Barbara Lee

Ms. LEE

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for her support and her leadership in crafting this bipartisan bill. Also to my staff, Julie Little and Shannon Smith, I want to thank them for their very diligent work. This is a commonsense amendment seeking an answer to a question that the American people have a right to know: How was our intelligence regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction handled in the months before the war? Specifically, this amendment seeks a GAO study to determine the extent and timeliness with which the Intelligence Community shared information about suspected weapons in Iraq with the United Nations inspectors on the ground searching for those weapons. There are growing questions being raised about the use or possible misuse of intelligence in the months leading up to the war against Iraq. If intelligence was distorted, that raises serious doubts around the world about United States credibility. Our President told the American people, the Congress and the world that inspections had failed, that Iraq unquestionably possessed weapons of mass destruction, and that these weapons posed such a dire, imminent threat to the United States that we had no choice but to go to war. All other options, he said, had been exhausted. But the question we must continue to ask is, were those options truly exhausted? Were they, in fact, fully pursued? Did the United States Intelligence Community share information with the United Nations inspectors about suspected weapons sites? Did it happen in a timely and sufficient manner? President Bush went before the United Nations General Assembly and stated, ``My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge.'' He and Secretary Powell pledged to work with the United Nations to pursue inspections to seek out and destroy weapons of mass destruction. What we have before us is a question of both policy and credibility. If we failed to fully share intelligence with United Nations inspectors, we may have undermined their effectiveness. If we relied on intelligence that was distorted or less complete than implied, if we failed to share crucial information with our allies, then we have undermined our own national credibility. This Nation launched a preemptive war based on what it claimed was indisputable evidence. If that evidence was not so solid and especially if it was distorted, then we severely undercut our ability to convince the world about future dangers from weapons of mass destruction in other countries. The doctrine of preemption, which I happen incidentally to strongly oppose, totally collapses without credibility. For these reasons, we need to find the answer to these questions. The American people have a right to know. A respected and esteemed member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said that he has been working for the last 6 months to try to force disclosure of important facts relevant to the sharing of intelligence information on suspect weapons of mass destruction sites by the CIA with the United Nations arms inspectors. He continued, and I quote, ``If it had been public knowledge in February or March of this year that the CIA had not shared information on all of the top Iraqi WMD suspect sites with the United Nations inspectors, it could have worked against the administration's timetable for initiating military action against Iraq. There could have been questions as to why; it could have made the administration's decision to cut short the U.N. inspection process and to institute military action less compelling; and there could have been greater demand that we share all such information with the United Nations before abandoning the inspection process.'' I share his concerns and I echo his call for a bipartisan investigation. These are not partisan issues, they are fundamental questions about credibility and they need to be answered. This amendment calls for a GAO study into the sharing of United States intelligence with the U.N. inspections teams. It calls for a report to Congress with a classified annex if necessary for security reasons. We are all aware that to date the United States military has not found weapons of mass destruction in its searches since the end of the war. We also know that that does not prove the weapons are not there. They may well be. And I believe we should bring in more IAEA and United Nations inspectors to help seek out, secure and destroy them if they are hidden in Iraq. Given the Administration's confident and unequivocal statements that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and given the President's assurances that he wanted to work with the United Nations to seek non- military solutions through a renewed inspections process, it is important that we learn to answer to the question of whether or not intelligence was shared in a timely and sufficient manner with the UN inspections teams. I urge you to support this amendment. Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of the Kucinich amendment.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of security for Israel and in utter condemnation of terrorism. I cannot, however, vote for a resolution that I believe fails to advance the Middle East peace process, and it undermines hope for the Roadmap. On May 8, 2003, I wrote President Bush commending him for his efforts to help the parties find a way out of their ongoing tragedy. This letter read in part: ``I wanted to take this opportunity to applaud your efforts to reinvigorate the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The `Roadmap to Peace,' presented by the Quartet to the Israeli Government and Palestinian Authority, represents a welcome and desperately needed opportunity to work toward a lasting two-state solution that offers the prospect for an ordinary peace between current adversaries and with that peace, the promise of stability for the region. Such a solution is very much in our own national interest as well.'' I believe the principles laid out in the Roadmap, including its emphasis on reciprocity, must continue to guide us. Ending terror is imperative, and I absolutely agree with the sentiments in this resolution decrying terror and expressing sympathy for the loss of so many lives, Israeli and Palestinian, in this conflict. However, at this critical juncture, the resolution I wish that we were voting on was one that expressed those principles while at the same time voicing solidarity toward Israel by endorsing the Roadmap as our best chance to reach the much desired destination of peace and security. This resolution fails to reflect the reciprocity that is the hallmark of the Roadmap.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask Congress to pass a prescription drug bill for our senior citizens, not for the insurance and the pharmaceutical industries. The Bush administration continues to sell our Federal domestic programs to corporations and to industry donors. Today, hundreds of seniors stood against the Republican prescription privatization plan. They blew the whistle on this. They blew the whistle on this deceptive legislation; and tonight, we too are blowing the whistle. Their bill will dismantle Medicare as we know it. This prescription drug bill does not provide affordable drugs under Medicare. Instead, it leaves seniors, particularly women, to pay the price for pharmaceutical advertising and insurance industry lobbyists. Democrats have been fighting against these industry economics for years, and we know what a good Medicare prescription drug benefit looks like. It is affordable and available to all. It is inclusive and provides drug coverage for all communities, rural and urban. It includes all seniors and all walks of life without establishing a means tests or a voucher system. Last week, the House Republicans under the leadership of really the Bush administration released their prescription drug benefit. The Republicans contend that seniors should be forced to use private insurance companies for drug coverage rather than Medicare in order to force competition. But the bottom line is the Republicans are really providing a benefit to the insurance industry and to the pharmaceutical industry. The industry would have the ability to design their own prescription drug plan. The industry would decide what to charge and which drugs seniors can get. The Republican plan exploits seniors and the disabled by requiring private insurance plans to stay in the program for only 1 year. This could leave seniors vulnerable to unavailable plans, rotating doctors and shifting prescriptions. Just thinking about all of these threats to our seniors really does make me sick. Tonight I want to focus on women and remind the Republicans of the voters really that they are ignoring. Women in this country will suffer first hand if the Republican prescription privatization bill passes, not only because we live longer, but because we pay into the Medicare system longer. Almost eight out of 10 women on Medicare use prescription drugs regularly, though most pay for these medications out of pocket. Women on Medicare spend 20 percent more on prescription drugs than men. And in 1999 alone, women on Medicare spent $430 more a year on medications than men. The Republican bill puts women, it puts our seniors, our disabled really on the industry's chopping block. It should make you really cringe to witness the corporate welfare that the Republicans are creating for the insurance and pharmaceutical industry in their bill. Since 1980, drug prices have increased by over 256 percent, while the consumer price index on which Social Security's cost-of-living adjustments are based rose just 98 percent. And in their bill they will not even allow our Secretary of Health and Human Services to discuss and negotiate lower prices for their medications. How shameful that is. In the Bay Area, specifically in my home town of Oakland, California, my elderly and disabled constituents are paying up to $2000 more a year for basic drugs than in Canada, Europe and Japan. These disparities may seem bad now; but under the Republican plan before us, they will only get worse. I could go on and on, but the point is that seniors and the disabled are paying on average 89 percent more than our international counterparts. This is just dangerous and downright unfair. It is bad public policy. Our senior women are having to make hard decisions about which drugs they can afford and if they should really buy drugs or pay for food. There is a better way. Democrats have a low-cost prescription drug plan that does not pit seniors against one another, but makes access to prescription drugs a reality for all. The plan has incorporated many of the components of another plan called the Meds Plan, which many of us are supporting. Under this plan, we ensure that seniors and people with disabilities have affordable, comprehensive and guaranteed access to prescription drug coverage. The proof is in the details. A $25 a month premium, a $100 a year deductible, an 80/20 cost-sharing between Medicare beneficiaries, a $2,000 minimum for Medicare beneficiaries, and a sliding scale for low-income individuals for up to 150 percent of the median. Under the Republican plan, let me state that the bill that the Republicans have put forward will really punish people for getting sick. The Democrats will not punish our seniors for getting sick. The Republican plan gives authority to insurance companies and HMOs to really prey on Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. The Democratic plan reduces the costs of drugs. The Republican plan does not. The Democratic plan does not end Medicare. The Republican plan does. The Democratic plan does not end Medicare. The Republican plan does. The Democratic plan reduces the costs of drugs. The Republican plan does not. In short, the Democratic plan brings our country one step closer to insuring access to all people for much needed care, while the Republican Prescription Privatization plan is a divisive tool that will enrich the insurance and pharmaceutical industry. The Republican plan gives authority to insurance companies and HMOs to prey on Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. Unlike the Republican bill, the Democrats won't punish you for getting sick. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Republican Prescription Privatization bill.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce this resolution to honor the vice mayor of the city of Berkeley, a great leader for human and civil rights, for peace and disarmament, council member Vice Mayor Maudelle Shirek. Today, is Vice Mayor Maudelle Shirek's 92nd birthday, 92nd; and in honor of her tremendous legacy, I am extremely proud to introduce the Maudelle Shirek Post Office resolution. While fighting for social justice is no rarity in Berkeley, Maudelle's name always stands above the rest because of her uncompromising fidelity to her ideals and compassion for people. As one of my political heroes, Maudelle continues to fight for equality and social justice for all. She is truly a role model for women, especially for young African American women. She not only inspired me to get involved in politics but also my predecessor, the honorable Ronald V. Dellums. Her commitments to investing in people have won the solid support for many years of voters in her district. She is recognized throughout the world as a distinguished leader. One of my most memorable Maudelle stories was when she was arrested with about 109 others in an anti-apartheid protest at the University of California at Berkeley. Many of the protestors were many years younger, including myself. She knew very well the awesome power of standing for what is right, regardless of the consequences. A granddaughter of slaves, Maudelle left rural Arkansas which, of course, was her home; and she came to California in the middle of World War II. Before long, she was campaigning for fair housing and for many, many civil rights issues for African Americans and others who had been left out and disenfranchised. She became a union organizer and an office manager of the Co-Op Credit Union. She has helped many, many families in terms of their financial stability in the 9th Congressional District, especially in the city of Berkeley. She has demonstrated throughout her life the need for coalition politics for the betterment of humankind. Vice Mayor Shirek's community commitment really knows no limits. She helped found two Berkeley senior centers, one of which she really still actively oversees; and at 92 years of age, she still delivers meals to shut-in seniors or, if it is a Tuesday, she does all of the shopping for lunches at the New Light Senior Center, which she founded 28 years ago. She taught many, including myself, the value of eating nutritious foods in order to live a healthy life. Vice Mayor Maudelle Shirek continues to speak for the voiceless and to defend our basic civil rights and civil liberties. Please join me in honoring Ms. Maudelle Shirek, our Vice Mayor of the city of Berkeley, who is a fierce and inspirational woman who tirelessly continues to fight to make this world fair and just, a world of peace for our children's future. The Maudelle Shirek Post Office will be a testament to the enormous contributions of this great woman.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, for the gentleman's leadership and for once again holding this Special Order to attempt to wake up America. Tonight, of course, under the gentleman's leadership, we are once again talking about children and our senior citizens. Once again we are talking about the Bush administration's dismantling, total dismantling, of social programs. The Bush administration has really waged war on children and our senior citizens. They continue to dismantle, privatize, and create unfunded mandates that truly compound our State budget crisis and leave our children and our senior citizens behind. I have yet to see the compassionate conservatism which was promised over 2 years ago. Actually on my report card, the Bush administration gets first an F for attempting to block grant the section 8 program, which helps kids live in mixed income areas and have the chance to go to mixed and integrated schools, and for eliminating the drug elimination program which provides violence prevention efforts in public housing to increase their safety at home. The Bush administration gets another F for attempting to block grant Medicare and Medicaid to the States and removing the responsibility of the Federal Government to provide health insurance to millions of children and to families by trying to give this to the States which are really suffering from fiscal shortfalls and extreme budget crises. They also get an F for failing to include the 12 million children, 12 million, mind you, in their tax cut proposal. They also, based on my report card, get an F for attempting to privatize not only Social Security but the current Republican prescription drug benefit which will leave millions of seniors without coverage. They want to give really the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies another way to make more profits. In fact, according to Consumers Union, more seniors would pay more for medicines than they now do under their proposal. That is why they get an F for their prescription drug benefit plan. They also get an F on the economy, because the Bush administration and this Congress has not provided a secure economy where families can provide for their children because they have jobs and a sense of stability and economic security, not because they have an alleged tax cut. They also get another F for their current Head Start attempts and for continuing to dismantle Head Start really, and that is what they are doing by block granting it and by reducing the effectiveness of Congress, State governments, and our communities. Tonight, many of us are talking specifically about Head Start and why we cannot stand by and allow our Republican colleagues and the administration to move forward with their plan to test kids, mind you, at age 4, I believe, literacy testing. How cynical. Age 4. Their plan would require care givers as well as teachers to have college degrees instead of concern and sincere interest in their students and would reduce, instead of expand, the success of the current Head Start program. That is why they get an F on my report card for block granting Head Start. Over the last 4 decades, Head Start nationwide has reached an unbelievable number of students. Since 1965, over 20 million children across the country have participated in Head Start. Last year alone, Head Start and Early Head Start programs worked with more than 900,000 children; that is 900,000 in over 2,500 local programs. In my own hometown of Oakland, California, 1,600 children are part of our area Head Start program. But we are still not reaching enough kids. On any particular day, 300 to 400 young people are on a waiting list for the Oakland Head Start centers. In fact, all 30 centers have children on a waiting list, meaning that all areas are being affected; 300 to 400 children are far too many to have to begin school already behind. In fact, one child on a waiting list is one too many who do not have access to early participation. Just a couple of months ago, over 300 to 400 families, children, men and women, came to a rally and participated. In no uncertain terms they said very clearly to me, do not tamper with Head Start. If it ain't broke, do not fix it. Leave it alone. Let us put more money in Head Start. Do not subject us to the whims of the State budget crisis. We cannot stand by and allow this administration and this Republican Congress to dismantle good programs like Head Start. We cannot allow them to succeed in the ongoing elimination, and that is what is going on. It is the systematic elimination of proven programs that benefit and lift up all people in our country. We cannot allow the President and the Republican Congress to dilute what has been one of our most successful programs over the last 4 decades. We must stop this assault on Head Start, we must stop this assault on our children, we must stop this assault on our senior citizens, we must stop this assault in terms of the bogus prescription drug benefit program that the Republicans are pushing, we must stop the assault on section 8, we must stop the assault on Social Security and in terms of our overall domestic economic agenda. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues, all of us, to join with our Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus to once again this evening try in another instance to wake up America in terms of what type of dismal, very backwards policies that this Republican Congress and this administration are shoving down the American people's throats.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland hit it. That is exactly why moving Head Start from the Department of Health and Human Services into the Department of Education is not the right move because currently, our young people who are in Head Start, our children, receive comprehensive services. Their families receive the support. They receive not only a quality early childhood education, but they also receive those basic kinds of support services that they need to move on to lead a quality healthy life. Children from low socioeconomic backgrounds do not have the resources for healthcare. We know how much healthcare is costing now. Their parents do not have insurance coverage. They do not have access to dental clinics. So Head Start provides for immunizations and all of those kinds of healthcare needs in a total package for young people who, by no fault of their own, just do not have any money to receive those types of basic services, and that is why moving it to the Department of Education is wrong and we have got to defeat this proposal.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. As I read this resolution, I really did think I was reading the fundamental arguments for the establishment of a national affordable housing trust fund which has been sponsored by over 200 members of this body. So I would like to read just a couple of whereas clauses which explain why I think this resolution sounds like the provisions of the National Housing Trust Fund. Whereas establishing a housing infrastructure strengthens neighborhoods and local economies and nurtures the families who reside in them; whereas homeownership is a cornerstone of the national economy because it spurs the production and sale of goods and services, generates new jobs, encourages savings and investment, promotes economic and civic responsibility and enhances the financial security of all people in the United States. That is some of what this resolution says. I fully support and appreciate the efforts of Habitat for Humanity and really agree that they should be applauded and supported. However, this resolution is just another vehicle for Republicans to talk about their nonexistent housing agenda. This Congress must allow us to debate and vote on significant housing legislation. My frustration with my Republican colleagues for failing to bring significant housing legislation to the floor and for ignoring the dismal housing and economic outlook in this country is really only compounded by the Republican attempts to clock weak homeowner initiatives by pretending to support the American dream of homeownership. While the nationwide homeownership rate is approaching 70 percent, the African American and Latino homeownership rate pale in comparison, to about 46 percent; and in the administration's Homeownership Downpayment Assistance Program, they would not even support foreclosure assistance to help these homeowners keep their homes and protect taxpayer investment. Of the 3.9 million low-income households to be considered working poor, over two-thirds pay 30 percent or more of their income for housing costs, with one-quarter paying over half their incomes. In 39 States, 40 percent or more of renters cannot afford fair market for a 2-bedroom unit, and that is why creating more affordable housing and homeownership should be our focus. Consistently since the Bush administration has drafted budgets, they seem to negate the promise of homeownership, community investment, and fair, quality housing. This administration continues to cut the HUD budget and fight successful programs such as HOPE VI, section 8, the public housing drug elimination program and the creation of a national affordable housing production program. I will vote for this resolution, I support it; but I encourage the other side to bring some real housing bills to the floor very soon.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 220 and to pay tribute to the life and works of Medgar Wiley Evers. Medgar Evers was a true pioneer in the fight for racial justice in Mississippi. Organizing for the NAACP meant defying the political establishment, founded on white supremacy. It was an act of supreme courage and frankly of patriotism: Medger Evers fought to make this country live up to its own ideals. He became the first known African-American person to apply for admission to the University of Mississippi Law School, and was denied admission. As a result of that denial, Medgar Evers contacted the NAACP to take legal action, and found himself centered in a movement that he felt compelled to advance. As a result of this new commitment, Medgar Evers was offered a position as the Mississippi Field Secretary for the NAACP. Mr. Evers established local chapters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People throughout the Delta region in order to change the social, political, and economic condition of African Americans. Placing his life and family in jeopardy, he consistently put the movement for equality above his own safety and security. While organizing students from Tougaloo and Campbell Colleges, leading protest marches for equal and quality education, organizing boycotts of Jackson businesses and sit-ins, and challenging segregated bus seating he was targeted by racist police and community groups, arrested beaten, and even jailed. The violence against Medgar Evers climaxed on June 12, 1963, when he was shot and killed in front of his own home, dying in front of his own wife and children. Although the racist factions in the Deep South thought they had silenced the great hero and his message; this tragedy catapulted Myrlie Evers into the face of Southern institutionalized racism as she fought for 31 years to have Medgar Ever's killer, Byron De La Beckwith, brought to justice. He was convicted in 1994. We stand and pledge allegiance that our country will strive to someday provide liberty and justice for all people. The murder of Medgar Evers and the pursuit of justice exemplifies this ongoing struggle and reminds us that the United States has a long, and dark past of racism that we must confront and continue to remedy with racial healing and understanding, with affirmative action, equal opportunity, and access to jobs and education.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a wonderful woman, Ms. Judy Marron. The beloved wife of Owen Marron, Judy passed on May 12, 2003 after a hard-fought battle against cancer. A third generation Sacramentan, Judy was born February 8, 1940. She completed high school and two years of college in Sacramento before beginning her career with the State of California. In 1980, while parenting and working for the Department of Transportation, Judy returned to school to earn her bachelors degree. She received a B.A. in Business Administration in 1985. Judy married Owen Marron in 1974 and from 1975 to 1978 she devoted her energies to raising their four youngest children. In 1978, Judy returned to employment as a clerk with the California Department of Transportation, rising through the ranks to become executive secretary to the director of the department. In 1984, she served as a national recruiter of engineers for the Department of Transportation. In 1987, Judy moved to the California Department of Health, where she held various positions before retiring as building manager for the department headquarters in Berkeley. Mrs. Marron worked tirelessly to integrate women into the building trades and increased the access of disabled individuals to employment at the Berkeley facility. Following retirement she was retained as a consultant for various special projects, including the new health facility under development in Richmond. She was an ardent advocate for the rights of working people, women and disabled individuals, and contributed much to the labor movement. She assisted husband Owen as executive secretary-treasurer of the Central Labor Council of Alameda County by coordinating records and minutes of meetings, assisting with the logistics of marches and rallies, and electoral activities such as phone banks and precinct walks, Labor Day picnics, the 1995 visit of President Bill Clinton, and Unionist of the Year events, until Owen's retirement in 1999. She is survived by devoted husband Owen; children Denise Cheely, Mike Proaps, Barney, Dorie, Rick, and Mike Marron, grand children Billy, Kayla, Austin, Cody, Isabella, Corinna, Josh and Shelly, brothers William Hack and Jim Hack, and loving pets Chester and Fraidy. Finally, as we honor Mrs. Marron today, I want to thank her for being an exemplary role model, administrator, and hero. I take great pride in joining Judy's family, friends and colleagues to recognize and salute the accomplishments and contributions of Judy Celeste Hack Marron.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise on this day to pay tribute to an extraordinary community leader, Ms. Jane Garcia. I take great pride in honoring Jane for her twenty-five years of tenacious advocacy on behalf of the poor, and for her dedication to organizing and empowering the immigrant community in its struggle for greater access to health care. The monumental integrity and deep compassion that has come to characterize Jane's legacy of service to her community are deeply rooted in the lessons she learned while growing up in the Chicano Movement. Jane's life-long commitment to insuring that every woman, man and child has access to culturally and linguistically appropriate healthcare, and her belief that healthcare is a fundamental right not an economic privilege were inspired by the civil rights activism of Cesar Chavez, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Dolores Huerta. Recognizing the importance of organizing and empowering the immigrant community in its efforts to secure the promises of equality and justice made by our nation's founders, Jane has tirelessly worked to improve the quality of life for the most vulnerable members of her community. Among her many public policy victories, Jane courageously and fiercely led the successful battle to preserve prenatal healthcare for low- income immigrants during former Governor Wilson's draconian era of budget cutbacks. Inspiring and empowering those whose lives she touches, Jane rises to positions of leadership where she effectively challenges the status quo, contributes to policy reform, and advocates for equality and justice for all. She has provided skillful and passionate guidance to a plethora of community service organizations in California, doing so most visibly through her twenty-five years with La Clinica de La Raza-- Fruitvale Health Project. Under her skillful tutelage and direction, what began as a grassroots health clinic more than thirty-eight years ago has become the premiere Latino community health center in the nation. During her tenure as Chief Executive Officer of La Clinica, the organization's budget has grown from $3 mullion in 1983 to over $28 million today. The combination of Jane Garcia's focused administrative style and limitless compassion has allowed La Clinica to greatly expand the services available to its patients. La Clinica now provides high-quality healthcare services to over 17,000 families annually, making it a critical and irreplaceable component of the healthcare safety net in Alameda County. Soon, La Clinica will be assuming the dental facility at Children's Hospital in Oakland, making La Clinica one of the largest dental providers in Northern California. It is the largest employer in East Oakland and was recently listed as the sixth largest non-profit employer in the East Bay by the East Bay Business Times. Jane's relentless efforts, her ongoing dedication, and her long-term vision made La Clinica's impressive growth possible. Thus, it is fitting that we honor Jane's twenty-five years of unyielding commitment to public service in the same year that we will be celebrating the grand opening of the historic Fruitvale Transit Village, which will be anchored by La Clinica's newest and largest facility. Jane is truly the personification of Cesar Chavez' famous motto: ``Si Se Puede!''. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize my good and long-time friend, Jane Garcia, and I take pride in joining the people of California's 9th Congressional District in celebrating and honoring her twenty-five years of service to our community.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great community leader and activist, Ms. Arnell Hinkell. Arnell Hinkell, who is tackling the obesity epidemic among teens by supporting efforts in communities throughout California to encourage healthy lifestyles, has earned the nation's highest honor for community health leadership. Hinkell is among the outstanding individuals from across the country selected this year to receive a Robert Wood Johnson Community Health Leadership Program (CHLP) award. Hinkell, executive director of the California Adolescent Nutrition and Fitness Program in Berkeley, CA., founded CANFit in 1993 with funds from the settlement of a lawsuit charging a breakfast cereal manufacturer with deceptive advertising. Her mission is to prevent obesity and chronic disease by helping people adopt healthy habits while young. Drawing on her experience as a nutritionist, chef and organic farmer, Hinkell created a program that promotes healthy eating and activity to 10-to-14-year-olds from low-income, minority families--groups that historically have poor diets and suffer disproportionately from health problems such as heart disease and diabetes. CANFit has provided grants to more than 60 youth organizations, scholarships to 90 low-income students studying in health fields, and fitness and nutrition training workshops to more than 500 people across California. What makes CANFit unique is that its work goes far beyond the dissemination of information, said Hinkell's nominator. Projects CANFit has supported include a Cambodian recipe book, nutrition and fitness curriculum for Korean-language schools, a fast food survival guidebook, an American Indian surf camp, and a hip hop video promoting healthy eating and physical activity. From the beginning, Hinkell has emphasized community ownership of CANFit projects and insisted that youth be involved in planning and evaluating each one. She has grown CANFit from a small endowment that many thought would not survive into one of the most innovative and uncompromising nutrition education and community capacity-building programs in the country, said her nominator. Hinkell is working with the Washington, D.C.-based policy group Forum for Youth Investment to make youth nutrition and fitness part of the national youth development agenda. She also coordinated development of a national model, adopted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for improving nutrition and physical activity for the adolescent poor. Community by community, these leaders are showing us the face of America's new safety net, said Catherine Dunham, director of the Boston-based Robert Wood Johnson Community Health Leadership Program. While larger, better endowed institutions must restrict or close services under the weight of severe budget cuts, these leaders' programs--that provide health services where the need is great--remain strong because they are woven from and into the very fabric of the community. The program awards $1.2 million each year to individuals who have overcome significant challenges to expand access to health care and social services to underserved members of their communities. Hinkell and this year's other winners will be honored at a June 10 event in Washington, D.C. She will receive $105,000 to enhance her program and $15,000 as a personal award. Hinkell was chosen from among 274 candidates for this year's honor. Since 1992, the program has given 110 awards to community leaders in 43 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. This year's award winners represent urban and rural areas of California, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Texas and Virginia. They were nominated by community leaders, health professionals, government officials and others inspired by their work in providing essential health services to their communities. The Community Health Leadership Program is a program of the Princeton, N.J.-based Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the largest private philanthropic organization dedicated to improving health and health care for Americans.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great community leader, educator, and real estate practitioner, Ms. Noble Fields, for her years of service and commitment to the community. Noble Fields is the founder and director of the Noble Fields Realty & Investment Company and School of Real Estate. She is also a woman of many talents. Noble Fields was born in Fresno and enlisted in the Army after high school. She was originally trained as a teletype operator, but after a career counseling course, she became an Army recruiter and then an instructor for recruiters. While still in the service, Noble Fields entered and won an Army talent contest which resulted in her performing as a singer and dancer in many NCO clubs around the world and with the All Army Entertainment show. She became an accomplished actress, and has since appeared on the San Francisco stage and has had small parts in major movie productions. She also holds an FCC broadcasting license that she earned while in the Army and was a radio broadcaster and cable television show host in the Bay Area and Indianapolis. After 20 years, this Army veteran retired as a Staff Sergeant with a full brass band ceremony. She has a service-connected disability and is the Commander of Disabled American Veterans Chapter No. 144, the first woman ever to serve in that position. After leaving the military, Noble worked for the National Alliance of Businessmen, a partnership of private businesses, labor, and government. As the Jobs for Veterans Manager, she was instrumental in securing jobs and job training for Vietnam veterans. In 1985, Ms. Fields started the Noble Fields School of Real Estate and Appraisal. The school offers approved home study license qualification classes and continuing education courses for real estate and appraiser licensees. As we honor Ms. Fields today, I want to thank her for her work in promoting the participation of minorities in the real estate industry. I take great pride in joining Ms. Fields' family, friends and colleagues to recognize and salute the accomplishments and contributions of Noble Fields.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decision to allow for monopolies in media markets represents a grave day for free speech. It also represents the defeat of the belief that the American people will benefit from a variety of viewpoints on issues, not the few that will be ushered in by the huge media conglomerates. The Bush Administration and FCC Chairman Michael Powell have bowed to the demands of giant media companies. These companies, in effect, claimed that they needed another government handout to remain ``viable,'' even though they have already been absorbing television stations and newspapers. With this ruling, the Administration has also indicated that it is not interested in preserving multiple media voices and opinions in the electronic and print media industries. The old FCC rules protected the participation of minority-owned media outlets. In fact, with minorities owning only 3.8 percent of United States commercial radio and television stations, including 1.9 percent of the country's commercial television licenses, we need more protection, not less. Yet under the new rules, these minority-owned media outlets will be squeezed out by media conglomerates. Mr. Powell also argued that new modes of communication, like the Internet and digital TV, reduce the need for these rules. Yet, television and newspapers remain the public's main sources of information. And while the Internet has certainly revolutionized our society, a look at the 20 most visited websites reveals that they are run by the same companies that own the most popular TV networks and newspapers. So Mr. Powell's argument holds no water. Media ownership rules are actually more important now than they were 50 years ago because the power and resources of large media companies have grown exponentially over the last fifteen to twenty years. As a result, smaller, independent companies do not have the resources to compete with Viacom or Newscorp. These rules are needed to ensure that we don't lose what's left of our locally owned media and that we do have access to diverse sources of information. By lifting these rules, we will lose our independent media watchdog. Americans don't want a handful of companies controlling their access to information. We must now redouble our efforts to pass legislation that will ensure a democratic media. We must not only mobilize members of Congress but grassroots organizations to send a message that the exclusion of all other voices except those provided by the media giants is not acceptable for our society. I am very disappointed that Mr. Powell and his allies on the FCC did not heed the American public's deep concerns and leave our media ownership rules intact.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for her leadership and really for her guidance based upon her remarkable experience with Head Start and for her passion and for her commitment to children who really otherwise would have very few opportunities to succeed. I also want to thank the gentleman from Maryland, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, who once again is demonstrating his enormous leadership by sounding the alarm in terms of this administration's assault on children. We have come together tonight to talk about an issue really that is about our future. It is about the future of our children. So what else could really be more important? Head Start has been an enormously successful program since its inception in 1965 because it continues to offer comprehensive programs for children and families. Head Start has enabled these children to enter kindergarten on an equal footing with students who were really born into wealthier socioeconomic circumstances. Over the last four decades, Head Start nationwide has reached an unbelievable number of students. Since 1965, over 20 million children across the country have participated in Head Start programs. Last year alone, Head Start and Early Head Start programs worked with more than 900,000 children in 2,590 local programs. In my own hometown of Oakland, California, over 1,600 children are part of our area Head Start programs. But we are still not really reaching enough kids. On any particular day, 300 to 400 children are on a waiting list for the Oakland Head Start centers. In fact, all 30 centers have children on a waiting list, meaning that all areas are being affected; 300 to 400 children, as I said, are far too many to have to begin school already behind. In fact, one child on a waiting list is really one too many, one too many in terms of a young person not afforded access to early participation in such an enormously successful program. Yet again the Bush administration is dismantling another excellent domestic program by trying to reduce the effectiveness, and that is what this is going to do, reduce the effectiveness of Head Start. They are trying to radically change what has really been a radically effective program. President Bush's plan to reform Head Start would systematically, basically, and probably will really gut Head Start. For instance, the President has called for moving Head Start from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Department of Education. The administration wants to move Head Start from HHS because they believe preschoolers should be judged solely by academic standards. President Bush wants to begin a national reporting system of literacy testing, mind you, literacy testing for our 4-year-olds. How ridiculous and how sinister this is. Administrators in the city of Oakland's Head Start program tell me that moving Head Start to the Department of Education will mean the end of all of the support services and the component services that make Head Start so successful. When parents and children in Oakland and throughout my own congressional district heard of this proposal a couple of months ago, several hundred people participated. These were men, women and children, families, participated in a rally, all of them saying in no uncertain terms, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' This will be, and I heard this over and over again, the end of health services; and in a country where our health care system is totally broken, to eliminate health services for young people which they receive through the Head Start program is really, really wrong. It is wrong because, again, the President and the administration's view is that it should be only a literacy program. By turning Head Start into a block grant program, the President claims that Head Start will be more flexible while ignoring the fact that one of Head Start's virtues is that it already has a great deal of flexibility on a local level. Yet Head Start is, and should continue to be, a national program. We really do not need 50 different administrations in 50 different States. We do not need these bureaucracies that will take money from children to go to State budgets and overhead costs. Block granting Head Start funds is really a particularly bad idea this year because our States are experiencing such huge budget deficits. It will be especially tempting for Governors and State governments to really try to tap into this money. That is not to say that State governments will misappropriate money, it is just a real acknowledgment that State officials will be tempted to use this money to offset their deficits. How do we know that this money would be used for Head Start? This really puts our children's future at risk at the whim of State budgets. This is just downright wrong. With these proposals, the Bush administration is demonstrating once again their disregard for our children and our families, those that do not have a lot of money. They are demonstrating their real contempt for working families struggling just to make it on wages that are not enough to raise them up above the poverty level. While the administration devastates Head Start, they simultaneously sign a tax cut primarily for the wealthiest in this country. They spend billions of dollars on war, at the same time not fully funding education, cutting child care, health care, job training programs and housing. We cannot let the President and this administration dilute what has been one of the most successful programs over the last four decades. We must stop the President's assault on Head Start. We must stop this Congress' assault on Head Start. I encourage our colleagues to join all of us, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the Congressional Black Caucus, all of us in this resistance. Our children deserve us to stand up for them at least this one time.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 2030, a resolution designating the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 120 Baldwin Avenue in Paia, Maui, Hawaii, as the ``Patsy Takemoto Mink Post Office Building''. Patsy was an outstanding leader, woman, mother, and friend, and I believe that naming a post office after her is a great tribute to a people's champion. I believe Patsy spoke not only for the forgotten, the disenfranchised, and the poor, but also to the conscience of all Americans. She was my colleague and dear friend who helped lead the charge on providing real reforms that helped all people across the country. Patsy stood as the standard for all legislators to rise to. Over the span of her career, she was particularly proud of the leading role she played in 1972 during the passage of Title IX of the Federal Education Act. She helped open many opportunities for women, which reflected a long-standing concern for equality, liberty and justice for people. I also shared her passion for peace and mediation. She once said, ``America is not a country which needs to demand conformity of all its people, for its strength lies in all our diversities converging in one common belief, that of the importance of freedom as the essence of our country.'' I loved and respected Patsy for her courage and fortitude. A great woman in Congress, Patsy Mink was brilliant, full of compassion, and passion; always working tirelessly for equal justice, liberty, and the value of a diverse legislative body. I'm proud to have served beside Congresswoman Patsy Mink and miss her tremendously. I ask that all of my colleagues support passage of H.R. 2030.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in light of today's news reports to really thank Republicans for finally agreeing with us that all children and families of America are important, whether or not they are wealthy. Two weeks ago, these same Republicans did not understand that lesson. Two weeks ago, they sacrificed the well-being of 6.5 million families, including 12 million children, so that they could pass tax breaks and dividend tax cuts for their wealthiest friends. Republicans thought that their actions really would have gone unnoticed, but how wrong they were. In California, for example, without this new legislation, almost 1.3 million California families would receive no child tax credit, including 2.4 million children. The Republicans would have especially hurt minority families because one-third of all Latino families would miss out on the tax break, while half of all African American families would not receive the credit. Thankfully now, the majority is really beginning to listen and beginning to understand that those families who do not make any more than $26,000 should also receive the same benefit that every family that earns up to $110,000 and over would receive.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Stark and I rise today to honor Shiloh Baptist Church of Hayward, California and its pastor, Reverend Jesse L. Davis, Sr. on the 35th Anniversary of its founding. On September 5, 1968, a small group of Christians met at the home of Emmett & Bernice Mason to organize a church. The Reverend Jesse L. Davis accepted the charge and was installed as Pastor of Shiloh Baptist Church by Adolph Kelly, Pastor of Macedonian Baptist Church in Milpitas, California. Shiloh Baptist's first facility was shared with Indian Baptist Church on Arthur Street in Oakland. In its second year, Shiloh Baptist bought that building as well as the one adjacent. Additionally, an Assistant Pastor was ordained and appointed, the Reverend Porter Clewis. The old building was demolished in 1976 and a new one was dedicated in June of 1978, along with the Jesse L. Davis Educational building. The congregation outgrew its facility once more, and moved to its present location in Hayward in October, 1992. Shiloh Baptist has been honored by the Southern Baptist Convention of California. Also, the Mass Choir has received the ``Church Choir of the Year Award'' at the 24th Annual Gospel Academy Awards. Sister Doria Cummins-Lewis was awarded ``Director of the Year.'' Among the ministries Shiloh Baptist has organized are Angel Tree (part of Prison Ministry), Street Witnessing, Feeding Program, Tutorial Program, Singles Ministry, Sisters of Excellence Women's Ministry, Alpha & Omega Drama and Dance Troupe. Together they have changed the lives of many people for the better. Since its inception, Shiloh Baptist's rise has mirrored that of its leader, Reverend, Jesse L. Davis, Sr. Reverend Davis was born in Louisiana in 1937 and will celebrate his 66th birthday on June 11. He attained an Associate of Arts Degree at Merritt College before graduating the Bay Cities Bible Institute, both in Oakland. He later attended the Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary in Mill Valley and had an honorary Doctor of Divinity Degree conferred upon him by the University of Biblical Studies at Burbank, California. In addition to his guidance of Shiloh Baptist for the past 35 years, Jesse has been a Lay Evangelism School Teacher with the Southern Baptist General Convention of California, Vice-President and past President of the Baptist Pastor's and Minister's Conference of Oakland, Director of Christian Education for the Mt. Zion District Association, and Treasurer for the California Baptist State Convention. Finally as we honor Shiloh Baptist Church and the esteemed Reverend Dr. Jesse L. Davis, Sr., we want to thank them on behalf of the entire 9th and 13th Congressional District for serving the greater Bay Area for 35 years. Reverend Davis and his wife, Sister Alma Davis, have shared their wisdom and been great community leaders. Due to their positive influence, their sons, Rev. Jesse L. Davis, II and Rev. Andrew Paul Davis have followed in their father's footsteps. Most of all, we thank them for their friendship and for their prayers. I take great pride in joining friends, family, and the congregation to salute Shiloh Baptist Church and its leader, the extraordinary Pastor Jesse L. Davis, Sr.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, today members of the Congressional Black Caucus rise to expose the truth about minority health disparities in our health care system. Many of my colleagues will outline the ongoing racial divide when it come to minorities' reliance on emergency and ambulatory services, the issue of access to health care and how minorities are disproportionately uninsured. Others will talk about the leading illnesses and health conditions that kill more Blacks and Latinos than Whites because of social and economic community distrust of the health care system. However, tonight I want to bring attention to the increasing minority health disparities connected to environmental racism. The simple fact is the environment affects your health, and Blacks, Latinos and other people of color are suffering and dying because of toxins in the environment. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. laid the groundwork when he declared that ``we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.'' The metaphors of nature are the metaphors of life, and that is fundamentally where environmental justice begins and ends. Unfortunately, the waters themselves in much of the world are tainted, and the toxic streams flow all too often through neighborhoods at the economic margins of society, particularly minority neighborhoods. Far too often, the issue of minority health and the environment is ignored. Now, the Administration continues to roll back all of the environmental protections that Democrats have fought for, minorities will pay the highest price of all, trapped in homes near brown fields, power lines and sanitation plants. Democrats must stand against the Administration and the deceptive conservatism that continues to sweep our policy debates and our nation. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus see the forces of environmental injustice playing themselves out in terms of minority health disparities. These disparities follow a cradle to grave cycle: beginning with infant mortality, continuing with workplace hazards and increased exposure to pollution, and ending with disparate access to healthcare, diagnoses, and medical treatment. We see these forces clearly in diseases that strike most deeply into our cities and affect children most severely. Asthma rates among the urban poor are reaching alarming proportions. Death rates from asthma, and a host of other treatable diseases, are significantly higher among African Americans than any other ethnic group. In my own district, asthma rates are among the highest in the country, and children in West Oakland are seven times more likely to be hospitalized for asthma than children in the rest of California. Over twenty-eight percent of low-income African American children suffer from lead poisoning, more than twice the level of exposure among low income white children, and far higher than among children of the middle class or wealthy. Toxins concentrate along the color lines that have historically divided American society. Children of color are much more likely to suffer from lead poisoning, resulting in devastating effects on mental development. We are also finding that public housing communities have been secretly dealing with mold for years, another place where minorities are disproportionately located. These are minority health injustices that we cannot accept. Environmental minority health disparities grow not only out of poverty, but racism. We must address the ravages of the past while we forge sounder policies for tomorrow. Our environment may be defined as our surroundings. Inner city neighborhoods that have liquor stores but no grocery stores speak to years of less than benign neglect and to the need for meaningful social and economic investment. That is a form of racism. Superfund sites that are under-funded; factories and plants that emit carcinogens under the protections of grandfather clauses; healthcare that is inadequate and racially biased; all demand our attention and financial resources. They are all forms of environmental racism. We must demand environment health justice for our communities. The gap between minorities and whites in health care continues to grow, but I stand here today in support of universal health care, more resources for minority health initiatives, and a re-evaluation of the national agenda for health and justice. We must consider the environmental health agenda because it affects our homes, our communities, and the overall health of America.