can understand why this young lady was very upset. We cannot even fund and have not funded Leave No Child Behind. We promised the American people that we would create some parity in our school system and a quality education for young people, and that was probably rhetoric only. The reality is not there. So this $87 billion, part of this certainly could go to ensure that our young people have the best possible public education that we can provide.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first let me just say I rise tonight with my Congressional Black Caucus colleagues, led by our very strong, wise and courageous chairman, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings). I just want to say thank you to the gentleman for once again ensuring that the Congressional Black Caucus has the opportunity to put President Bush on notice of our concerns with his $87 billion appropriation request to fund the ongoing war in Iraq. Now, the gentleman from Maryland referenced the Statement of Principles which the Congressional Black Caucus actually put together and released several weeks ago. I would like to reference, Mr. Speaker, the Statement of Principles which we actually submitted in October of 2002 to put this in a bit more of a historical perspective. In October of 2002, the Congressional Black Caucus issued the following statement: ``We oppose a unilateral first-strike action by the United States without a clearly demonstrated and imminent threat of attack on the United States. Only Congress has the authority to declare war. Every conceivable diplomatic option must be exhausted. ``A unilateral first strike would undermine the moral authority of the United States, destabilize the Middle East region and undermine the ability of our Nation to address unmet domestic priorities. ``Further, any post-strike plan for maintaining stability in the region would be costly and would require a long-term commitment.'' That was in October of 2002. Mr. Speaker, this money follows an initial $78 billion special appropriation which I believe was passed in April and, of course, a defense budget that already tops $368 to $370 billion. Those climbing numbers are not only daunting in themselves, but they also represent what is this second installment for the Iraq invasion, a process that may be endless. I reached this conclusion because this proposal provides no answers to the questions that it begs, which our chairman just laid out, no answers to the questions with regard to a timetable for Iraqi independence and an exit strategy for American troops. None of the answers to these questions have been provided. Before appropriating another taxpayer dollar, I believe we must have an answer to each and every one of these questions. Mr. Speaker, some people will come to the floor and say that we must support this Presidential request without question because we have to support our troops. Well, Mr. Speaker, we all support our troops. As the daughter of a career military officer, this is very important to me, and I want to see them safe at home as soon as possible. In the meantime, I want them to have the health benefits that they deserve, the bulletproof vests that they need, and the basic supplies, the toiletries, the basics that they need that really have been denied to them. I want to know that our wounded receive proper treatment and proper respect. Our veterans deserve more than what they are getting. Disabled veterans deserve full retirement benefits and their families deserve full survivor benefits. They have made the ultimate sacrifice and need to be strengthened in terms of survivor benefits. How can we possibly do anything less? I do not know where this first $78 billion went, but I support our troops, and I think that we need to understand that this $78 billion hopefully should have gone, we believe, to have supported our troops. I am not sure what happened to that money. So in supporting our troops, I think I can say very clearly that I do not support the quagmire they are now trapped in. This $87 billion does not come with a plan to get our troops out of Iraq or to create a real transition to UN authority and then Iraqi independence. Instead, it supports and extends the guerilla war, without an accounting of how we got here or how we will get out. The American people have a right to know the answers to these questions before they are asked to spend one more penny on this war. Accountability and transparency are among the fundamental principles that we are trying to really impart as it relates to our policy to Iraq. How high will these bills go? Some experts tell us it could go as high as $400 billion, or even higher. Accountability also demands that we know who is making money off of the war. Billions of dollars are going to Halliburton and to Bechtel and other corporations, many of them, of course, with ties to this administration. Now, I am very pleased that Dr. Martin Luther King's vision, his perspective and his fight for peace and justice, has been part of our debate, and I want to just mention another perspective and lesson that Dr. King provided to us in the sixties. He warned us, and this was a quote that Dr. King provided and gave us in terms of instruction, he said, ``In the wasteland of war, the expenditure of resources knows no restraints.'' Dr. King knew that war could be a bottomless pit into which this great Nation could pour all of its resources, all of its young people, and really never come out any safer nor any stronger. So we need a map, and we need a timetable to really get us out of this bottomless pit, and we need a clear transition strategy, so that we can achieve these goals. We need a timetable, so that we have an understanding of when we will get out. Let me just say we need to also leave an Iraq that is stable and secure in terms of a transition, but we need to leave. The Iraqi people deserve to run their own country. The international community will be a major part of that transition. We have deep obligations, unmet needs here at home, which our Congressional Black Caucus Statement of Principles laid out. We have schools that need to be reconstructed. We have health care needs. Here we have a country with 44 million people uninsured. We have health care needs that must be expanded here at home. We have housing that needs to be built. We also have other obligations internationally, with 42 million people in the world with HIV and AIDS. The administration has not even come up with the full $3 billion to fight a disease that killed 3 million people last year. We have been fighting very hard for that this year, and still cannot get that extra $1 billion. According to the National Priorities Project in my home State of California, taxpayers will be asked to contribute over $11 billion to fund this supplemental appropriation. That money could pay for $2 billion in school construction, over 7,500 new affordable housing units, almost $2 billion in infrastructure projects, and fund over 30,000 new firefighters and first responders. It would provide health care coverage for over 1 million people, and, in the process, create over 150,000 additional new jobs. So there are real costs to our own country with regard to this very failed and misguided foreign policy. Finally, let me say in conclusion, yes, we must support our troops, and let us support our troops by forging a transition strategy that will get them home. Let us not blindly sign another blank check, another installment on the President's foreign policy doctrine, and this is what it really is, his foreign policy doctrine of preemption. Over 300 Americans have died in Iraq, over 1,200 have been wounded, and we do not have any real idea of how many Iraqis have died because the Pentagon refuses to try to even count them. So let us find our way out of this quagmire and out of this wasteland of war. I want to thank the chairman again for his leadership and for this special order. Again, we are here tonight to wake up America.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and also for his leadership. I rise today in very strong opposition to this conference report that would deny women their constitutionally protected rights, endanger women's health and criminalize safe medical practices. This is an attack on Roe v. Wade. Mr. Speaker, this conference report represents yet another victory in this President's very aggressive and very hostile antiwoman agenda, and like provisions of another attack on our civil rights, in this instance the Patriot Act, it is dangerous and it is unconstitutional. That is why if and when this fatally flawed and dangerous conference report is signed into law, it will be challenged in court. Pregnancy and childbirth are among the most intimate and the most personal experiences of a woman's life. Meddling in these intensely private affairs violates our Constitution. Our freedom to choose is every woman's fundamental right. This should be a medical decision made between a woman, her family, and her doctor and her clergy. Government has no right to interfere. This bill is outrageous. It is reckless and it is unconstitutional. This conference report should be defeated here. Otherwise, the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional. Roe v. Wade must be upheld. Let us not go down this slippery slope and try to unravel it in this very dangerous and deceitful way. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this conference report.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, if my colleagues remember, we consistently said that the inspections process was working, that weapons of mass destruction would be found, and when found, if they were found, we would make sure, the U.N. would make sure, that they were destroyed. It was a search and destroy mission. Containment was working, and I believe that it is very, very critical at this moment, at this really truly defining moment that we understand that this foreign policy doctrine of preemption, the use of first strike based on a perceived future threat is a very dangerous policy. The President has the authority to use force in the event of an imminent or immediate attack. That is not a question. The point where we are now in our country I think is very dangerous, and we set the standard for the rest of the world in terms of our foreign policy. If it is okay for the United States to use force first, then it is okay for North Korea or it is okay for Iran, it is okay for any other country; and so I think that this is a moment where we must go back to the drawing board, I think reevaluate our foreign policy, and reevaluate the axis of evil concept because I believe that it is provocative; and I do not believe that we are any safer, that this course that we are on and that policy will not lead to more security. I think it is very dangerous. It does not lead to peace in the world. I want to thank the Congressional Black Caucus for making sure the American people know there are many of us who believe that.

Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the Chairman. Let me commend the gentleman for his leadership and for insisting that the voices of reason really speak out in terms of organizing these speak-outs, and these special orders for the Congressional Black Caucus to really talk to America about the critical issues. And, of course, tonight under the gentleman's leadership, we are talking about this $87 billion that Congress is about to appropriate in the next couple of weeks as it relates to the war in Iraq. First of all, let me just say that I am the daughter of a military officer, 25 years, much of the time was spent in Fort Bliss, Texas. In fact I was born in El Paso, Texas, and so my support for the troops is very deep, and I understand very well the issues with regard to what makes sense in terms of the real deal in supporting the troops. Our troops need all of the protection that they can receive, that we should provide. They need their benefits. They need their survivor benefits. They need their health care. They need the respect. They need all of the budget items that I do not really see in this $87 billion. I do not even know what happened to that, what, first $78 billion. Why would our young men and women need such items as toiletries. Why would they have to pay for certain items such as food at the hospitals? Why would they not receive their full retirement benefits? And all of the issues that we are talking about tonight, that first $73 billion, I believe it was, what was in that? Was not that enough? Then you look at the military budget in total, what is that, $400 billion or close to $400 billion. We have got missile defense in there now. What is going on with this budget? I think first of all, we should demand some accountability, and I think that is what, in fact, the principles that I want to applaud the Congressional Black Caucus for putting together really enunciated. Where is the accountability for the taxpayers' money? With regard to what was mentioned earlier in terms of the whole HIV/ AIDS pandemic, we negotiated a measly $3 billion a year. We cannot even get over $2 billion yet. We have asked the President just to live up to his commitment. Over 100-some Members of Congress wrote a letter requesting the additional $1 billion in the supplemental. We get a response that I do not even want to talk about it. It is pitiful the response we received. Today we talked about Liberia in our Subcommittee on Africa and the development efforts and the stabilization requirements in terms of resources, minimally $200 million. We cannot even figure out where that is coming from. I say we need $500 million plus. I do not see that coming around. How do they find $87 billion and cannot find $1 billion for HIV/AIDS in Africa? So I think we need to do this, and this is what the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and the Congressional Black Caucus is really exposing, what is really going on. I think that is what is really going on, of course, we know in terms of this entire effort to build a country. I personally believe that if we bomb the heck out of a country, we have some responsibility to fix what we damaged. Beyond that, in terms of long-term development, when you look at Halliburton and Bechtel and contracts that are no-bid contracts, money is being made as we speak and will be made, profits, lots of money in terms of the development of a country, the construction of a country. Here in our own communities, what are we looking at? We are looking at dilapidated schools. We have 44 million uninsured. No health care. In my own State of California, I think we are up to seven million now uninsured. Dilapidated housing, unaffordable housing. What is happening in terms of jobs in our own country? What? Three million plus unemployed now. So when we look at $87 billion, I think that $87 billion could be used right here at home. Now, having said that, let me say that I believe also that in supporting our troops, we support them by bringing them home, but we also support them by developing an exit strategy, a time frame, a point in which they know they will return home. And during this transition period, we are required and should make sure that they are safe and secure. But how can we give this administration, any administration a blank check to engage in guerilla war in perpetuity. I could not support it the first time around, the second time around, and the third time around. And this is another payment now, another quarterly payment I guess on what could end up being $400, $500 billion. I think that is outrageous. I think the American people deserve some answers to why in the world, first of all, I must say why did we go to war? And I think that we should stay here until we figure that out and demand investigations as it relates to the weapons of mass destruction. I mean, I think that is very important to know. And so we are going to insist that an independent commission be established or the select committee be established to investigate all of this. I do not think Congress should recess until we know what happened. I think the American people deserve answers. This is our Government. We pay taxes and, of course, we want to make sure that each and every dollar we spend goes in terms of peace and security. Let me just close by reading a quote from Dr. King. Often times we quote Dr. King and extol his virtues. He was a prophet and a visionary, but many only do that during January, but I think we should remember Dr. King's message each and every day. I want to read this quote by Dr. King who gave us this message in the 1960s. Dr. King warned us, he said, ``In the wasteland of war, the expenditure of resources knows no restraint.'' No restraint. Dr. King knew that war would be, could be, is a bottomless pit in which this great Nation could pour all of its resources, all of its young people and really never come out safer or stronger. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the Congressional Black Caucus today for remembering Dr. King and remembering his words of wisdom. He died for what was right, and I think we have a duty and responsibility as it relates to going to war, the use of force, $87 billion worth of taxpayers' money. I think we have a duty and a responsibility that we make sure that our troops are safe, that our young people are secure and we develop an exit strategy so we know they will come home.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus for holding these special orders. Over 300 Americans have died in Iraq. Over 1200 have been wounded. And we're spending a billion a week to finance this quagmire. Now, Congress is being asked to approve another $87 billion to fund the Administration's war. That brings up the total to $166 billion, and there's no end in sight--no end to the deaths, no end to the bills, and no end to the war. That $87 billion is the latest installment on the President's foreign policy doctrine of preemption. We went to war under this doctrine: the President told the American people, Congress, and the world that we had to go to war because Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear weapons program, posed an imminent danger to us. Well, we haven't found the weapons yet, so now the Administration is changing the mission: now Iraq isn't about weapons of mass destruction or regime change, now it's terrorism. The American people want to know how this $166 billion is being spent, what our exit strategy is, and just how much we are going to have to pay to build Iraqi houses, connect Iraqi electrical grids, and construct Iraqi schools. It's not that we begrudge the needs of the Iraqi people--it's just that we also see dire needs here at home. We're not isolationists--it's in our national interest to help create stability in Iraq and it's a moral imperative to repair the damage our bombs did, but there has to be a vision of how to get us out. We must leave an Iraq that is stable and secure, but we must leave. And we all need to understand that this war against Iraq is not an isolated act but part of the Doctrine of Preemption that could also lead us to war against North Korea, Iran, Syria, or almost anyone else. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would recognize this war. As he warned us, ``In the wasteland of war,'' he said, ``The expenditure of resources knows no restraints.'' Dr. King knew that war could be a bottomless pit, into which this great nation could pour all of its resources, all of its young people, and never come out safer or stronger. We have to stop this. That is our call to arms. Because if we don't stop them, this $87 billion bill will be followed by more and more installment payments, and those 304 Americans who have died in Iraq will be followed by far too many more young men and women. Let's find our way out of this wasteland.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Bishop Ernestine C. Reems, Senior Pastor and Founder of Center of Hope Community Church for her lifetime of ministry and community service. She has served as a champion of faith and love for the congregation at the ``Church for all People'' in Oakland, California for 35 years. Bishop Reems was the third child in a family of nine. She was stricken with tuberculosis at the age of thirteen and was ill for several years, but determined to live for God. Her foundation in ministry comes from her father, Bishop E. E. Cleveland. As a young adult, she traveled extensively as an evangelist with her brother, Reverend Elmer Cleveland. Although women in the ministry were rare, Bishop Reems would not be denied and continues to follow her calling. With little more than faith and a vision, the Center of Hope Community Church was founded in 1968 with four members. Today its membership exceeds 1500. Bishop Reems has a uniquely charismatic and humorous preaching style. Her sermons speak to people's hearts and are rich with poetic commentary, startling insights, and contemporary applications of the Bible's message. Her devotion is evidenced through a practice of intercessory prayer and fasting that has made her dear to the congregation of Center of Hope. In the audience, passionate praise, worship, and spontaneous dancing always punctuate her words. The hallmark of Bishop Reems' ministry is her tireless compassion for people in need. Her non-judgmental attitude is one of the keys to her success in helping recovering drug addicts, prostitutes, prisoners, ex- prisoners, the homeless and others. Bishop Reems' drive is evident in her successful efforts to open a 56-unit senior housing complex, a 17- unit transitional housing program for homeless single women with children, and a 150-unit affordable housing complex. Additionally, she has founded a number of community-based services and is chairman of the boards of Hope Housing and Hope Development Corporations. In 1988, Bishop Reems organized the E.C. Reems Women's International Ministries. Under her direction and leadership, its charter is to encourage and energize women to be active partners in the gospel and to work in their local churches. Each year the participation continues to exceed the previous year. E.C. Reems Women's International Ministries also organizes and hosts regional conferences around the USA. She wrote two books, ``Counting Everything as Joy!'' and ``Through the Storm.'' In addition to her ministerial duties, she is the loving mother of two sons, Brondon and Brian. Her husband Paul Reems passed away recently after 41 years of devoted marriage. Finally as I honor Dr. Reems today, I want to thank her on behalf of the entire 9th Congressional District for being a great religious and community leader. Bishop Reems has shared her wisdom and provided me tremendous support. Most of all, I thank her for her friendship and prayers. I take great pride in joining her friends, family, and members of the congregation to salute the extraordinary Bishop Ernestine Cleveland Reems.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters and the gentleman from Illinois, Ranking Member Evans for their work on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise today outraged by the Majority Leadership's continual short-changing of American veterans. I appreciate Members' from both sides of the aisle, who work to support our retired soldiers. I find great irony in the support that this body gives in creating veterans in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the lack of assistance in sustaining these and previous veterans upon their return. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate the Republicans and this Administration responding to an outraged constituent who asked me earlier this year if, ``We are just going to reward our fighting men with medals and praise, then let them fend for themselves after they have suffered the insults and injuries of war?''. How do I respond to this person and others, when I know that I voted against the VA-HUD appropriations bill which under-funded the Department of Veteran Affairs by an embarrassing $1.8 billion. I know that I co-sponsored H.R. 2569, which would authorize concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and VA compensation benefits, make health care for veterans more accessible and affordable, allow veterans' surviving spouses to receive adequate benefits, and expand educational opportunities for reservists. H.R. 2569 further enhances benefits for the families of those killed while on active duty, and gives an essential ``thank you'' to our troops now returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Speaker, I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 303. This legislation would permit retired members of the armed forces with service-connected disabilities to be paid both military retired pay and veterans' disability compensation. H.R. 303 would rectify the injustice which has penalized those who sacrifice to serve our country for over 100 years. Additionally, I joined my colleagues to sign the discharge petition to bring this legislation to the floor. As a veteran's daughter, I, along with 365 Members of this body, am frustrated by our constant attempts to support those who sacrificed for this nation. I find it morally reprehensible that this President continues his reckless policy of cutting taxes for the richest 1 percent of this country, yet refuses to guarantee our veterans basic benefits. And I ask: how much longer is this body willing to punish those who sacrifice and suffer for serving and defending this nation?

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to proudly recognize one of the world's premier science and research facilities, and an important part of my district. Today marks the 20th anniversary of one of our nation's premier scientific research centers, the National Center for Electron Microscopy (NCEM), a Department of Energy facility located at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Dedicated on September 30, 1983, NCEM's service began with the unveiling of the Atomic Resolution Microscope, the first instrument in the world capable of showing individual atoms in a sample. Since then, the Center has played a key role in supporting vital research efforts carried out by hundreds of visiting national and international scientists. Today, NCEM houses several of the world's most advanced microscopes and tools for microcharacterization, such as the One-Angstrom Microscope and the Spin Polarized Low-Energy Electron Microscope. The wide array of such tools allows scientists to gain a basic scientific understanding of new, energy-efficient materials, as well as analyze the behavior of materials such as magnets, superconductors, ceramics, and high-temperature alloys. Recent research includes atomic-level characterization of advanced aluminum alloys, new insights into how catalysts work, and mono-atomic resolution of solids that contain light elements such as carbon and nitrogen. In addition to microscopes, NCEM's Image Analysis Facility is designed to handle the computational needs of the Center's users. NCEM staff design custom image processing and image simulation software, with the goal of extracting structural information from images taken on the Center's electron microscopes. NCEM also provides services and support for sample preparation. To chart the future of electron microscopy, NCEM scientists are helping to pioneer the Transmission Electron Aberration-corrected Microscope, a next-generation microscope that could offer the unprecedented opportunity to directly observe the atomic-scale order, electronic structure, and dynamics of individual nanoscale structures. With advances like these, NCEM will continue to lead the world in electron microscopy research.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, first of all, how honored we are that Pastor Harold Mayberry has presented and provided with us a very powerful prayer this morning. Pastor Mayberry is the pastor, as he indicated, of First AME Church in Oakland, California. Pastor Mayberry and his wife, Mary Mayberry, are here with us this weekend as we work to look at the major issues which, of course, the Congressional Black Caucus and all of us deal with each and every day. First AME Church, let me just say, is a very powerful church, a very committed church in our community. It is a shining light in Oakland and in the East Bay. It provides a vision for our community. It is a church which, under Pastor Mayberry's leadership, insists that our community puts people first in the sense that they focus on educating our young people, housing the homeless, feeding the hungry. It is a congregation that makes religion really real in our community, and that is thanks to Pastor Mayberry and the First AME Church family. The leadership of this congregation has made many, many changes in our great East Bay and especially in the city of Oakland, California. And for that we are deeply grateful. We are honored and privileged that Pastor Mayberry and his wife, Mary, are here with us today. Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to share his wisdom and his insight with this great august body.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the people and government of Taiwan for their democratic achievements, their economic accomplishments, and their significant advances in healthcare, the sciences, business, and many other fields.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an issue that has the potential to affect the lives of 27 million of our children across the nation, who are participants in the National School Lunch Program or the National School Breakfast Program. The issue is the inclusion of irradiated food in federally-funded programs that are designed to help our disadvantaged children. Last year's Farm Bill opened the door for school districts to purchase irradiated food for use in our school feeding programs. There are many questions that remain about the scientific validity of serving irradiated products to our growing kids, particularly in regards to nutritious content and the long term-effects of regular consumption of irradiated food. In anticipation of issuing regulations on serving irradiated food, the U.S. Department of Agriculture opened a comment period for the public to express its opinion on irradiated food. An overwhelming number of the comments received by USDA opposed serving irradiated food in the national school lunch program, over 90% in fact. Four school boards in California have already moved to ban irradiated food products in their schools, including the city of Berkeley in my district, Point Arena, Ukiah, and Los Angeles Unified. And based on a recent survey conducted by the public interest group Public Citizen, many more school districts and states have indicated that they will not purchase or serve irradiated food during this school year. But for those school districts and states that may decide to serve irradiated food, under current regulations, there is no requirement for irradiated food to be clearly labeled at lunch areas where it is served. In addition, parents and children who rely on our school nutrition programs are not given the option to refuse irradiated products, and they will have no choice but to eat whatever type of food is served that day. I am seeking to correct this current deficiency in law by introducing the Right to Know School Nutrition Act. My bill would require the USDA to ensure that: Balanced information on irradiation is given to parents and children before such products are served; that a standard option of non-irradiated food products be served at every meal; that irradiated food be properly labeled and appropriate signage be displayed in the lunch room; and finally, that irradiated and non-irradiated food products are not commingled. The Right to Know School Nutrition Act represents a simple commonsense solution that empowers individual parents and children to decide for themselves what they will eat. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this bill in order to protect our children from the potential dangers of irradiated food products and to preserve consumer choice.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Georgia for introducing this important resolution that we are considering on the House floor today. Over 40 years ago, hundreds of thousands of citizens marched together upon Washington D.C. demanding two things, jobs and freedom. From all corners of our great nation people of all races, ethnicities and all walks of life came to participate in a peaceful demonstration that would leave a lasting legacy upon our country. The march on Washington--now forever known as just the march-- represented one of those watershed moments in American history that deserves to be remembered and commemorated by all of us. Televised worldwide, the march brought to the world the continuing social and economic discrimination faced by African Americans, as well as the inspirational words of many leaders of the Civil Rights movement, like the great Martin Luther King Jr., and my dear friend and colleague, Congressman John Lewis. Looking out upon the masses gathered around the Lincoln Memorial, Dr. King's delivered his now immortalized ``I Have a Dream Speech'' which proved to be the focal point of the march that day. Speaking of the impetus for the march, Dr. King said: We have come here today to dramatize an appalling condition. In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked ``insufficient funds.'' But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. The disconnect between white America and people of color regarding the issues of social and economic freedom and opportunity that Dr. King spoke so eloquently about remains with us today, as does that same optimism and sense of urgency that pervaded his speech and the march that day. To be sure, substantial progress has been made in the 40 years since the march took place. But clearly we have a very long way to go before we can truly say that the ideals of the march have been met, particularly when we talk about economic freedom and opportunity for African Americans, the poor and people of color. This is most clearly reflected in the labor and employments statistics that are released every month. In virtually all categories, African Americans and Hispanics, have higher rates of unemployment than their counterparts. And we must equally warn that racism still very much exists in this country today. Only now it is much more subtle and insidious than the discrimination we faced in the 60's or that which our parents before that. Discrimination is still about racial profiling by law- enforcement. It is still about environmental injustice, which has become entrenched in our society by the unequal distribution of federal, state, and local funds which could provide needed healthcare, education and housing services to minority communities. And sadly as evidenced by the recent 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court ruling, it is still about voting rights--only in this case the right to have our votes counted equally. So I close today by reminding my colleagues that there is still much, much more to be done. Our march goes on, and will continue to go on until--in the words of Dr. King--we can say ``justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.''

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, two years ago, we all watched in horror as television cameras brought us the terrible scenes from New York, as we could see the smoke rising from the Pentagon, and as we learned of acts of terrorism and heroism over the skies of Pennsylvania. My thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends who lost loved ones that day. September 11th will remain forever seared into our memories. Today, we pause to remember all those who were lost and all those who rushed into burning buildings to try and save those trapped inside. So may losses, so many funerals, so many families denied even that small consolation. The losses are so great, it's hard even to comprehend them. One of those lost was Wanda Green, who was a flight attendant on United Flight 93 and a cousin of my chief of staff, Sandre Swanson. I remember Wanda tonight as I remember all those killed that terrible, terrible day. Most Americans believe that we will face more acts of terrorism. Sadly, I believe they are right. We have to do all we can to try an ensure our security here at home. We need to do everything possible to safeguard the world's known stockpiles of chemicals, biological, and, God forbid, nuclear weapons and materials. We need to protect our own plants, bridges, and ports. And we need to make sure that our first responders have the tools, the equipment, and the training to do their jobs. We ask them to risk their lives for us. The least we can do is to give them the means to do it. I leave you with the words of Tom Paxton describing both the awful loss and the awesome courage at the World Trade Center and elsewhere that day: ``Now every time I try to sleep I'm haunted by the sound, of firemen pounding up the stairs while we were coming down.'' When we ask men and women to pound up the stairs into the face of death and danger, we must give them every bit of support that might help. In the memory of all those we lost two years ago today, let us renew our commitment to safeguarding our communities. My thoughts and prayers to out to the parents and children; husbands, wives, and partners; and family and friends of all those who lost loved ones in those awful events. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, first let me just say I do rise in strong support of the Waters amendment to protect Californians', Californians' mind you, financial privacy laws and identity theft provisions. I applaud my colleague from California for her leadership on this issue, for identifying a mistake that was made, and really for just trying to correct it in a very rational way. That is what this amendment does. It corrects a mistake that was made. This bill is a bipartisan bill. We all wanted to support it; but coming from California, the gentlewoman has figured out a way that we should support this, and it would be a win-win for all of us. The FTC, Mr. Chairman, reported on September 3 that 27.3 million Americans have been victims of identity theft in the last 5 years, including 9.91 million people, or 4.6 percent of the population in the last year alone. Now, these are epidemic levels, and we must do everything we can do to prevent identity theft and to help the victims of this horrendous crime. That is why this amendment is so important. It would preserve very important California laws on identity theft. These are California laws. Let us be clear. If we do not adopt the Waters amendment today, Californians will lose vital identity theft provisions currently provided in California law. Victims of identity theft will lose the right to a free monthly credit report. Victims of identity theft will lose the protection of California's law providing the right to correct a credit report with a police report. Victims of identity theft will lose the protections of California's law requiring credit bureaus to place a fraud alert within 5 business days of receipt of a request from the consumer. And the list continues. In total, seven existing California laws would be wiped out by this bill and another four will probably be eliminated. It really simply defies logic to kill these existing California protections for the victims of identity theft when we are facing a growing identity theft crisis in our State. Again, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership. I thank her for offering this fix to this very important bill, and I hope that we all can support this correction of a major error that was made.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me just thank the gentleman from Vermont for his leadership on the committee and for bringing this amendment today to the floor. But I must say that this is a very moderate amendment, it is a very conservative amendment, and I was, quite frankly, surprised he would go for it. But in the spirit of compromise, he did. So, very seldom do I believe that something is better than nothing, but I believe that this is such a fundamental injustice as it relates to our consumers that I had to support this very modest measure. Quite frankly, a creditor should not be allowed to increase interest rates if consumers are paying the debt according to the agreed upon terms. They should not be allowed to raise interest rates based on payment histories of another debt. That is just fundamentally wrong. When individuals agree to a contract, when a consumer believes that they are doing the right thing and paying their monthly payments, how in the world can they get set up to fail? That is what this does. An interest rate that jumps from 7 percent to 29 percent, bankruptcy, certainly, will follow if, in fact, this does not fit within the consumer's financial scheme. And generally, the consumer has a financial plan that they have to stick to in terms of payment schedules of debts. And so a huge payment like this is wrong. It would make more sense if the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) had offered an amendment to say what I just said earlier, that a creditor should never be allowed to increase an interest rate on a debt if, in fact, the consumer is paying that debt based upon the agreed-upon agreement. But I understand how this place works, and I really thought that he had enough support on the other side to at least get this very basic kind of amendment passed, I would say to the gentleman. So I want him to know that I support it. I thank him for bringing it to the floor. But just know I think that sooner or later, we have to correct this injustice.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. When the Committee rises and we are in the full House, I intend to submit for the Record a letter signed by 55 Democrats and Republicans from California discussing the fact that this law, if passed, would preempt California law, SB1. Finally, let me just say I want to support this bill, but why would any Representative from California support a bill that wipes out the protections for California consumers that they have worked so hard for, for so many years? Mr. Chairman, I will include for the Record the list of financial institutions in California that negotiated with our consumers and remained neutral as this bill was signed into law by Governor Gray Davis. I think it is very important that we protect California law, and if other States want to support stronger measures, allow States to do that. As the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) said, this is a States' rights issue. I think this amendment would allow States to enact consumer protections that they deem necessary for their consumers. American Electronics Association California Bankers Association California Chamber of Commerce California Financial Services Association California Mortgage Bankers Association Capital One Citigroup Countrywide Financial Farmers Insurance Fidelity Investments Financial Services Privacy Coalition Household International, Inc. JP Morgan Chase

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), whose diligence on this bill has identified many errors we are trying to correct today.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Monterey, California (Mr. Farr), a real advocate for consumers, a great leader.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a real leader in this Congress in the fight for privacy rights.