Barbara Lee

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from southern California (Mr. Sherman), cosponsor of this amendment.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for their diligent work to really make this a bipartisan bill. Of course, I cannot support it as long as it preempts California and that is what it does. I offer this amendment today on behalf of all Californians and all Americans, really, who deserve and want to take back control of their private financial information. And I want to thank my California colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and all of those who have been working on this very, very important issue and this important amendment. Mr. Chairman, our amendment would make a major step towards reclaiming consumers' financial privacy by doing the following: First, it protects California's recently enacted landmark Privacy Act; and, secondly, it allows every State to enact financial privacy laws giving consumers in those States similar protections to Californians, which, of course, is the strongest in the Nation, if they so choose, only if they so choose. For those of you who are not fortunate enough to hail from the great State of California and may not be familiar with California's new law, let me just provide a little bit of background. What does the new privacy law do? It gives consumers the right to stop the sharing of information by financial institutions, unless they meet very stringent criteria. The law requires financial institutions to obtain a consumer's affirmative consent before sharing information with most third parties. It also provides standards for consumers to receive clear notice of their rights. Now, how did this groundbreaking law come about? Well, it was the result of a long hard fight and it is a major effort by California State Senators, Jackie Speier and John Burton. And I really want to thank them for their tireless effort in working with the financial institutions in California to come up with this arrangement, this compromise, this law which really did result in resounding bipartisan support for the bill SB1, which passed the California Senate by a vote of 31 to 6 and passed the assembly by a vote of 76 to 1. Yes, I also want to thank Governor Davis for really standing up for California consumers by signing this bill. But it is very important, I believe, to recognize the critical role California consumers played in the fight for new and strong financial protections because in the end it was this broad support and the very hard work of California consumers that pushed the bill forward. In fact, I want to cite a January California opinion poll to demonstrate the overwhelming popularity for a strong financial protection. Now, the poll found that 91 percent of individuals supported a ballot initiative that will require a bank, credit card company, insurance company or other financial institutions to notify a consumer and to receive a customer's permission before selling any financial information to any separate financial or nonfinancial company. The support was strong regardless of party affiliation: 96 percent of Democrats, 88 percent of Republicans, 90 percent of Independents. Clearly, financial privacy is not a partisan issue. Now these groundbreaking, popular, hard-won protections which were negotiated with our financial institutions in California are threatened because of this bill before us today. Let us be clear, this bill does preempt California law. And what does that mean? That means that important California protections will just basically be wiped out. In fact, it means that Californians will never see parts of the law that was signed by the governor. And it means that the will of an overwhelming majority of Californians will be overturned by what we are doing today. We cannot allow that to happen. We have an obligation to stop that and this amendment would do exactly that. And just like we have an obligation to stand up for all of our consumers today, we are standing up for our California consumers. We have an obligation to stand up for consumers, as I said, all across the country so that they have the opportunity to protect and to control their intimate financial details. Consumers in California are no different than consumers everywhere when it comes to their financial privacy. Strong protections are what they seek and what they deserve. I want to take a moment to address some of the inflated and really irrational concerns that have been raised about our amendment. It will not bring commerce to a grinding halt. It will not mean an end to affordable mortgages, and it will not leave more minorities without access to credit. It will not put an end to ATM machines, and it will not ruin the credit system as we know it. It will merely require banks and insurance companies and other financial institutions to ask California consumers before they share and sell their private information. It will merely allow consumers and other States to benefit from similar protections in the future if they determine that it makes sense for them. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Flake Amendment to end the unnecessary and counterproductive ban on travel to Cuba, and I want to recognize and applaud both Mr. Flake and Mr. Delahunt for their outstanding leadership on this issue and the agenda of the House Cuba Working Group. In fact, I am a proud sponsor of H.R. 2071, the Working Group's Export Freedom to Cuba Act, which would accomplish the same objective as this amendment, and would allow travel between the United States and Cuba. I have long supported normalizing relations with Cuba and frankly, Mr. Chairman, find it embarrassing that our policy has remained unchanged and stagnant in the 26 years since I first got involved in efforts to normalize relations. I wonder when the Administration will realize that November 9, 2003 marks 14 years since the end of the Cold War. Americans do not need a license to travel half-way around the world to North Korea, Iraq and Iran, but the ``dangerous'' island nation of Cuba 90 miles off the coast of Florida requires stricter regulation. This policy seems particularly absurd when there is bi-partisan, bi- cameral support to end the embargo; most Americans oppose the trade and travel ban. Even Cuban Americans are divided on the issue. In 2000, a Florida International University poll showed that 63 percent of Americans nationally and 75 percent of Americans of other than Cuban descent in Miami-Dade favor unrestricted travel to Cuba. We constantly seem to be moving backwards in our foreign policy, when our constituents are saying the opposite. Where is the logic in punishing Americans? A significant number of Representatives from both sides of the aisle actually agree on ending the travel ban. However, we are still unable to normalize travel and trade. In 1999 we granted permanent normalized trade relations to China, but are still unable to travel and trade with Cuba freely. Whether or not other nations agree with the practices of the Cuban regime, they believe that our policy is ridiculous and outdated. Mr. Speaker, the obsession with Cuba is two-fold: Those who support the travel ban are driven by 44-year-old memories of the revolution. Americans, who are eager to travel, are drawn to the rich, vibrant Cuban culture. Along with most of my constituents, I belong to the latter group which believes that we have much to learn from each other. The Oakland City Council in 1998 passed a resolution to eliminate the trade sanctions against Cuba and the Bay Area has numerous sister-city relations with Cubans; these exchanges benefit students, arts initiatives, encourage humanitarian projects and research sharing for important diseases like HIV/AIDS, kidney failure and high blood pressure. Farmers across the country are eager to engage in trade with Cuba as the U.S. economy continues to plummet. The recent elimination of the people-to-people category, within the OFAC regulations, proves again how the administration is more concerned with maintaining a grudge than reinstating the American right to travel. Mr. Chairman, not only does the travel and trade embargo undermine and contradict the values upon which our great country is based, but they are also very costly and logistically difficult to administer between the Departments of State, Treasury, and Commerce. We should not be persecuting Americans who are guilty of nothing more than a sense of curiosity and eagerness to learn and explore our island neighbor, Cuba. Vote ``yes'' to promote democracy, vote for Americans freedom to travel, vote for the Flake amendment.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the voucher provisions that poison this D.C. Appropriations bill and to support the Norton amendment. If we pass this bill without the Norton amendment, we will be approving vouchers at the Federal level. We will be paving the way for the demise of our public education system, and we will be hampering our students' ability to succeed. In short, we will undermine what is really one of the fundamental pillars of American democracy, a top-quality free public education that is a fundamental right for all American children. Privatizing public education is not the American way and you know it. It is wrong to be redistributing Federal money to private schools when public schools are facing teacher shortages, record-high student enrollments and dealing with subpar facilities and infrastructure. And yes, we must help rebuild schools in Iraq, but we must also invest in our own public schools in our own country. This bill will also compromise the civil rights of our students. Even though vouchers would provide public money, private schools are not bound by civil rights provisions that govern our schools. Private schools can discriminate in admissions and employment on the basis of religion. Moreover, if we do give this money away, we lose the ability to account for the spending of that money. If voucher schools do not adopt academic standards, provide highly qualified teachers, or administer the assessments required of public schools, we have no recourse under this proposal. Perhaps this explains why there has been so little success with voucher programs. Every serious study of voucher programs has found that vouchers do not improve student achievement. Objective studies funded by the Wisconsin and Ohio legislatures have found that voucher students perform no better than comparable students in other public schools. The bottom line is that for every dollar we put into vouchers, we will be draining, draining, our public schools of the very life blood that makes it possible for us to have schools at the highest possible level, schools that educate all young Americans. And we will be putting lots of dollars, $10 million for the District, and that is just a start. If we ever went to a national voucher program, of course, which this sets the stage for, one estimate claims that it could cost about $73 billion. And that is just wrong. Instead of diverting money to private and religious schools, we must demonstrate a stronger commitment to safer schools, smaller classrooms, higher standards, technology and more accountability of all. That will benefit the public school system and it will not bankrupt it. We must put resources into our low-achieving schools so that they become high-performing schools. So I urge the Members to vote for the Norton amendment, and I thank her for her leadership. And I urge the Members to vote against the bill if it retains, however, the voucher provision which jeopardizes the future of public education. This bill, with the voucher provision, really could be the beginning of the end of public education not only in the District of Columbia but in our entire country. Again, I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for bringing this forward, and I urge support of her amendment.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, on August 19, 2003, Kofi Annan, the Secretary- General of the United Nations, lost a trusted envoy and the world lost a skilled peacemaker. Sergio Vieira de Mello was killed in the bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad. Among his dying words was a plea that the United Nations mission there go on. Sergio Vieira de Mello was a native of Brazil but a citizen of the world. From Bangladesh to Sudan to Cyprus, from Mozambique to Lebanon to Bosnia and Kosovo, to East Timor, and finally to Iraq, Mr. de Mello's resume reads like an atlas of some of the world's most troubled and dangerous places. It is also a list of accomplishment and achievement. As the Secretary-General's special envoy to Iraq, on leave from his position as U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr. de Mello saw his role as helping to return the governing of Iraq to the hands of its people. At his funeral, Secretary-General Annan bade Mr. de Mello a fitting tribute as he said goodbye: ``Sergio, my friend, you have entered the pantheon of fallen heroes that the United Nations wishes it did not have. You will shine forever among our brightest stars. May you rest in peace.''

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) to restore guaranteed funding for the transportation enhancements program. With over 15,000 projects receiving funding nationwide, it is very clear that the benefits of this program have not been confined to any one district, State, or region. These projects are very critical in establishing and in maintaining livable communities. In my district alone the transportation enhancements program has funded nearly 30 projects over the last 12 years at a cost of about $22.5 million, and these projects have provided a very big improvement to the quality of life for many of my constituents and the residents of the Bay Area as a whole, not to mention the thousands of tourists who come through our region every month. The program has funded projects ranging for something as simple as a bike locker at local BART stations to pedestrian and streetscape improvements throughout Berkeley, Oakland, San Leandro, and Fruitvale, to construction of the Oakland section of the very ambitious 400-mile San Francisco Bay Trail project that links 47 cities and nine Bay Area counties together. Other projects include the acquisition of scenic shoreline in Oakland for beautification and recreational purposes, the berthing and preservation of several historic ships, the construction and upgrade of the Berkeley train stop, the construction of bicycle underpasses along the very busy I-80 freeway, as well as a number of other landscaping and beautification projects throughout my district. Mr. Chairman, our constituents really value each and every one of these projects, not only in my district but throughout our country, as I mentioned earlier, which the transportation enhancement program has really helped to pay for. And let me tell the Members that ever since word got out that this House was considering removing the dedicated funding for this program, I do not think that a day has gone by where I have not received a phone call, e-mail, fax, or letter from constituents which criticize this move. So we must make this bill right. We must pass this amendment so that we can continue to fund the construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, Rail to Trail conversions, the acquisition and preservation of historic land, and a host of other projects that have all contributed to the quality of life in our neighborhoods and really for the increased safety which people so deserve. Once again, as I said earlier, these projects are so critical in establishing livable communities.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Edwin Hawkins on his 60th birthday for his achievements as a gospel music pioneer and community activist. He has been a composer, producer, songwriter and vital force in gospel music for four decades. The album ``Let Us Go into the House of the Lord'' was the first to bring acclaim to Mr. Hawkins. Among its highlights was the track ``Oh Happy Day,'' which unexpectedly found a home on underground FM playlists across San Francisco. The single quickly began earning airplay on mainstream R&B and pop outlets across the country, and in the spring of 1969 it reached the U.S. Top Five on its way to selling an astounding seven million copies and taking home a Grammy award for Best Gospel/Soul Performance of 1969. At this time the choir was rechristened the Edwin Hawkins Singers, although the featured voice on ``Oh Happy Day'' belonged to singer Dorothy Combs Morrison, who soon exited in pursuit of a solo career. In 1970 the group made a return appearance on the pop charts supporting the artist Melanie on her hit ``Lay Down (Candle in the Wind).'' Edwin Hawkins remained a critical favorite, and in 1972, the Singers won a second Grammy for ``Every Man Wants to Be Free.'' Recording prolifically throughout the remainder of the decade, in 1980 they won a third Grammy for ``Wonderful''; a fourth award, for ``If You Love Me,'' followed three years later. In 1982, Edwin founded the Edwin Hawkins Music and Arts Seminar, an annual week-long convention that offers workshops exploring all facets of the gospel industry and culminating each year with a live performance by the assembled mass choir. The 2002 Love Fellowship Mass Choir included hundreds of representatives from the United States, Europe, and Japan. Gospel musicians and vocalists from around the world will meet to celebrate this great composer, musician, and vocalist on his 60th birthday. On a personal note, I would like to thank Edwin for his long- standing friendship and encouragement. He is a true believer, and has been steadfast in his honesty and support. I take great pride in joining his friends, colleagues, and family to salute the extraordinary Edwin Hawkins.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Paradise Baptist Church of Oakland, and its pastor, Reverend Leon McDaniels, Sr. Today marks the dedication celebration of the new Paradise Baptist Church Worship Center. Paradise Baptist Church had its beginning in February 1960. Rev. C. William Johnson was the assistant pastor at the First Baptist Parchester Church of Richmond, California when he was called to begin a church in the Columbian Gardens area of Oakland. He set out with four volunteers and went door to door sharing their vision for a new community of the spirit. In May 1960, a meeting was called and the Paradise Baptist Mission was organized. In August of that year, Paradise was officially founded and established as the Paradise Baptist Church with Rev. C. William Johnson as pastor. Paradise Baptist Church has had many homes over the years. Early on, Pastor Johnson purchased a home with his Veterans Administration certificate and converted it into a house of worship. In November 1963, a house on Empire Road was purchased, and the church moved to this location. By 1968, a larger facility was needed. A church was constructed adjacent to the house where the congregation had been worshipping, but by 1970 even that building was too small. Many of the faithful financed the building project by taking out second mortgages and borrowing funds which they donated unconditionally. On the third Sunday of August 1972, the new sanctuary was complete. Over the next 10 years, Paradise experienced substantial growth, and in 1988, Pastor Johnson brought in Rev. Leon McDaniels, Sr. as the full-time evangelism coordinator. Rev. McDaniels' spark and enthusiasm spread throughout the entire church body. On September 17, 1993, Pastor Johnson's time on earth came to an end, leaving the Paradise family filled with grief. Following a period of mourning, Rev. Leon McDaniels, Sr. took office as the new pastor and vowed to make a significant difference in the Columbian Gardens community, and in all of Oakland. There has been great growth during the tenure of Pastor McDaniels. Today, numerous ministries are available to the congregation, including the Prayer Ministry, Soul-Winning Ministry, Christian Education Training, Alpha Omega Youth Ministry, Pastoral Care, Wistar Redemption and Recovery, Inc., Financial Management, Real Estate Ministry (the HUD Home Buyers Program), Married Couples Ministry, Singles Ministry, Camp Ministry and Political Liaison Ministry. Pastor McDaniels realized a larger facility was sorely needed. By faith, the groundbreaking ceremony was held in August 17, 1997. Once again, the membership stepped in and made contributions and personal sacrifices in their commitment to further the ministry. The congregation has been blessed with the New Paradise Baptist Church Worship Center located at 9704 Empire Road in Oakland, California. The Paradise Baptist Church family has come a long way since its humble beginning in 1960. Rev. C. William Johnson knew 43 years ago that Paradise would make a difference in the city of Oakland. This vision has come to fruition under the leadership of Pastor Leon McDaniels, Sr. with a congregation of more than 400 members and numerous ministries that reach out to the community. I take great pride in joining friends, family, and the congregation to salute Paradise Baptist Church and its leader, the extraordinary Pastor Leon McDaniels, Sr. on this auspicious dedication.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Eshoo, Ms. Pelosi, Ms. Tausher, Ms. Woolsey and myself honor Roots of Peace, a humanitarian organization dedicated to fostering prosperity in the spirit that turns swords into plowshares. Since its founding in 1997 by Ms. Heidi Kuhn, Roots of Peace has worked towards the global eradication of landmines, sowing seeds of goodwill by transforming "mines into vines." In communities throughout the world, Roots of Peace restores hope and prosperity by replacing toxic minefields that maim and kill with blossoming vineyards and fields of grain. Understanding that landmines impact not only individual victims and their families, but hold entire communities hostage emotionally, environmentally, and economically, Roots of Peace implements comprehensive and lasting solutions. The organization has waged its campaign against landmines on four fronts: awareness, removal, treatment, and restoration. Landmines maim or kill approximately 26,000 people each year, 10,000 of them children. Lurking patiently beneath the earth's surface, mines can wait almost indefinitely for their victims. Today, an estimated 70 million mines in over 70 nations are waiting for a mere eight pounds of pressure to detonate. These indiscriminate weapons of terror neither know nor care if that pressure is applied by the boot of a marching soldier or the bare foot of a playing child. The successful removal of these gruesomely destructive weapons is both dangerous and costly. In contrast to the three dollars required to manufacture and plant a landmine, its removal can cost up to 1,000 dollars. Since its inception, Roots of Peace has worked tirelessly garnering the resources necessary to rid vast expanses of land of the mines that keep them lying fallow and transform them into thriving farmland. This summer alone, Roots of Peace is planting rice in Cambodia, orchards in Croatia, and grapes in Afghanistan. Also, in a particularly poignant expression of hope for a lasting peace, Roots of Peace will be planting wheat in Iraq, bringing the dream of neighbors in this war- torn country breaking bread together closer to fruition. We ask all of our colleagues to join us in commending Roots of Peace for their outstanding work which saves lives and restores livelihoods in communities around the world.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), for this bill and for their hard work and leadership in terms of trying to address the very complicated issues of housing and our veterans population. Mr. Chairman, 20 percent of our homeless population hold jobs, 22 percent are mentally ill, and 11 percent are veterans. Now, on any given day in my home State of California, there are approximately 350,000 people who are homeless, including as many as 100,000 children. I rise today because we must help the over 3 million homeless nationwide and millions of low-income families struggling to find shelter across this country. Mr. Chairman, this bill is woefully underfunding homeless programs for one of our Nation's most vulnerable and most consistently neglected populations. Now, I understand that this bill provides $25 million more than fiscal year 2003 levels. But given the cost of inflation, this bill really does provide a net cut. Moreover, and what is very important that we understand here is that this bill falls $83 million short of the President's request. The President's request. Our amendment simply funds the McKinney-Vento homeless programs at the President's request. This Congress and the administration have championed the need for more supportive housing, more comprehensive transitional housing and homeless assistance programs, and really ending the chronic cycle of homelessness. President Bush and Secretary Martinez have both committed to ending homelessness in the next 10 years. As we make these commitments and promises, the rates of homelessness continues to rise. Since the start of 2003, people requesting emergency homeless assistance and food has sky-rocketed. At a time of record and rising unemployment and economic uncertainty, when more people are forced to live on the streets, to suffer the elements and the stigma of homelessness, we must commit and live up to our promise and our obligation to end this crisis. By increasing the funds used in the McKinney-Vento account, we can devote the much-deserved funding and attention to homelessness. The Lee-Schakowsky amendment would provide a modest response to this often unavoided yet urgent problem by simply funding the McKinney-Vento account at the President's requested level of $1.3 billion for fiscal year 2004. This $83 million would translate into housing to over 14 million families who have critical housing needs and over 2.5 million households with children living in severely substandard housing. By supporting McKinney-Vento at the President's requested amount, we could provide shelter for the over 1 million homeless children in our country. What would we be giving up in order to fund these accounts and do the right thing? The answer is nothing that HUD could not live without. This offset comes from an already bloated working capital account which pays for IT consultants and computer supplies at HUD. Even with the passage of the Lee-Schakowsky amendment, the HUD working capital would have received over $1 billion from 2001 to 2003. The real question that our amendment poses, is very simple: Do Members support helping to alleviate homelessness or do they support a nameless, faceless account used to provide the tools to process the information about the homeless. It is really about choice. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, let me follow up with that by saying, failing to fund the administration's budget request for homeless programs undercuts HUD Secretary Martinez's pledge to end chronic homelessness within the next decade. By repudiating the administration's homeless budget, which is at the heart of that pledge, it will be impossible to provide the permanent housing and supportive services that are needed for the 150,000 chronically homeless individuals. Underfunding in the homeless account really comes on top of the bill's deep cuts in public housing and underfunding of section 8 renewals. Public housing and section 8 are the key provisions providing rental assistance to the poorest. Program cuts now will result in an increase in the level of homelessness nationwide, and that is one of the reasons why we are standing today with the President in terms of his funding request of $83 million, so we can move forward and begin to address those who have been shut out, really, of the benefits of this very wealthy country. I want to close with this poem from a 7-year-old homeless child. It is called ``Being Homeless'': ``If you are a kid, it is cold, lonely, scary. I guess I need to hurry and grow up.'' It does not seem much of a choice to me in terms of restoring or putting in the $83 million that the President wants. I am asking for this House to please support the Lee-Schakowsky amendment. It is really a matter of choices. We can decide, do we want to help those who are vulnerable, those who are out on the streets with no place to go, those who barely have enough to eat, those who have severe mental difficulties, physical difficulties who have no health care; or do we want to fund some information technology account over at HUD. I ask for an ``aye'' vote on this amendment.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion offered by my colleague from California, and I want to thank her for her extraordinary leadership. The Republicans are holding this measure hostage because they really want to avoid doing what is right. They knowingly left out millions of families in their tax bill. Mr. Speaker, this is shameful and that is why we have been protesting their failure to provide this vital relief for working families. When the child tax credit was created in 1975, it was for the purpose of helping families, not hurting them. President Bush said that all Americans would receive tax relief, but that was not the case. Initially, it seemed that the President's $400 per child increase in the child tax credit was meant to help all families, but what we did not know was that the Republicans really did not mean ``all families.'' Their idea of helping families did not extend to low-income working families, the same people who were already left out of the President's tax cut on dividends which President Bush offered the wealthiest Americans. When Republican negotiators went behind closed doors, suddenly these families of 12 million children were excluded from the child tax credit. Nationwide, that means one out of every six American children were excluded. These children come from families where the parents work hard and play by the rules. They deserve the same tax credit that other parents will receive, but they really need it more. Their families do not have the advantages that others have. In the jobs depression this administration has put us in, the loss of the $400 tax credit is like rubbing salt really in their wounds. Now let us be clear about some of the people who will be hurt by this huge inequity in the Republican tax plan, because the victims will be disproportionately African American and Latino and other people of color. 8.1 million taxpayers will receive no relief under the Republican tax cuts; 1.6 million of them are Hispanic. Mr. Speaker, 8.1 million represents 44 times the number of taxpayers who have incomes exceeding $1 million, yet the President and the Republicans have gone out of their way to help the wealthy. In fact, those people with incomes over $1 million will receive an average tax cut of $93,000 in 2003. In terms of the child tax credit, one-half of all African American families will not get the full tax credit, while one-quarter will receive no tax credit. And how can we abandon military families who are making tremendous sacrifices? One million children of military families were excluded from this tax package. So let us be for real in supporting our troops. Mr. Speaker, the situation is outrageous, and it really does show the Republican leadership's complete, complete lack of compassion in their very conservative agenda.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, we rise today to honor the 50th wedding anniversary of James Wilson Jackson and Harry Belle Fullmore, better known as Honey. James, a lieutenant in the United States Army was stationed at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas where he met Honey. And, like her name, Honey was the belle of Texas and James was swept off his feet. After numerous Sunday dinners prepared by Jesse Cook, Honey's mother and James' future mother-in-law, James proposed to Honey and the two married on August 14, 1953. They had four children: James Wilson Jackson, Jr., Suzan Elizabeth Jackson, Barbara Ann Jackson and Michelle Jackson. Having chosen a military career, James and Honey traveled throughout the world including the Orient, Europe and from coast to coast in the United States. Everywhere they settled, they developed a host of friends. Upon retiring from the military, James and Honey chose Cleveland, Ohio as their new home. Since moving to Cleveland in 1970, they have dedicated themselves to contributing to their community and society at large. James chose the civic route, volunteering to serve on various Boards and Commissions. Honey chose to make her contributions more economic in nature, supporting upscale and specialty boutiques from coast to coast. During the 50 years of their marriage, James and Honey have been faced with many obstacles and hurdles, but working together, they have persevered. We are honored to commend James and Honey Jackson on their Golden Anniversary.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in the Hellenic Caucus in remembering the 29th anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, which took place on July 20, 1974. On that day, in clear violation of international law, Turkish forces invaded northern Cyprus expelling 200,000 Greek-Cypriots from their homes. Many of these Greek-Cypriots literally had to flee for their lives, taking what little belongings they could as paratroopers dropped from the sky. Over 5,000 Cypriots were killed in the conflict, and to date 1,400 Greek-Cypriots are still missing. Today, Turkey occupies 37 percent of Cyprus, an island smaller than the State of Connecticut, with a force of 40,000 troops in a country of just under 1 million people. Despite numerous United Nations General Assembly Resolutions urging Turkey to withdraw its forces, and the stationing of U.N. forces on the island, Turkey--in a further violation and disregard for international law--unilaterally declared the independence of the occupied territory of northern Cyprus in 1983. Aside from Turkey, no other country in the world has recognized the so-called ``Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.'' But in spite of the island's artificial division, Cyprus has managed to make considerable progress over the last three decades even as it continues to seek a peaceful resolution with Turkey. And now with a vibrant democracy and a robust economy, Cyprus is also poised to officially join the European Union next year and to bring the benefits of membership to all Cypriots. Yet Turkey's intransigence continues. In November of 2002 U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan presented both Greek and Turkish Cypriot sides with a comprehensive new plan aimed at reunifying Cyprus in advance of the island's accession to the EU. Though by no means perfect, this plan was a good faith attempt to create a workable solution that was fair to both sides. Initially, negotiations based on the U.N. plan provided hope to many that the Cyprus problem could finally be resolved after 30 years, due to the personal commitment of the Secretary General. However, it soon became clear that the leader of the Turkish-Cypriot side, Mr. Rauf Denktash, and the Turkish government were not fully invested in the negotiating process. In a last ditch effort to salvage the negotiations prior to the signing of the EU accession treaty, Secretary General Annan requested both Mr. Denktash and the Cypriot President, Tassos Papadopoulos, to join him at the Hague last March to discuss placing the U.N. plan before the Cypriot people in a separate, simultaneous referendum. Although President Papadopoulos was ready and willing to do so, Mr. Denktash, with support from Turkey, rejected that proposal. The international response to the rejection of a referendum by the Turkish side was clear and unanimous in its characterization of Mr. Denktash as the principal impediment to negotiating a solution that all Cypriots very much want. The current relaxation of longstanding travel prohibitions by the Turkish-Cypriots does not make up for a strong commitment to a negotiated settlement. In many cases this has only helped to underscore the depth of feeling of many Greek and Turkish Cypriots who long for the chance to return to their homes and villages. I hope that this will one day be possible, and I fully expect that once a settlement is concluded and Cyprus is finally re-unified, that both Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots will live together side-by- side in harmony. But, today we stand in remembrance of those who were killed and those who were never found as a result of the illegal Turkish invasion. I hope that if Turkey is truly serious about joining Cyprus and Greece in the European Union that it immediately and unconditionally withdraws its forces and demonstrates a true commitment to a negotiated settlement.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to H.R. 2738, the Chile Free Trade Agreement. Last year, this House passed a free trade agreement that I voted for because it encouraged commerce while protecting important labor and environmental standards and protecting American jobs. The Chilean FTA and the Singapore agreement we will be voting on shortly, represent the products of Fast Track: Congress has no chance to remedy fundamental flaws in these bills. We are asked to accept what the President hands us, and in this case the Administration has handed us two bills that represent a step backward. These bills do not uphold basic labor standards. We set a terrible precedent if we pass these bills without adequate labor provisions because I guarantee you this weak standard will be replicated in future trade agreements. We see the same shortfall on environmental standards and thus we set a bad precedent in that regard as well. We need to be promoting sustainable development and environmentally sustainable trade--it's in the American interest. Finally, this bill and its companion will continue to erode the American job base. NAFTA has cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs. These trade agreements and those that will follow in their path will accelerate this job loss, further damaging an economy that is already spiraling down in a jobs depression. Labor and environmental standards are not luxuries: they are essential ingredients to a sound trading policy. We could have built on the Jordanian standard; instead, these bills fall short. I urge you to oppose this bill.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me just thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank all of my colleagues on this side of the aisle and also our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, especially the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) for leading this very important fight for more affordable prescription drugs. Mr. Speaker, I want to start off tonight by sharing with my colleagues the news from a study which was featured today in the Wall Street Journal. Now, this article begins, ``Black Medicare beneficiaries are more than twice as likely as white beneficiaries to go without a prescription drug because they could not afford it.'' This is a study conducted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Let me repeat: African Americans are two times more likely to go without needed medicine. Now, this study goes on to detail the deep disparities in access to drugs, reporting that fully 16 percent of black recipients of Medicare said they could not afford to fill at least one prescription in 2001 compared with 7 percent of whites. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, African Americans are suffering disproportionately and mightily under the current laws crafted to protect the drug companies and their inflated prices. And make no mistake, that the suffering will only get worse if we do not pass this bill. And the suffering will last for as long as there is this huge, and I cannot believe this huge, resistance to efforts to reduce the skyrocketing and irrational cost of these lifesaving medicines. The reality for African Americans and millions of Americans on Medicare is outrageous and shameful, but we have the option tonight to do something about it. We should and we must seize this opportunity to provide lifesaving medicine to millions of Americans who are going without, simply because they cannot afford the bloated costs of drugs. And we should do so by voting to allow, as this bill does, safe, FDA- approved prescription drugs to be reimported into the United States. Now, much has been said about safety and logistics of reimportation, and I think it is very important to point out that the FDA-approved drugs are already frequently and legally imported into this country, but only by the manufacturers. It is also important to note that more than 1 million Americans already purchase their medicines from outside the United States, and there has not been one reported death or illness from Americans taking such products. Mr. Speaker, the simple fact is that seniors' drug costs increased 44 percent between 2000 and 2003, with the top 50 drugs prescribed to seniors increasing in cost by 3.5 times the rate of inflation in the last year. The simple fact is, Americans pay 30 to 300 percent more for medicines than do people in other industrialized countries. We should pass this bill tonight.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his leadership and for making sure we have a way to make sure that the world knows what we are trying to stop tonight. Head Start has a proven record of preparing low-income children for school and for life. It has been successful because Head Start understands that education is not just about reading and writing; it understands that all children need a sound body if they are to have a sound mind. Just as much as they need education and learning, Head Start understands that they need nutrition and health care. Recent studies show the congressional districts represented by Congressional Black Caucus Members have almost twice as many children in Head Start as other congressional districts. That means if this bill goes through, children in our districts will be disproportionately hit. Mr. Chairman, block granting is a recipe for disaster. It guarantees that thousands of Head Start students will start their life well behind. It is the beginning of the end of Head Start. By supporting the Miller substitute, however, we are recognizing that Head Start works. Let us keep it working.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in strong support of the McGovern-Skelton amendment. This amendment transfers $75 million from Colombian military assistance to global programs for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. Now, this amendment signals to Colombia and the world that this government is serious about the need to respect human rights, that it believes that we need to rethink our approach to the Colombian situation, and that we recognize that the HIV/AIDS pandemic is the greatest health and humanitarian crisis of our time. Plan Colombia has failed. Coca production in the Andes has increased. Eradication programs are shifting production, not eliminating it, and they are exposing men, women, and children of the region to dangerous pesticides. At the same time, paramilitary organizations tied to the Colombian army we are supporting have engaged in gross human rights violations. Those same paramilitaries, according to the Washington Post and other sources, are major drug dealers themselves. The Post reports that paramilitaries control 40 percent, that is 40 percent of the Colombian drug trade. Human Rights Watch and other humanitarian organizations have reported that Colombian military officers alleged to have committed human rights abuses remain on duty. We should be able to translate United States assistance into influence to promote the protection of human rights. That is not happening in Colombia, and civilians are paying the price. We are compelled to ask: What are we trying to do in Colombia and what is our exit strategy? How much will we spend on this program and what will it accomplish? The United States has a long and troubled history in Latin America, and we should end this chapter. At the same time, this bill underfunds the President's $3 billion HIV/AIDS initiative, so this amendment would help correct this imbalance that will cost lives. While the money that this amendment would transfer from the Colombian account is a modest sum by most standards, it can go a long way towards helping those individuals who are suffering and dying from HIV and AIDS and other opportunistic infections such as tuberculosis and malaria. Now, with the cost of generic anti-retroviral drugs dropping to under $300 a year, let me tell my colleagues what $75 million would do. Seventy-five million dollars would allow another 250,000 HIV/AIDS infected individuals access to these lifesaving drugs. Seventy-five million dollars could also pay for approximately 7 million people to take the normal $10 treatment course for tuberculosis, which is the leading killer of HIV and AIDS patients. And with the cost of most malaria treatment courses ranging from $2 to $5, up to 15 million patients could be treated with just $75 million. Let me be clear, though, that as much good as this money can do, it can in no way overcome the nearly $1 billion shortfall in spending for our global AIDS, TB, and malaria initiatives. Now, the President has promised $3 billion, but it is obvious that this Congress must deliver on that. I would hope that the President would try very hard to find some way to make up the difference between the $3 billion that we authorized back in May and the just over $2 billion that we are now appropriating. Thanks to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kilpatrick) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), with this amendment we have an opportunity to piece this money, and that is what we are doing, piecing this $1 million together. But it is worth it. It would be a travesty to underfund our first-year pledge of the 5 years, $15 billion commitment we made so recently to fight global AIDS, particularly since the President spoke so much about it during his recent trip to Africa. Expectations have been raised, and we must deliver upon them or we risk further damage to our credibility. This amendment improves our foreign policy in two directions. It helps correct a Colombian policy that has gone badly astray, and it transfers desperately needed funds to the most urgent humanitarian and health crisis of our time. It helps us, this House, deliver on the President's promise. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Today I rise in support of this amendment, and I would also at this point like to thank the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) for introducing it and also for her very bold and committed leadership and her very hard work over the years in trying to ensure that we increase the level of assistance to help combat HIV and AIDS. We could not do it without her. We authorize, she appropriates. And she certainly has taken lead to ensure that millions of people in Africa have hope. I thank her. Over the past 2 months, in fact, it was about 2 months ago, the President of the United States signed into law H.R. 1298, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003. This piece of legislation, which passed the House overwhelmingly last May, provides $15 billion over 5 years. That is $3 billion a year, which is still not enough but that is all that we could negotiate, for global AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria programs in the developing world, especially in Africa and the Caribbean. Two weeks ago the President took this promise of money to the continent of Africa where he attempted to trumpet the compassionate side of United States foreign policy. For the most part, he was warmly welcomed by people who believe and expect that when the United States makes a promise to tackle a problem, particularly something as devastating as HIV and AIDS, which of course Secretary of State Colin Powell has repeatedly described as a greater threat than terrorism, people believe that we will follow through on our commitment. Unfortunately, that has not been the case so far, and I was very surprised and taken aback last week when I learned of a letter forwarded to the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) from the White House asking him to keep the overall funding for global AIDS at $2 billion, specifically mentioned that the Global AIDS Fund should only receive $200 million this year. Actually it was $200 million less than what was in the bill, so thankfully I am glad that the committee did not heed this particular advice. But meanwhile let me just say in Paris, France we learned that our Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, was at the global AIDS meeting. He of course serves as Chair of the Executive Board of the Global Fund, and he was attempting to solicit greater contributions for that organization from other donor nations, which is a good thing, but we are leading the way. Let me just ask my colleagues what kind of message do these two actions really send to the rest of the world? Clearly, the administration's financial commitment to this issue does not match its rhetoric. Let me just quote the President's own words when he was in Nigeria on July 12. The President said, ``This week a committee of the House of Representatives took an important step to fund the first year of the authorization bill. The House of Representatives and the United States Senate must fully fund this initiative for the good of the people on this continent of Africa.'' The President said that in Africa. So today we are left to work with the foreign ops appropriation bill that is woefully underfunded coming in at even $1.8 billion less than the President requested way back in February. Unfortunately, this means that a variety of valuable foreign aid programs must compete for the same pot of money, including foreign aid initiatives that the President considers to be his own. This scenario could have been avoided really if the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) which provided an extra $1 billion in global AIDS funding by way of an emergency designation in this bill had been approved in committee last night, if the Committee on Rules had made the amendments in order. Ever since the subcommittee allocations came out, we knew that we were likely to face a $1 billion funding shortfall for our global AIDS programs. That is why about 2 weeks ago 115 of our colleagues joined in sending a letter to the President, urging him to formally request an emergency supplemental appropriations of $1 billion for our global AIDS program so that we could avoid any potential cuts to any other foreign aid programs. So we sent this communication. I am still hopeful that the President will move to save millions of lives in Africa with the same kind of zeal that he has displayed earlier in pushing through tax cuts and in pursuing the invasion of Iraq. But in the meantime we must also do what we can to ensure that the promises made by the United States Government towards the people of Africa and the Caribbean are lived up to. Mr. Chairman, let me ask that we support the Kilpatrick amendment. The need for increased funding for HIV and AIDS is now. These additional funds can be spent to save lives, and we need to put this money into the account right now. I hope that the Members have heard the cry of the Congressional Black Caucus today. As you know the amendment before us would transfer $300 million from the Millennium Challenge Account to our bilateral AIDS programs within the Child Survival and Health Account of the Foreign Operations bill. This would reduce the overall funding level for MCA to $500 million, while boosting funding for our Global AIDS programs within this bill to $1.73 billion. As a co-sponsor and a strong supporter of the Millennium Challenge Account legislation that we passed last week, I had to make a difficult decision as to whether we could justifiably pull $300 million away from the initiative without jeopardizing its ability to get off the ground in its first year of operation. After careful consideration of the likely timing for the enactment of the MCA, the need to operationalize the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and future funding disbursements, as well as the urgency of the Global AIDS pandemic, I believe that this amendment is an acceptable tradeoff. Nonetheless, this kind of practice is not something we can engage upon year to year. The administration must back up its so called Presidential initiatives with more than just rhetoric. It must provide the funding. Otherwise, the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the Millennium Challenge Account, and our other initiatives will be nothing more than empty promises. The need for increased funding for HIV/AIDS is now. The additional funds can be spent to save lives immediately. I hope that you will support this amendment.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey-Price amendment, and I would like to speak to the substance of this amendment. It promotes diversity by preserving existing limitations on media ownership. It actually promotes democracy. The recent FCC decision to adopt new broadcast ownership rules raising the national television ownership rules undermines the fundamental principle of diversity, fair play, competition, and exchange of ideas. It really does run counter to our notion of freedom of the press, the right to free expression, the right to be heard. The overwhelming public reaction against this FCC move dramatically illustrates the very diversity in America that this ruling circumvents. Groups as wide ranging as Common Cause and the National Rifle Association, the National Organization for Women, in fact, the National Association of Black-Owned Broadcasters actually support this amendment. All of these groups oppose this step toward greater monopolization of the Nation's airwaves. If we fail to take action, it is possible that a single company could own a newspaper, a television station, and a local radio station. Do we want all local news controlled by one company now that is possible under the new FCC rules? These few monopolies would shut down the views and voices of millions of Americans. Another likely result of this rule change will be the further silencing of minority voices. According to recent surveys, minorities own less than 2 percent of the country's licensed television stations and only 4 percent of the commercial AM and FM stations. These minority owners and other independent operators are in grave danger of being trampled on by the accelerated expansion of media conglomerates. Millions of Americans have contacted the FCC to express their disapproval of raising the limits on media ownership. This amendment addresses all of these very important concerns. It prevents the implementation of this unwise and unsound rule change.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 50th wedding anniversary of James Wilson Jackson and Harry Belle Fullmore, better known as Honey. James, a lieutenant in the United States Army was stationed at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas where he met Honey. And, like her name, Honey was the belle of Texas and James was swept off his feet. After numerous Sunday dinners prepared by Jesse Cook, Honey's mother and James' future mother-in-law, James proposed to Honey and the two married on August 14, 1953. They had four children: James Wilson Jackson, Jr., Suzan Elizabeth Jackson, Barbara Ann Jackson and Michelle Jackson. Having chosen a military career, James and Honey traveled throughout the world including the Orient, Europe and from coast to coast in the United States. Everywhere they settled, they developed a host of friends. Upon retiring from the military, James and Honey chose Cleveland, Ohio as their new home. Since moving to Cleveland in 1970, they have dedicated themselves to contributing to their community and society at large. James chose the civic route, volunteering to serve on various Boards and Commissions. Honey chose to make her contributions more economic in nature, supporting upscale and specialty boutiques from coast to coast. During the 50 years of their marriage, James and Honey have been faced with many obstacles and hurdles, but working together, they have persevered. I am honored to commend James and Honey Jackson on their Golden Anniversary.