Barbara Lee

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and also for his leadership and support in offering this amendment. As an urban resident, let me just say that national forests are really national property and belong as much to my constituents and to me as to anyone else. The roadless rule was the most popular Federal rule in history. Wiping it out is just downright wrong. Once this wilderness is gone, we will never get it back. Extending the roadless rule also means protecting clean drinking water, preserving habitat and safeguarding recreational opportunities. Preserving roadless areas also helps prevent incredibly damaging forest fires that we have witnessed in recent years in California and elsewhere in the West. Forest studies show that fires are twice as likely to occur in areas with roads and areas that have been logged in these roadless areas, and under existing rules we can still practice fire management. That is exactly what we should be doing, practicing responsible fire management. And, yes, most of us do live surrounded by concrete and asphalt. There have to be a few places left for our children and our grandchildren that are unpaved. And as I said earlier, national forests really are national property. We only have a handful of roadless areas left. Let us leave them for our kids, and let us leave them for their kids, our grandchildren. Our public lands really are under siege.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud our colleagues, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), co-chairs of the Arts Caucus, and their staff for their leadership on this issue of national importance, and I rise today also in strong support of this amendment. Congress has the responsibility to provide adequate funding to the National Endowment for the Humanities, which is the largest single funder of humanities programs in our country; and the National Endowment for the Arts, the infrastructure for private nonprofit and Federal arts initiatives. The current state of the economy has stifled private funding which subsidizes many arts and humanities programs nationwide. The economic downturn and our budget crisis is crippling arts initiatives in many, many States, especially in my home State of California. For example, in Oakland, one of the cities in my district, most of the arts education programs are facing real extinction. The result is the gradual disappearance of arts initiatives for people of all ages, ethnic backgrounds, social and economic backgrounds. In the vibrant, very diverse Ninth Congressional District of California, this strikes a significant blow at the foundation of our community. It is imperative that we support funding for the NEH, which is at the forefront of preservation of our historical and cultural heritage. For more than 20 years, the NEH has supported efforts to stabilize historical materials such as crumbling books, archives, newspapers, sound recordings, films, photographs, and archeological and ethnographic objects. These are treasures which will be lost forever. Mr. Chairman, I wish you could listen to the stories of my constituents in the Bay area. Art and music teachers have been laid off. For example, Ms. Bonnie Noble, an art teacher at McClymonds High School in Oakland, explained that students tend to take art courses to escape the harsh reality of violence which has escalated with the downfall of the economy. Already she has difficulty convincing students to pursue arts in their postsecondary studies for fear that it will distract them from securing a good job in an apparently vicious competitive market. Mr. Chairman, every year Members of Congress proudly exhibit the art work of the winners of the Artistic Discovery Arts Competition from their districts in the halls which provide the foundation of the United States Capitol. It seems contradictory to cut funding to the programs which support creativity in our community. We enjoy the fruits of their works and witness the products of this young talent every time we walk through the tunnel for a vote when we come over to this Capitol. Can you imagine walking through those dreary tunnels with bare walls simply because we refused to adequately fund arts and humanities programs and there were no teachers left to instruct our students? This amendment also provides funding for the NEA, which is an investment in the economic growth of communities with grants reaching every congressional district in the country. During the last 14 years, the NEA has provided funding for over 123 programs in my district alone, including the Berkley Symphony Orchestra, the Axis Dance Company, and the East Bay Institute for Urban Arts and the Museum of Children's Art. Clearly, a vote against this amendment, which is endorsed by the bipartisan Arts Caucus, is really an action against the vital thread which sustains the pulse of American culture. I urge all Members to support this amendment.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for introducing this resolution. It gives us the opportunity to reflect upon a great man. I rise in strong support of this resolution honoring Maynard Jackson, most famously known as the first African American mayor of Atlanta, but who will be remembered for much more than his outstanding service as mayor to the people of Atlanta. Maynard Jackson's accomplishments were far-reaching. He was an extraordinary leader in business, law, and public service. He successfully brought the world's largest airport, the Olympics, and a new world-class reputation to the City of Atlanta. Because of his efforts, the city boasts a booming economic center that is now home to one of the most prosperous African American business communities in the world. The Honorable Maynard Jackson was a staunch supporter and pioneer of affirmative action initiatives. His legacy is particularly important at a time when the Nation has renewed its commitment to diversity as a compeling State interest through the Supreme Court's landmark decision. The transforming power of targeted efforts toward diversity and inclusion is clearly evidenced in Jackson's work. As mayor of Atlanta, he authored initiatives that laid the foundation for many of the minority firms in Atlanta's thriving business community. Additionally, Jackson successfully incorporated some of the most marginalized communities into the core of the city's political activities. Early in life, Maynard Jackson proved he was exceptional by graduating from Morehouse College at the age of 18. He also held a law degree from North Carolina Central University. In addition to serving three mayoral terms, Jackson created several successful business ventures. He most recently chaired the Democratic National Committee Voting Rights Institute. He believed in serving the larger community, but he also believed in giving back on an individual level. He did so by serving as a mentor to many young potential, aspiring, upcoming young leaders. Those leaders now have great shoes to fill with Maynard's passing, but are able to step up to the challenge and lead us into tomorrow, a great tomorrow, because of his care and his guidance. I honor Maynard Jackson for his life's work. He created opportunities where none really existed. He advocated for communities that had been disregarded and disenfranchised. Every leader can learn from the way in which he facilitated the breaking of racial and class divides to achieve collective progress, prosperity, and peace for all Atlantans and all Americans. To Jackson's credit, Atlanta is now a sophisticated and progressive city, an example to the country and to the world. His work points the way to a more equitable society and has left us numerous methods as to how that society can be achieved. For that, we are deeply grateful. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my congressional district, the Ninth Congressional District of California, who knew and loved Maynard Jackson, I join today with our colleagues, Maynard's family and friends, and, indeed, the entire Nation, as we mourn his passing, but also as we celebrate his life and his monumental accomplishments. Maynard Jackson will forever remain in the hearts and the minds of the American people.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Smith amendment to deny basic, urgently needed health services to poor women living in over 141 countries around the globe. This dangerous amendment would strip the amendment that we successfully offered on a bipartisan basis in committee to restore UNFPA funding. UNFPA saves the lives of women and their children. It prevents abortions, and it provides basic HIV/AIDS prevention services. Madam Chairman, an overwhelming majority of this House voted for and the President recently signed into law an HIV/AIDS initiative. UNFPA funding is yet another important source of funding in the fight against the deadly pandemic and should be supported. Every day UNFPA is fighting the spread of HIV and AIDS and is saving the lives of hard-to- reach women in hard-to-reach places all around the world. Finally, for those who are trying to turn this debate into a debate about abortion, let me clarify once more, not one single penny of UNFPA funds goes towards abortion. The Crowley-Lee amendment included in the bill strengthens the fact, and that is the reality. I urge a no on the Smith amendment.

Ms. LEE. Madam Chairman, first, let me thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise today in support of the State Department authorization bill and also in support of the Millennium Challenge Account and Peace Corps amendments. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for working on a bipartisan basis once again to ensure broad support for this bill. Together we were able to craft language examining, for example, the impact of U.S. loan policy on Haiti and its ongoing humanitarian crisis and calling for the participation of small and minority-owned businesses within the MCA account. Small and disadvantaged businesses represent a very vital economic engine in this country yet too often have very little chance to participate in foreign assistance programs, so I am very pleased that we were able to ensure that they will play a role in the Millennium Challenge Account. My two amendments are included in this bill, and once again I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for their support. I would like to highlight two aspects of this bill which represents real progress in foreign policy, family planning and global climate change. First, through the Crowley-Lee amendment, the bill restored U.S. funding to vital United Nations family planning programs. This measure helps provide health care to and prevents abortions to the world's poorest women. Failure to provide family planning costs the lives of women and children. It is really just that simple. This also is a common-sense measure that prevents HIV and AIDS. I strongly oppose the Smith amendment and would urge my colleagues oppose stripping out this important health care provision. The bill we passed out of committee also declared that it was the sense of the Congress and that the United States should demonstrate international leadership in mitigating global warming. The Committee on Energy and Commerce, however, refused to take up the responsibility of leadership and removed this global climate change measure. If we refuse to lead, we will be left behind technologically while we continue to contribute disproportionately to the world's pollution and global warming. The Committee on Rules has joined the Committee on Energy and Commerce in this conspiracy of silence by refusing to allow a vote on the Menendez amendment on climate change. Also, I am disappointed that the Committee on Rules did not make in order my amendment to advance democracy in fair and free elections on Haiti. But, on balance, it is a bill which I urge my colleagues to support. I thank the gentleman from Illinois again for this bipartisan bill.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, tonight I rise to acknowledge the groundswell of support for an investigation into whether or not the Bush administration made its case for war against Iraq. As proof of the growing demand for honest answers from the Bush administration, we need look no further than the support around the country to create an independent commission to investigation whether the Bush administration manipulated and distorted evidence to take the country to war in Iraq. Now, over 300,000 people have signed this petition and hundreds of thousands of people commented. Of course, I received thousands of letters from my own district, but tonight I would like to read into the Record just some of the over 24,000 comments received from outside of my district in the State of California. The credibility of this administration in front of the American public and the world at large is our most precious commodity. We must know the truth as soon as possible. This came from Arcadia, California. I am writing to you as a concerned citizen of this country. I believe that we are heading down a very dangerous and destructive path that is being led by the Bush administration. This country is no more special than all of the countries in the world, and American citizens are just as important as Iraqi citizens. Our actions are not preventing hostility, but I believe it is creating more violence and anger towards America. It is the outrage that stems from within that compels me to write to you and ask you to look into this matter and not merely dismiss it as another policy move. Again, Arcadia, California. This one comes from Dublin, California. As a member of a military family, I am deeply concerned any time a President chooses to send our Armed Forces into danger zones. I have been appalled by the growing evidence that the President may have lied about the reasons for invading and conquering Iraq and fear that many lives may have been lost because of deliberate falsehoods. From Pleasanton, California: The credibility of the United States is at stake. Our new preemptive war policy is incredibly dangerous and will result in many innocent lives lost until decisions for war are based on reality. Invading another country should be a very serious act. We did it. Our military performed well. But our President still needs to remain accountable to the United States citizens. Please ensure full disclosure is made on this matter. By the way, this individual goes on to say, I am a Republican, but I still think that the Presidency must be accountable to people. Another one from Pleasanton, California: Leading America into its first war based on a preemptive strike doctrine and against strong international opposition was the most serious act President Bush has committed. Now there is serious doubt that his justification was honest. A democracy can only function if all of these suspicions can be examined and proven either correct or wrong. You can only keep America a democracy if you support the establishment of this commission. Again, from Pleasanton, California: Nothing could be less patriotic, more disregardful of the safety of our troops or more injurious to our national security than invading a country under false pretenses. If the Bush administration lied to us, we have a right, and a need, to know. Pleasanton. Here is one from Lodi, California: Our involvement in Iraq has caused the region to become even more unstable. We owe it to ourselves and the world to investigate this matter and put every effort forth to unearth the truth. President Clinton was impeached for lying about sexual involvement with an aide. Evidence is coming to light that Bush and his administration have lied to the world and, to date, little is being done about it. I ask you, which infraction is more serious and warrants our time and money for investigation? Again, Lodi, California. Here is one from Tracy, California, Mr. Speaker: The responsibility of sending young men and women into harm's way should not be taken lightly. It is to this end that I ask you to support a review of pre-war intelligence. I ask this as a former soldier and a member of the district of Tracy, California. I live on Central Avenue which runs through the downtown of Tracy and was lined with yellow banners embroidered with the names of our community's sons and daughters sent to fight in Iraq. You represent those men and woman, they wrote to their Member of Congress, and their families and, he said, you owe it to them and to us to investigate why exactly they are fighting this war. Yes, it is still a war. Here is one from Thousand Oaks, California, in southern California: Our country was taken to war with Iraq on the premise that we were under imminent threat by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Now, months later, after many deaths on both sides, we have yet to find any real evidence of these weapons that the administration had such ``hard evidence'' of. In order for the people's confidence in this administration to be restored, I am asking you to let us know the truth by endorsing an independent probe into this matter. Here is one from San Diego: If we continue to make war based on misinformation, we will regret it as we did in Vietnam. What is done is done in Iraq, but we should be honest enough to look at the truth. Now, here is another one from La Mesa, California, in southern California: Our system is based on the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Once we feel that we are betrayed by our leaders and that they are not telling us the truth, the whole system might collapse. We paid millions of dollars to investigate the previous President because he lied about his private life. Therefore, it is worth our effort and money to investigate the current President and find out if he lied about taking our country to war. Certainly we need to know how the President used false evidence in his State of the Union speech to make his case for war. Please form an investigation committee and bring out the truth. Here is one, Mr. Speaker, from Huntington Beach, California, again in southern California: Isn't it time we got to the bottom of this embarrassment? It is obvious at this point that there were serious distortions given to the American people regarding the necessity for war with Iraq. As a matter of fact, it might be more important to look at why the distortions were necessary at all. Why was it so important to go to war with Iraq that lies had to be used? A lot of time, money, and lies have been spent on this charade and it seems, in due course, that the Bush administration should receive the same grilling that Tony Blair has gotten over the same issues. Mr. Speaker, believe me, these individuals throughout the State of California believe that this is a matter of national security and national integrity to explore these questions. They want an independent commission to establish an investigation.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for holding this Special Order on Head Start and for the gentleman's leadership to ensure that we continue to raise the level of awareness in terms of making sure that our country knows what is going on here in Washington, D.C. I thank the gentleman for remaining consistent and ensuring that we do have this opportunity to speak out and to wake up America. Tonight of course this Special Order, this discussion is with regard to Head Start, a program whose obituary is but a few days away if the administration has its way. If the administration has its way, this would be the beginning of the end for Head Start. Later this week, we will see the Republicans overhaul or at least try to overhaul the Head Start system, a program which has fundamentally provided children with an opportunity to succeed. Since its inception in 1965, it has reached over 20 million people. It is a program that still continues to touch and improve this country's low-income children by providing them opportunities to succeed. It really is the best example of Leave No Child Behind. In my hometown of Oakland, California, over 1,600 children are part of our area Head Start programs; and across the country last year, Head Start and Early Head Start programs worked with more than 900,000 children in over 2,500 local programs. But the Bush administration has indicated that, like so many other beneficial policies and programs that they are dismantling, Head Start must also be dismantled. They are saying that it must be undone, it must be gutted. How are they doing this? They are doing this in several crucial ways. First, they want to block grant Head Start, but block granting Head Start would be very dangerous. Block granting Head Start would mean creating 50 potential new bureaucracies in each State. Not only would that be expensive, depriving these programs of money to use for the real goal of providing early childhood development and education for children, but it would weaken the oversight and evaluation of these programs. And, of course, block granting Head Start is especially disturbing at this point in our Nation's history in the economic downturn and jobs depression that we are, unfortunately, experiencing. At a time when State budgets are in such crisis and with the States able to determine exactly how they are going to spend their money, the possibility of using this money for things other than Head Start I think would be too tempting. I would hate to see our children caught up in State budget battles. It is too risky, and they do not deserve that. Perhaps worst of all, Republicans wants to turn Head Start into a program that relies on an exclusively academic program rather than what has been proven to be successful, and that is a comprehensive program for low-income children. What they want now is for children as early as age 4 to take a literacy test. Can Members imagine giving a 4-year-old a literacy test by which they would be evaluated? Gone would be the program components of nutrition and immunization programs, as well as counseling and other very important program components that provide for the support not only of the child but of the family. This focus on test scores for young children really is unbelievable. At this particular time we should be doing more to improve and to increase the program, not reduce it. The truth is, we are still not reaching enough children. As I said earlier, over 1,600 Oakland students are in our Head Start programs. On any particular day in my hometown, 300-400 children are on waiting lists for Head Start centers. Head Start officials tell me all 30 centers have children on waiting lists, meaning all of the areas in my city are being affected. Several months ago when families of Head Start heard about this very backwards initiative and proposal, 300-400 rallied immediately at city hall and they said in no uncertain terms if it is not broke, why fix it. They said that they wanted more children included in Head Start and that it was working in the way that we know it has always worked and to not tamper with it. In fact, several of them told me we needed to focus on the fact that 300-400 children in Oakland are far too many to begin school already behind. They insisted, as we are insisting tonight, that Head Start remain intact. We must not stand by and allow the Bush administration to dismantle a successful, proven program like Head Start. The President wants to kill one of the country's most successful programs, and I do not understand it. I encourage all of my colleagues to join with the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to resist this administration's very wrong and backward policies. I encourage our colleagues to do everything possible to avoid having one of the greatest early childhood education efforts become an obituary, a tombstone on which is written ``Head Start was a great program.''

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time and for his leadership and his commitment to addressing the HIV/AIDS pandemic globally. We passed very recently H.R. 1298, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, and the President signed this into law. This bill would expand the list of countries which the HIV/AIDS response coordinator has directed funding authority over. Now, while USAID administers programs in some of the countries, such as Jamaica and the Dominican Republic, the practical effect of this amendment would be to highlight the Caribbean as a region that deserves our special attention in the fight against the global AIDS pandemic. As we look at the Caribbean, we must focus on the fact that the prevalence rates are similar to what they were in sub-Saharan Africa before this unbelievable explosion. Today, over 500,000 people in the Caribbean are estimated to be living with HIV and AIDS with prevalence rates in most countries ranging from 1 to 3 percent. While it is clear that Africa, as the epicenter of the AIDS pandemic, should be the focus of our global AIDS initiative, we must be very clear and aware that the Caribbean is poised to undergo a dramatic increase in the number of new AIDS cases, with estimates of over 1 million people infected by 2010. The Caribbean has, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) indicated, the second largest population of persons affected outside of sub-Saharan Africa with AIDS. And it is important that while he support AIDS prevention and treatment efforts in Haiti and Guyana, two of the hardest-hit countries respectively, we must also promote a regional response to the epidemic rather than a piecemeal two-country strategy. Such a response must also take into consideration the high volume of mobility within the Caribbean due to labor force shifts and the tourism industry. We have a moral obligation to act not only because of the devastation that the AIDS pandemic has and will cause, but also because of our close connection to the Caribbean region and its people, as there are nearly 23 million Caribbean immigrants residing in the United States today; and over 10 million people from the United States visit the Caribbean annually. The Rangel-Lee amendment does not preclude other countries from receiving funding, it does not authorize new funding, and will not steer an arbitrary level of funding to go to the Caribbean. It merely adds CARICOM countries and the Dominican Republic to the list of countries the HIV/AIDS response coordinator will oversee so that we can better coordinate our response to the pandemic in the Caribbean region.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, the Bush Administration is sadly mistaken if they are assuming that either the Congressional Black Caucus, or the American people will be satisfied with a trip to Africa that lacks substance or results. In the words of Congressman Payne, ``Engagement with Africa is a vital U.S. interest. From the war on terrorism to the supply of crucial resources, from the campaign against threatening diseases to the opportunities for economic trade and investment, Africa is a key global player. We ignore the continent at our own peril.'' Africa is the key to global peace and understanding, but we must deal with a number of issues that affect Africans in their day-to-day lives. Issues like, democracy and governance, lack of health infrastructure, education, and hunger and food security. We must address these social, political, and economic needs, which if handled properly, will allow Africa to grow, flourish, and succeed. The need to succeed in the fight against hunger is critical for Africa. As we all know, food production in Africa has fallen behind population growth over the past 30 years. This slow down in production has left Africa, an agriculturally rich continent, as a net importer of food. It has put Africa in a position where, they must rely on the international community to import products that could be produced in Africa given the right technical and development resources. Although the United States remains the largest single contributor to the World Food Program--the last three years have actually seen the United States contribution drop by at least a third from 15 million to 10 million metric tons of food. This is yet another example of Bush rhetoric, while food aid goes down, the President increases the budget for nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do believe that we must help rebuild countries that we have bombed, but we must also keep millions of people from starving on the African continent. The United Nations estimates that over 222 million people in Africa are suffering from hunger. The reality is: emergency food aid needs are up and food aid assistance is down. Millions of Africans live and die below the hunger and poverty lines, of which a vast majority Africans are in rural areas and are dependent on agriculture to sustain and improve their livelihoods. If we could increase agricultural productivity by just one percent in Sub-Saharan Africa, we could raise 6 million people out of poverty and hunger. We must listen to Africans and pay attention to what the social and economic challenges are in each country, challenges exacerbated by the food crisis. One of the gravest crises relating to famine from my perspective is the devastating spread of HIV/AIDS throughout the continent. In some of the countries most affected by hunger, rates of HIV/AIDS prevalence are as high as 38 percent of the population, with ripple effects extending out to the health sector, education, and overall productivity throughout each country. AIDS and hunger together are strangling the African economy. The Congressional Black Caucus has been fighting a war against the global HIV/AIDS pandemic for years. Finally, we have the Administration's support for this charge, but a real reluctance to request and appropriate the funding necessary. We must first ensure that our colleagues across the aisle join us in funding every penny of the President's $3 billion initiative. In my opinion, one of the greatest challenges in Africa to stopping the AIDS pandemic is coordinating HIV/AIDS treatment and famine relief. That is why, while drafting the AIDS bill, I fought for a major provision that would integrate food/nutrition and HIV/AIDS drugs. Let me explain why HIV/AIDS and famine go hand-in-hand. When we take an aspirin for an ailment, we are instructed to take that aspirin with water and food. Imagine taking drugs for the AIDS virus, a disease that has killed millions, on an empty stomach. The toxicity alone is harmful, but these anti-retroviral drugs on an empty stomach are perilous. This is one of the reasons why battling the food crisis is critical to the campaign to stop the Global HIV/AIDS pandemic. More broadly, hunger and HIV/AIDS stifle productivity, undermine efforts to build infrastructure, and detract from government investitures for education, farming, and development in their people. No one should be hungry. I understand, that if you teach a man to fish, he will eat everyday, but at this critical time in Africa-the United States has the resources and the technologies to not only teach people, but also satisfy their hunger today. Furthermore, there have to be fish in the pond, and with drought and desert expanding everyday, we must work toward both short term aid and long term solutions. In closing, I would like to reiterate the words of Secretary Powell during his trip to North Korea, ``. . . But to go back on our solid policy is that we don't use food as a politica weapon. You go through all the politics; there are kids out there that are starving. If we can help them, we will.'' I agree with Secretary Powell, food is our weapon to combat the rising hunger in Africa--and we must address this issue now. Let's re-visist the Bush Adminsitration's under funded Africa budget which cuts peace and democracy, agriculture development, and corruption and good governance programs. Let's really look at the needs of people. Africa needs our help and we must deliver. Thank you Chairman Cummings, I yield back my time.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, this week the President is in Africa visiting five countries and describing his personal commitment to combating the global HIV/AIDS pandemic, among other things. This is a good thing. Just 6 weeks ago the President signed into law H.R. 1298, the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003, to provide $15 billion over 5 years to 12 African countries and Haiti and Guyana in the Caribbean. Throughout the debate on this bill, which Uganda's approach to its own AIDS epidemic was highlighted very prominently as a model for the bold initiative that we were proposing and for our heavy reliance on the ABC model of prevention. That is, abstain, be faithful, or use a condom. People on the ground in Uganda were telling us that while the message of the ABC model was important in helping to drive down infection rates and raise awareness of this disease, it was equally important that Uganda's President Museveni exerted strong political leadership in combating the disease and for the country to engage in a frank and open dialogue about sex and how the disease is transmitted. But when we were debating this bill, the administration and social conservatives in this body put their own spin on Uganda's AIDS efforts by claiming that it was primarily the practice of abstinence that had reduced Uganda's rates from 15 percent to 5 percent in over 10 years despite evidence to the contrary. In debate during the committee markup of H.R. 1298, we successfully placed abstinence, fidelity and the use of condoms on equal footing by successfully passing an amendment which I offered. The majority of members on the committee understood the danger of attempting to steer our prevention funding from Washington instead of allowing each individual country to determine how best to spend its prevention resources. Even the Washington Times indicated in an editorial on May 1, 2003, that it would be better to leave such decisions to experts in the field. Unfortunately, the social conservatives in this body did not heed this very practical advice and persisted in promoting a misguided amendment that directs 33 percent of all prevention money in the bill towards abstinence-only programs. Now 6 weeks after the President signed the bill that we passed into law, he is visiting Africa to tout his commitment to fighting AIDS in Africa. Everywhere Africans are wondering what the true depth of the President's commitment is to fighting AIDS in Africa, and whether or not he will provide the full $3 billion per year authorized in our legislation. There is also a considerable amount of concern in Africa that the President's focus on abstinence as the most important method of prevention will sidetrack the initiative based on an unrealistic understanding of the situation on the ground. I want to be clear here. I agree that abstinence is an important method of prevention, but it must be balanced by a comprehensive prevention policy that includes the use of condoms, otherwise it cannot be effective in stopping the spread of the virus. It is important for programs like the AIDS Support Organization of Uganda, which runs the clinic in Entebbe that the President will visit tomorrow, to provide this kind of comprehensive education so that young adults who are just becoming sexually active know what to do to protect themselves. Mr. Speaker, we are right in the thick of the appropriations process that provides the funding that will carry out this initiative. Unfortunately, we are about $1 billion short of the $3 billion authorized in our global AIDS legislation, mostly because the President does not believe we should provide more than $2 billion this year. I am hopeful that by visiting the TASO clinic tomorrow, the President will understand the true gravity of the situation and will push for the full $3 billion in funding. The lives of thousands of Africans can still be saved if this money is provided now. That is why over 100 Members of this body wrote President Bush asking him to provide an emergency appropriation of $1 billion in funding if we are unable to get $3 billion through the regular appropriations process. So it is not too late, and I am asking this Congress, I am letting the rest of our country know that the President is visiting Uganda tomorrow and that we want people in Africa to understand that we are committed in terms of delivering on the promises which we made in terms of making sure that the full $3 billion that we authorized becomes real.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and just say tonight that I join with the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and all of our colleagues in remembering and celebrating the life of a great human being, a giant, a constituent, my friend, Richard Iglehart. While serving as a member of the Assembly Public Safety Committee in the California legislature, I had the real privilege of working very closely with Dick when he was chief counsel to the committee. And I came to rely on his thoughtfulness, his fairness and his wisdom. When working with Dick, I was always deeply impressed with his ability to do simple things simple and he always did what he said he would do. Dick's passionate and unshakable belief in our system of justice provided the foundation for everything that he accomplished in his legal career. His vast knowledge of the law and our government earned him the respect of defenders and prosecutors, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. Dick met people where they were and brought them along. He took the time to help them see things from a different perspective or to shed light on a complicated subject. He was a true mentor, and it was my great and very good fortune to have been really one of his students. I will miss his kind words of encouragement and support. One could not know Dick without knowing of his love and his devotion to his wife, Judy, and his family. He was a good friend to so many of us. Words cannot express my sympathy and sorrow at his untimely death. Let us honor and celebrate Dick's legacy by rededicating ourselves to the ideals and the values that he championed. My thoughts and prayers are with the Iglehart family this evening as the memorial service is taking place at this very moment. He will always hold a special place in my heart and in the heart of many.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is always a good thing when the President visits a neglected continent, and so I am very glad that President Bush finally got to Africa; but we must recognize and understand the history of the United States policy and the United States involvement with Africa in order to use this moment to develop a positive, forward- moving agenda that is mutually beneficial. First of all, the United States has significantly in the past contributed to the underdevelopment of Africa and has been benefited from the geopolitical manipulation of Africa and its leaders, and that is a fact. In the past, the United States has endorsed and funded the regimes of dictators. It has secured and disbursed loans that have left Africa Nations to this day struggling with debt; and it has created a cycle of dependence that has left Africa importing resources, aid, and military support from others. That is a fact. This cycle of dependency, however, can be broken if the United States would work with Africans instead of against them. Peace, however, is a prerequisite for development. There can be no nation-building without peace. Strengthening Africa's peacekeeping capacity is the only solution to limiting outbreaks of civil conflict and preventing them from spreading to other parts of the region. In turn, our investment in peace would not only protect our foreign aid investment but would also strengthen and secure an environment for African democracy. Today, Africans are getting poorer and hungrier, and conflict and HIV and AIDS really threaten the survival of entire nations that the breakdown of African communities is causing and the breakdown of state and regional governance. This breakdown really has created an opportunity for opportunistic individuals, companies and nations, including the United States, to exploit the absence of state authority and governing institutions and the natural resources vital to the economic and development and growth of a nation. According to World Bank reports, poverty in Africa remains rampant. During the 1990s, the numbers of poor people on the continent living on less than $1 per day, $1 mind you per day, rose from 241 million to 315 million in 1999. The World Bank now estimates that by 2015 this number will be approximately 404 million. Why are the numbers of poor and impoverished Africans going up? We have to ask the question of our own government, is the United States really committed to ending global poverty and promoting democracy? I am pleased again, as I said earlier, that President Bush is visiting the African continent, but I just wonder why he is not visiting a hunger-stricken country like Ethiopia or Zambia. Development assistance continues to be underfunded in our budget. Budgets of international programs, especially for Africa, have been moved into budgets for rebuilding Iraq. I believe that the United States should rebuild countries that it bombs, but it should not rob Peter to pay Paul. For this one country, the United States will invest over half a billion dollars for a little over 24 million people in Iraq, while the entire foreign assistance budget for 54 African countries, with over 858 million Africans, will be a measly $2 billion. That is an embarrassment and a real dismal dismissal of our history, heritage, and international significance for Africans and African Americans worldwide. As I said earlier, I believe that the United States should help rebuild countries that we bomb and destroy, but we should find new money to do this. Otherwise, rebuilding a nation such as Iraq comes at a price. The Bush administration has proposed decreases in several critical accounts in the 2004 Africa budget which will negatively impact Africa's long-term economic and political development efforts. So it appears that rebuilding Iraq, of course, is much more vital to the international community than the lowered nutritional status of Africans and the higher incidence of preventable illnesses like HIV and AIDS. I urge our appropriators here to minimally step up to the plate and fully fund the $3 billion in HIV and AIDS money that we authorize tomorrow while the President is in Africa so that he can at least deliver on his promise to attack the HIV/AIDS pandemic in a real way.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill. National defense is important to all of us. This bill, however, will neither ensure our defense nor promote the general welfare, two of the central obligations of this government. At over $368 billion, this bill expends scarce resources in Cold War era weapons systems. It spends another $9 billion on missile defense, a 17-percent increase over last year. This represents another heavy installment on what may be a bottomless pit of spending. This spending comes at real costs. To put this in perspective, last year, according to the National Priorities Project, the people of California paid $859 million in tax dollars that were spent on missile defense. That money could have paid to allow another 106,000 children to enroll in Head Start. It could have extended healthcare coverage to nearly half a million children. It could have created over 12,000 new units of affordable housing. Or it could have hired nearly 15,000 elementary school teachers. And this year we are spending 17 percent more. That's a misplaced priority. And it is not the ticket to national security.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the contributions of Dr. Michael Reynolds, PhD, to the advancement of science education, to the creation and development of the Chabot Space and Science Center in Oakland, California, and to the science education of young students in Oakland, the East Bay and Northern California. Dr. Reynolds was hired as Executive Director of the historic Chabot Observatory and Science Center in 1991, after being named Florida Science Educator of the Year and being a finalist in the NASA Teacher in Space Program. Dr. Reynolds led the team, which conceived, financed and built the new Chabot Space and Science Center, with energy, enthusiasm and skill. The center is a jewel of Northern California. Dr. Reynolds has built programs with the United States Air Force, NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Education to further Science Education and the public understanding of the frontiers of space science. Under Dr. Reynolds leadership, the new Chabot Space and Science Center has become internationally renown for its science education programs. Dr. Reynolds has secured, with NSF funding, a major new traveling exhibit from the People's Republic of China, consisting of artifacts and instruments used in ancient Chinese astronomy, that will tour the United States under the title of ``Dragon Skies''. On behalf of the children, parents, educators of Oakland, of California and of the nation, I want to gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Michael Reynolds, PhD, to the advancement of science education and understanding, and for the building of the new Chabot Space and Science Center, which will serve as a place of inspiration and learning for generations to come. On behalf of my constituents and myself I wish to recognize the accomplishments of an educator, scientist, astronomer, dreamer, and an eternal optimist whose watchword is ``Keep Looking Up.''

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and commend him for his consistent leadership, his vision and his real purpose as a Member of Congress in terms of really making sure that this Congress understands the connection between our United States foreign and domestic policy, especially as it relates to Africa. Mr. Speaker, as we have been discussing Africa this evening, I am reminded now of the first day that the President has had in Africa. Now, let me just say, I believe it is always helpful when the President of the United States really visits neglected parts of the world, especially Africa. So I am glad that he finally made it. Now, one of his first stops on this trip today was Goree Island off the coast of Senegal. It is important, I believe, that the President saw firsthand this real jumping-off point to the murderous Middle Passage. For centuries, millions of Africans were placed in chains and shipped off to generations of enslavement in the United States and elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere, and I am certain the President understands that now. Many of them passed through Goree Island on that very terrible journey. Millions upon millions died along the way. Families were destroyed. Men, women, and children were locked in chains, forced into the cargo holds of ships, and transported thousands of miles to a life of slavery. They were kidnapped, raped, murdered, and sold into bondage in an enormous crime against humanity. The bodies of those who died were tossed overboard as lost cargo. But these were human beings. On Goree Island, President Bush stood in their footsteps, peered into their cells, and glimpsed the horror that was slavery. This morning the President denounced slavery as one of the greatest crimes of history and called it a sin, which it was, but he failed to offer an apology on behalf of the Government of the United States that engaged in this deplorable, despicable institution for hundreds of years. It is extremely important that the President understand the history of slavery. It is also extremely important because the vestiges of slavery are still with us in the United States. On Goree Island, President Bush stated that history moves in the direction of justice. But then I had to ask myself, why does he oppose affirmative action? So let us just look at the facts for a minute. African Americans' income is lower than that of whites. Black Americans have fewer assets and experience far higher unemployment. Economic injustices have persisted long after emancipation. African Americans, on average, make 95 cents for every dollar earned by whites doing exactly the same jobs. These disparities in the workplace and on the unemployment line are echoed in the health care system. African Americans are less likely to have health insurance and receive poor health care when they do finally see doctors. As a result, of course, our lives are shorter. In this country, life expectancy projections are profoundly shaped by race. Racial disparities literally follow a cradle-to-grave cycle, beginning with infant mortality, continuing with workplace hazards and increased exposure to toxins, and ending with disparate access to health care, diagnosis, and medical treatment. Asthma, one of our latest epidemics, is one more example of racial disparities in health care. Death rates from asthma and a host of other treatable diseases are significantly higher among African Americans than any other ethnic group. African American children are also more likely to suffer from lead poisoning, which can have devastating effects on mental development. More than one out of every four low- income African American children suffers from lead poisoning. Now, some of these realities are realities that I hope the President really understands while he is in Africa. These are still realities of American life in the 21st century, and these are legacies of past oppression and continuing injustice. In presenting the Bush administration's arguments to the Supreme Court opposing affirmative action on behalf of the President, Solicitor General Ted Olson called for race-neutral admissions policies. That is because the administration apparently believes we live in a race- neutral society, but that is a dangerous fantasy. It means that the administration is blind to the legacy of slavery in our own country and does not really get what the current ramifications are. So maybe this visit to Goree Island will help the President better understand the legacies of slavery and racism, both in Africa and here at home. It is my hope that this African trip, short though it may be, will also drive home to the President the importance of following through on his welcomed rhetoric with real dollars. We need him to exert the power of his office to ensure that the HIV/AIDS initiative, the Millennium Challenge Account, and other promises for foreign assistance and development aid will be fully funded. He must support our request for a supplemental appropriation to meet the meager, which is really meager, $3 billion authorization with regard to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Goree Island was the start of a terrible journey for our African ancestors. Hopefully, it will be the start of a journey of enlightenment for this American President. There is an Akan word called ``Sankofa.'' This means that we must go back and reclaim our past so, of course, that we can move forward, so we can understand why and how we came to be who we are today. When African men, women, and children were dragged into the Slave House at Goree Island where the President was today, they went through the door of no return. As the word ``Sankofa'' evokes, we have to understand that journey. This President must understand that journey, and he has to understand what destination we have reached in the United States and in Africa, and how far we still have to go. I close by thanking all of the Congressional Black Caucus members who have come before all of us in this Congress, who help strengthen the bond between Africans and African Americans, who represented the voice of Africans who were left out of the democratic process here in our own country in terms of foreign policymaking. Especially I would just like to thank the great gentleman from the State of Michigan, Congressman Charles Diggs, who not only chaired the Subcommittee on Africa as the first African American Member, but really did provide an opportunity and an avenue for other African American staff and Members to get involved with international relations issues, especially relating to the continent of Africa. I also want to thank Congressman Ron Dellums and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who took risks and fought against racist regimes in South Africa and Namibia and Zimbabwe, even when our own government supported those policies. We must not forget that, because the Congressional Black Caucus has to move forward, and the President must understand that we will not rest until Africa flourishes, and those who came before us really charted the course. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, if it had not been for them, there would be no foreign policy as it relates to Africa. So I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) again for continuing with that legacy and for continuing to ensure that our Black Caucus and the entire Congress understands and really begins to come to grips with the fact that Africa matters in terms of our policies and our funding.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, this bogus Republican prescription drug bill will effectively dismantle and kill Medicare and leave millions of seniors, especially our women, our mothers, our grandmothers behind.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our CBC Chairman, Elijah Cummings, for holding this special order. I wish to contribute this evening by inserting into the Record the following speech which I delivered on Monday June 23, 2003 at the Rainbow Push Coalition and the Citizen Education Fund's Women's Luncheon in Chicago. Thank you very much for that kind introduction and thank you for inviting me here today. I want to acknowledge and thank Reverend Jesse Jackson for staying the course, for continuing to speak truth to power and for your friendship and support throughout the years. I want to thank you for the act of courage Award presented to me last year in Los Angeles. Believe me, the inspiration and encouragement that I have received from you during very difficult and challenging times has given me strength. Reverend Barrons, your guidance spirit and commitment has touched my life. To Mrs. Jacqueline Jackson, thank you for your leadership and for being an exemplary role model for women. You are our first lady and we are so proud. To the entire Rainbow PUSH family, your commitment to work for justice and peace has shown the world ``a better way.'' You continue to fight to make the American dream a reality, not just for the select few but for ``all God's children.'' I also want to acknowledge the many elected officials, members of the clergy, and community leaders, and phenomenal women here today and to acknowledge everyone who is part of the struggle to compel our nation to live up to its own promises of liberty and justice for all. And in the memory of our fallen hero Mayor Maynard Jackson, let us rededicate ourselves to our work for political, social and economic justice. Today, the Supreme Court issued a decision on a monumental affirmative action case. This morning the Supreme Court rejected the Bush Administration's efforts to eliminate affirmative action as we know it. I say monumental because this judgment will echo far beyond the boundaries of the University of Michigan and far beyond the realm of higher education. We are still studying the Court's ruling to understand its ramifications; however, the Supreme Court did uphold affirmative action and that is a clear defeat for the Bush Administration. This decision is a testament to the broad mobilization to defend civil rights, it validates the ``power of the people'' and the legality of affirmative action and requires us to be vigilant as we move forward. Many of you, including myself, are proud products of affirmative action. We are duty-bound to protect it. This is one of the most important civil rights cases in the last quarter century. Affirmative action is still necessary, not just in the interests of people of color, but in the interests of women and country as a whole. What was at stake here is the University of Michigan's attempts to create a classroom that reflects the diversity of this country as well as its persistent economic inequalities. What is also on trial here is the principle of affirmative action, and in this case the Bush Administration weighed in on the side of reversing progress rather than pursuing justice. Along with Reverend Jackson, and many others, I was at the Supreme Court the day when this case was heard. I was very proud to speak to the thousands and thousands of young people led by the Michigan students and BAM who had come to Washington from all over the country to protest the effort to eliminate affirmative action. Believe me, I see a new sense of energy and involvement by our young people, and as adults we must support their organization efforts. Thank God, they are preparing themselves to take over the world. This victory speaks volumes to their efforts. I was sitting in the audience when Solicitor General Ted Olson, the Administration's attorney, passionately argued against affirmative action, declaring that the University of Michigan--and by implication all other universities and institutions--should use race-neutral means for its admissions. I thought how sad it was to witness our own government arguing against the interests of so many of its own people. I would suggest race-neutral admissions would be fine--just as soon as this becomes a race-neutral country. And not a day sooner. In upholding the University of Michigan law school's affirmative action program, race will continue to be a critical component in achieving parity and equal opportunity for all. We must be the active watchdogs over this decision and how it is implemented. I was there when Justice Scalia told the University of Michigan that it had a choice: it could either be an elite, first-rate school or it could lower its standards and pursue racial diversity. How sinister--and wrong--can you get? Justice Scalia was, in fact, offering a false dichotomy: in reality, you cannot be a top-flight university without diversity. While that fact eludes the Bush Administration, it does not escape corporate America, the military, or many members of Congress, all of whom voiced their support for the University of Michigan and the principle of affirmative action. Sixty-five major businesses, all Fortune 500 companies, submitted a brief as a friend to the court on this case. These global businesses have annual revenues of over a trillion dollars. As employers, they are deeply interested in this case because they recognize, and I quote here from their brief, ``the existence of racial and ethnic diversity in institutions of higher education is vital to [our] efforts to hire and maintain a diverse workforce, and to employ individuals who have been educated and trained in a diverse environment.'' Affirmative action, these corporate giants explained, does not only benefit minorities or the economically disadvantaged: affirmative action benefits everyone by offering cross-cultural experience and understanding. Without that interaction, they argued, we all suffer, and without such a workforce, these companies will be hard- pressed to compete in the global business environment. Those same views were echoed by many of the highest ranking retired military officers in this country, including former Chiefs of Staff, former Secretaries of Defense, General Norman Schwarzkopf, and other decorated veterans representing all four service branches. They wrote the court, ``Based on decades of experience, [we] have concluded that a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps'' is ``essential to the military's ability to fulfill its principal mission to provide national security.'' ``Limited race-conscious recruiting and admissions policies'' at universities such as Michigan, they continued, is critical to both meeting the security needs of this country and to following through on Harry Truman's fifty-year old executive directive to end segregation in the military. Again, these retired military officers, like their business counterparts, stressed that affirmative action is essential to the success of their mission. Diversity is a critical component of our democracy as well. That is why I joined my congressional colleagues, led by Michigan Congressman John Conyers, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and long a warrior in the fight for civil rights, in submitting our own amicus brief to the Court. We asked the Court to recognize the educational and political benefits of diversity; to uphold the use of race as one factor among others that can be considered in government decision-making; and to reaffirm that the role of race in this decision making is not limited to remedying specific instances of identified discrimination. The fact is we don't have a level playing field in this country. People of color and women earn less money, own fewer assets, and enjoy less access to the nation's elite institutions. African American unemployment is twice as high as that of whites. Affirmative action is still necessary, not just in the interests of minorities but in the interests of the country as a whole. This decision upholds justice, access, and fair play. Let me tell you what has happened in my home state of California. In California, we have seen the devastating effects of the assault on affirmative action. When I was in the state legislature, I fought tooth and nail against efforts to end affirmative action. Reverend Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition not only stood with us, they actively opposed Prop 209 by marching, engaging in peaceful protests, and organizing. All the ``street heat'' that could be brought to bear, Reverend Jackson helped bring it. During those years, I was chair of the California Legislature Black Caucus, and we defeated each and every anti-affirmative action legislative measure that then Governor Pete Wilson wanted to sign into law. But a member of the University of California Board of Regents, and African American, yes, a brother, well, I should say, a black man, Ward Connely, led the ballot initiative to end Affirmative Action. These efforts resulted in a state constitutional amendment and action by the Board of Regents to end affirmative action on all campuses. So, while we won in the legislature, misinformation and prejudice helped carry the day at the polls when California voters passed Proposition 209 in 1996. That initiative eliminated affirmative action programs for women and people of color run by state or local governments in the areas of public employment, contracting, and education. California and some other states have tried to create alternatives to affirmative action, but these alternatives depend on and reinforce residential segregation and fall short in other ways. They just don't work. Now, very few minority and women owned businesses have state contracts, and very few are employed in key positions. Alumni legacies--such as those President Bush undoubtedly benefited from when he was admitted to Yale with an exceedingly mediocre academic record, to say the least-- combined with emphasis on test scores that favor both white applicants and the economically advantaged are creating campuses that are increasingly segregated. In California, we are undergoing the re-segregation of our colleges and universities. At many of the top schools in the state, minority enrollment has been cut in half since Prop 209 passed. Thank God for our historically Black Colleges. Our African American students are now going south benefiting from their excellent education. But what we have learned is that 70 percent of these students do not return to California. What a brain drain we have in California. Shame on California. One observer described the process of eliminating affirmative action, at Boalt Hall, the University of California's premiere law school, as ``watching justice die.'' In looking at the Administration's position on affirmative action, we have to place that particular choice within the larger context of the Bush Administration's class war on America's working families and their policies of rewarding the rich. This Administration and its allies in Congress are rolling back advances in racial equality, economic opportunity, and gender equity. First Trent Lott lamented the defeat of Strom Thurmond's white supremacist Dixiecrat Party in 1948. The Administration may have rushed to disown itself from those remarks, but its policies are taking us back to those days nonetheless. The Administration is creating massive tax cuts for the rich, but twelve million children of America's working families were left off their master plan for the child tax credit. They did this deliberately. It was not a mistake. So were single mothers who apparently don't deserve tax credits in the world of George Bush. They also left out over 200,000 military families. What a disgrace. We have an Administration that preaches leave no child behind, but then wants to gut Head Start and leaves tens of thousands of children on waiting lists instead of in pre- school. They want to block grant head start, remove it from the Department of Health and Human Services, put it in the Department of Education and require four year olds to take a literacy test. Their proposal would end head start as we know it. We have an Administration that would like to privatize both Social Security and Medicare, leaving our parents and grandparents with neither financial security nor real prescription drug coverage. We have an Administration that is trying to block grant Section 8 housing programs, dismantling Section 8 as we know it. And we have an Administration that is stripping away our civil liberties, one by one. We must stop Patriot Act II from getting through Congress. It's an Administration that is wiping out decades of progress on Clean Air and Clean Water, even though asthma, childhood cancer rates, and scores of other health problems associated with pollution are on the rise, especially among people of color. It's an administration that puts our tax dollars into a $400 billion dollar defense budget to build more missiles, yet cuts after school programs and won't fully fund education. This is an administration that is launching a similar assault on women's rights. Look at its attack on Title IX, for example, a program that is featured in this conference. Title IX has opened up opportunities for girls and women on the sports field that have also opened up opportunities in life. Our beloved, recently deceased Congresswoman Patsy Mink of Hawaii, sponsored Title IX. In honor of her memory and legacy, we must not let this Administration turn back the clock. Title IX is about banning sex discrimination, pure and simple. And the Bush Administration is trying to wipe out those protections, just like it's trying to wipe out affirmative action and the Clean Air Act. This is an administration that wages war abroad while also waging war at home, on the nation's poor, on people of color, on women, on the environment, on seniors, and on working families. What can we do in the face of these assaults? Fight back! Believe me, we must be vigilant to stop any legislation-- illegal legislation that the Republican House and Senate will put forward. We must take back the House, take back the Senate, and take back the White House in 2004. To do that, we must educate, organize, mobilize, and vote! We must register our folks to vote, we must vote and we must demand that our votes be counted. No more stealing elections. Democracy is at a crossroads. We must make democracy real. Rainbow PUSH represents the very diversity that is under attack. And diversity is a tremendous strength. Use it! If people tell you their vote doesn't matter, remind them about Florida. Each and every vote the Supreme Court chooses to count matters. We must demand that they all be counted! This is a critical moment in history and you have to make it our moment. I am reminded of the Book of Esther and the conversation between Mordecai and Esther when she faced her moment of truth. Mordecai turned to Esther as she paused in the face of what looked to be an insurmountable obstacle, and he said to her, ``Who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?'' Let me pose a similar question to you here, today. Who knows whether or not you have come for such a time as this? Queen Esther and her forces were victorious. This too is a battle we can win. We, too, will be victorious. And, again, women will help lead the way. Thank you for all that you do. Let us take from this moment the determination to follow in the footsteps of our heroes-- Dr. King, Justice Marshall, Mrs. Parks and Mrs. Till, Ida B. Wells, Sojourner Truth, Maynard Jackson, and Reverend Jesse Jackson--and, like Esther, seize our moment. I say again, Rainbow Push, you have come for a time such as this. Thank you and God bless you.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

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

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman again for that response; but, again, this amendment allows the American people to know what that information was in a declassified form. This amendment allows for a classified index, and I believe in terms of the fact that U.S. tax dollars were of course used in this war that people, the American people, just have a right to ask these questions and have the right to know. This has nothing to do with whether one supports or opposes the United Nations.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me just thank the gentleman very much for his response and for this debate, but I want to reiterate the purpose of this amendment, really, and it has nothing to do with whether one supports or opposes the United Nations. Basically, this amendment requires the GAO to conduct a study, a report, that would be submitted in an unclassified form but may contain a classified annex with regard to the sharing of information between our intelligence agencies and the United Nations leading up to the war against Iraq. I believe the American people have a right to know this and this is what this sentiment of this amendment is, and I would urge the gentleman to reconsider.

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

Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.