Barbara Lee

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule and to speak about the need for extending unemployment benefits. I'm happy to see that our Republican colleagues have finally gotten around to agreeing with us that the working people of this country need help in the economic downturn that is plaguing our country. Democrats tried to pass emergency extensions for unemployed workers across the country during our November session, but the Republican leadership only wanted to extend benefits for unemployed workers in Alaska, Oregon, and Washington. What did this legislative delay mean for my 9th California district? It meant that three days after Christmas almost 7,500 in the Oakland metropolitan area lost their federal extended unemployment benefits. It meant that these people, who are already struggling in an environment of high housing costs, are struggling to survive. It meant that in an economy that is already miserable we had fewer spending consumers. I applaud the fact that the Republicans have agreed to extend unemployment benefits, and I will vote for this legislation. But I also want to insist that we do more. For those people who have exhausted their benefits, for instance, the President's plan provides no more help. On the other hand, the Democratic legislation would provide 13 weeks more of benefits for those who have already exhausted their extended federal benefits, perhaps the people with the greatest need. President Bush's so-called economic stimulus package spends billions to fatten the wallets of the wealthy, but our plan focuses aid on lower- and middle-class workers who need that help immediately. That's why I urge a ``no'' vote on this closed rule. Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, it is with a deep sense of sadness today that I rise to express my sense of sorrow upon learning of the death of a great lawyer, a courageous civil libertarian, a constituent, a very valued and very supportive constituent, a devoted husband and father, Joe Remcho. I had the privilege to know Joe for many years and benefited from his advice, his counsel, and his steadiness. Joe had a keen intellect, a gentle heart, and a passion for justice. He took on difficult cases because he believed in the correctness of the cause, not in the glory of the moment. Joe Remcho was a humble man. He was a humble human being who exemplified all of the values we hold so dear. My heart is very heavy today. We have lost an unsung hero to an untimely and sad and tragic death. His family--his wife, Ronnie, and his children, Morgan and Sam, have lost a great husband and father. To his family and to all of those who are close to Joe, I just want to say may he rest in peace. We send our condolences. May God bless him.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Loune Viaud, the 2002 recipient of the Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Humanitarian Award. The Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award was established in 1984 to honor creative individuals who are often at great personal risk, engaged in strategic and nonviolent efforts to overcome serious human rights violations. Loune Viaud is well deserving of this award because she has demonstrated leadership by expanding the delivery of health and social services to indigent Haitians suffering from HIV/AIDS and other debilitating diseases. She is a champion of Haiti's poor. We all know that Haiti is one of the most impoverished nations in the Western Hemisphere. With over 300,000 people infected with HIV/AIDS out of its small population of 8 million, Haiti is in a crisis. Haiti is also facing a devastating AIDS orphan crisis with more than 163,000 children whose parents have died from AIDS complications. It is appalling that only one in every ten thousand Haitians has access to a physician, and tuberculosis remains one of the major causes of adult mortality. In fact, cases of tuberculosis and multi-drug resistant tuberculosis in Haiti are more than ten times as high as those in other Latin American countries. I want to praise Loune for rising to the challenge and for her significant work in Haiti. Her contributions are critical to the welfare of Haiti, as well as the welfare of our global community. Upon learning she had been selected as the Robert F. Kennedy award recipient, Loune Viaud stated, ``For the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial to choose me, a humble foot soldier in the struggle for health and human rights, as the recipient of this prestigious award means more than I can say. For I am a Haitian, and the majority of Haitian people have always stood for equality. From 1791, when we fought against slavery to become the world's first independent republic born of a slave revolt, until 1990, when we again declared as a people our belief in social and economic rights as a human rights platform, the Haitians have struggled against long odds. Two hundred years of struggle, much of it in isolation even from those who profess a belief in human rights. Thank you for reminding us that we are never, in fact, really alone.'' Loune maintains a clinic situated on the Central Plateau in rural Haiti. She offers free health care to the hundreds of thousands of people living in the region. Last year alone 56,000 people came to the clinic for medical help. In 2002 more than 100,000 people will be treated there. The clinic, Zanmi Lasante, addresses the overall needs of the community surrounding it. It has special clinics for HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, a clinic for women (Proje Sante Fanm), a special center for children and an operating theatre. The complex also develops educational projects on HIV/AIDS sanitation and human rights. Although the clinic is built in an underdeveloped region, Zanmi Lasante's treatment program is proof that diseases that are difficult to treat can be addressed in rural areas. The clinic, however, does not stop there. It's program treats the patients and empowers them to understand their rights. In 2001, Viaud was instrumental in developing a patient's Bill of Rights with a group of 60 HIV-positive patients. The patients view their health care as a basic human right, not charity. Viaud's work attacks the symptoms of a greater and more persistent human rights violation, namely the right to healthcare. Article 19 of the Haitian Constitution states that the Government of Haiti is obliged to provide basic health care to its citizens. The Government has stated that it would develop other health facilities, following Zanmi Lasante's model, in other parts of the country if it had the resources. I, along with other members of the CBC agree that the Haitian government should receive the funding already promised from the IDB Bank in 1996 for humanitarian assistance. In every sense, the disbursement of these loans can mean the difference between life and death. I want to assure Loune and her partners in Haiti that their work does not go unrecognized. I stand with you in this effort. As African- Americans and as a members of the Congressional Black Caucas' Haiti Task Force, we have recognized the urgency in Haiti. Together, we have worked to introduce legislation that would decouple the humanitarian crisis in Haiti from the political impasse, which has further impeded Haiti's development since the 2000 elections. The resolutions was designed ensure that financial assistance from the international financial institutions can be disbursed to Haiti. You have my assurance that this work will continue. We must make it our mission to advance the development of a stronger and more meaningful partnership between the United States and Haiti. In closing, I want to commend Loune Viaud for her work in Haiti. She is helping to build a strong foundation for the future development of Haiti. We must recognize the distress Haiti is in however, we must also look forward with hope. It is my honor to work with you and I look forward to our collective efforts to build a better relationship between the United States and Haiti. Loune, you are role model who is demonstrating today what can be possible tomorrow and into the future if we commit ourselves to a better brighter future for Haiti.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Chang-Lin Tien for his lifetime of distinguished public service. He was a tireless community activist and educational leader for more than 40 years. As Chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley, from 1990-97, Tien was an outspoken supporter of equal opportunity in higher education and preserved the campus's preeminence despite a prolonged State-wide budget crisis. He died Tuesday, October 29th at Kaiser Permanente hospital in Redwood City, California. Tien was born on July 24, 1935, in Wuhan, China, and educated in Shanghai and Taiwan. With his family, he fled China's Communist regime for Taiwan in 1949. After completing his undergraduate education at National Taiwan University, Tien arrived penniless in the United States in 1956 to study at the University of Louisville. Supported by scholarships, he earned his master's degree there in 1957 and then a second master's degree and his PhD in mechanical engineering at Princeton University in 1959. He joined the UC Berkeley faculty in 1959 as an Assistant Professor of mechanical engineering. In 1962, when he was 26 years old, Tien became the youngest professor to receive UC Berkeley's Distinguished Teaching Award, an award for which he was enduringly proud. Rising through the ranks, he became a full professor in 1968, later served as chair for seven years of the Department of Mechanical Engineering and, for two years, 1983 through 1985, was UC Berkeley's vice chancellor for research. In 1988, Tien left UC Berkeley--for his first and only time-- when he was appointed executive vice chancellor at UC Irvine. He returned to UC Berkeley as chancellor in 1990. One of the most popular and respected leaders in American higher education and an engineering scholar of international renown, Tien spend nearly his entire professional career at UC Berkeley. He was the campus's seventh chancellor and the first Asian American to head a major research university in the United States. Both in the United States and overseas, Tien's expertise--in thermal science and engineering, as an educator and humanitarian--was called upon by engineers, scholars and government officials alike. In the field of thermal sciences, he was a visionary. Thermal radiation, thermal insulation and, most recently, microsale thermal phenomena were among the fields carved out by Tien. He also made important contributions to fluid flow, phase-change energy transfer, heat pipes, reactor safety, cryogenics and fire phenomena. In Japan, his basic formulas for ``superinsulation'' are used in the design of magnetic levitation trains. Both the United States and Hong Kong governments called upon Tien for technical advice. He helped solve problems with the Space Shuttle's insulating tiles and with the nuclear reactor meltdown at Three Mile Island in the late 1970s. A man of great personal integrity and a fighter for justice and equal opportunity, Tien said his values and ideals were shaped, in part, by the racism and discrimination he encountered in America. To explain his support for affirmative action as a tool to level the playing field in college admissions, he often told the story, as a new immigrant, he confronted a South still divided along color lines. ``One day I got on a bus and saw that all the black people were in the back, the white people in front. I didn't know where I belonged, so for a long time I stood near the driver,'' Tien would recall. ``Finally, he told me to sit down in the front, and I did. I didn't take another bus ride for a whole year. I would walk an hour to avoid that.'' In addition to successfully battling years of devastating state budget cuts on campus, Tien developed ways to counter the impact of the UC Regents' ban on affirmative action. In 1995, for example, he launched the Berkeley Pledge which was a partnership between UC Berkeley and California's K-12 public schools that now is called School/University Partnerships. Designed to improve the academic performance of hundreds of students in the Berkeley, Oakland, West Contra Costa and San Francisco unified school districts, the program was a model for Education Secretary Riley in creating a national program that today is active in almost every state in America. As chancellor, Tien was beloved as a champion of students. He was famous for his frequent strolls to Sproul Plaza to greet students, bringing cookies to those studying late in the library, and yelling a heartfelt ``Go, Bears!'' at events. If he returned to UC Berkeley at night after a long trip, he'd frequently visit the campus to check in with students working in his lab before heading home. Tien raised the profile of women in leadership at UC Berkeley by appointing the first woman Vice Chancellor and Provost--the second-in- command on campus--and the first woman Chief of the Campus Police Department. He also brought more ethnic diversity to the leadership of the university administration. During his career, Tien's many honors included, in 1976, becoming one of the youngest members of the National Academy of Engineering, which awarded its highest honor to him, the NAE Founders Award, in September 2001. The award recognizes academy members who have made lifelong contributions to engineering and whose accomplishments have benefitted U.S. citizens. Tien held 12 honorary doctorates, including degrees from universities in China, Hong Kong and Canada. One unique honor was when the Zi Jin Mountain Observatory in China named a newly discovered asteroid ``Tienchanglin.'' Also bearing his name is one of the world's largest oil tankers--Chevron Corp.'s M/T Chang-Lin Tien. He authored more than 300 research journal and monograph articles, 16 edited volumes and one book. Chancellor Tien was a friend and supporter. I vividly remember many meetings with Chancellor Tien and being in awe of his intellect. Yet, his passion and compassion for students and the University of California permeated his existence. He was a unique individual, a true leader who led from his head to his heart. I take great pride in joining Chancellor Tien's wife, children, grandchildren, and colleagues to salute the extraordinary Chang-Lin Tien.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Lieutenant General Russell C. Davis, who is retiring from the National Guard after forty-four years of exemplary service, as a member of the US Air Force and National Guard of the United States. General Davis has had a distinguished career of service to our nation's defense. He began his military career in the US Air Force in 1958 as an aviation cadet. While on active duty, he served as a B-47 strategic bombardment pilot at Lincoln Air Force Base, Nebraska. He then joined the Iowa Air National Guard, where he transitioned to fighter pilot, and served in numerous command and staff positions, from squadron pilot to Director of Operations. He commanded the 113th Tactical Fighter Wing prior to being appointed the Commanding General of the District of Columbia National Guard. General Davis is retiring from his current position as Chief, National Guard Bureau (NGB). The President appointed him Chief, NGB, in 1998. As Chief, NGB, he served as the senior uniformed National Guard officer responsible for formulating, developing and coordinating all policies, programs and plans affecting more than half million Army and Air National Guard personnel. As Chief, NGB, General Davis has served as the Army and Air Forces' official channel of communication with the governors and the Adjutants General of the states, commonwealths, territories and the District of Columbia. General Davis epitomizes the citizen-soldier. His career has reflected his unswerving integrity and high moral principles. He retires with over four thousand seven hundred flying hours in bomber and fighter aircraft. His numerous awards and decorations serve as a testament to his dedication, commitment, contributions, and sacrifice. It is our hope that you will join us as we salute Lieutenant General Russell C. Davis on the occasion of his retirement from the National Guard and wish him continued high flight.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution honoring my colleague and friend, Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota. Senator Wellstone was not only a friend of mine, but also he was a special friend of my district, the 9th Congressional District of California. In fact, he had visited my district not long before the tragic accident. People in my community embraced Paul for the same reasons so many across country did. Paul Wellstone was a progressive champion who truly personified the personal, populist approach to politics. He was an organizer who never lost touch with his grass-roots. In fact, he proved that the support of everyday Americans, not huge sums of corporate cash, could still win elections. He proved that you don't have to compromise your beliefs to be successful. He proved that passion for beliefs earns the respect of even one's biggest opponent. Paul Wellstone showed no fear and incredible energy in his approach to fighting for our shared progressive agenda. He stood alone as the sole member of the Progressive Caucus in the Senate. He worked tirelessly for the least among us; often against incredible odds. Paul was never afraid to speak up and to fight for his beliefs. Despite the often-long odds he faced, Senator Wellstone was an extremely effective and accomplished Senator. His work on mental health parity legislation is widely recognized, and I sincerely hope to have the opportunity to vote yes on the Wellstone mental health parity legislation in the very near future. He, along with the help of his wife Sheila, passed several pieces of legislation to prevent domestic violence and to help its victims. He worked tirelessly to end the scourge of homelessness among our nations' veterans and to ensure those who served this country received the health care they were promised and deserve. As a former educator, he fought for increases in Head Start, higher education funding, and better schools for all children in America, regardless of income. He fought for seniors and to alleviate the absurd cost of prescription medication. In short: he fought for us all. The people of Minnesota, the United States Congress, the progressive movement, and all Americans were fortunate to have such a strong, effective, tireless, and accomplished leader serving us in the United State Senate. We will miss him dearly. And though he is no longer with us, we will always remember and thank him for his incredible service. Now we must honor his memory by continuing our collective fight to make his vision of America a reality. Mr. Speaker, I have attached for the Record a copy of remarks I made in introducing Paul Wellstone at an event last year. Representative Lee's Introduction of Senator Wellstone (D-MN) at 21st Century Democrats Dinner Wednesday, March 28, 2001 As we come together tonight to honor some amazing populists with Democrats 2000, now known as 21st Century Democrats, I am extremely proud to introduce one of the greatest progressives in Congress--the phenomenal Paul Wellstone. As many of you know, after more than 20 years of teaching, Paul Wellstone jumped into the 1990 Minnesota Senate race. He rallied a huge grassroots network of supporters, got a Green Bus to tour the state, and won his election. When you are trying to rally the troops in your state for an election, it's easy when you have an amazing, inspirational, progressive leader like Paul Wellstone. He personifies the personal, populist approach to winning elections. He proves you need the support of everyday Americans, not huge sums of corporate cash, to get elected. During his tenure in Congress, Senator Wellstone has been a real leader in progressive causes and has held true to his beliefs. He is our one and only Congressional Progressive Caucus member in the Senate. He proves that you don't have to compromise your beliefs to be successful. He proves that your passion for your issues make even your opponents respect you. Senator Wellstone is one of the most effective members of the United States Congress, which is no easy feat these days and he champions issues few members will dare to discuss. Senator Wellstone has been so active and successful in dealing with so many issues, but let me take a moment just to commend him on a few. He is a tireless supporter of legislation to ensure mental health parity. He has passed several pieces of legislation with the help of his wife Sheila to prevent domestic violence and to help its victims. His work helping homeless veterans and on veterans' health care has earned him recognition of numerous veterans' organizations. As a former educator, his devotion to education and children's issues has led him to fight for increases in Head Start, higher education funding, and better schools for all children in America, regardless of income. He has partnered with Minnesota seniors to talk about the international disparities in prescription drug pricing and to pass legislation to correct this problem. And these are just a tiny fraction of his successes. In short, the people of Minnesota, the United States Congress, the progressive movement, and all Americans are so fortunate to have a strong, effective, tireless, accomplished leader serving them in Paul Wellstone. Senator Wellstone, welcome, and congratulations on this award you are receiving tonight.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Farr for organizing this tribute to John Steinbeck and this celebration of The Grapes of Wrath. When Steinbeck created the Joads, he created a portrait of the American family at a moment of crisis but also a moment of great strength. His words still resonate, and we still face many of the same challenges: America still has its Hoovervilles. But California is still a land of dreams and promises. I have chosen for my selection, a portion of chapter nineteen, describing the arrival of generations of migrants into California, their hoped for promised land. I am happy to join my colleague in celebrating reading and celebrating this classic novel. Chapter Nineteen Once California belonged to Mexico and its land to Mexicans; and a horde of tattered feverish Americans poured in. And such was their hunger for land that they took the land--stole Sutter's land, Guerrero's land, took the grants and broke them up and growled and quarreled over them, those frantic hungry men; and they guarded with guns the land they had stolen. They put up houses and barns, they turned the earth and planted crops. And these things were possession, and possession was ownership. The Mexicans were weak and fed. They could not resist, because they wanted nothing in the world as frantically as the Americans wanted land. Then, with time, the squatters were no longer squatters, but owners; and their children grew up and had children on the land. And the hunger was gone from them, the feral hunger, the gnawing, tearing hunger for land, for water and earth and the good sky over it, for the green thrusting grass, for the swelling roots. They had these things so completely that they did not know about them any more. they had no more the stomach-tearing lust for a rich acre and a shining blade to plow it, for seed and a windmill beating its wings in the air. They arose in the dark no more to hear the sleepy birds' first chittering, and the morning wind around the house while they waited for the first light to go out to the dear acres. These things were lost, and crops were reckoned in dollars, and land was valued by principal plus interest, and crops were bought and sold before they were planted. Then crop failure, drought, and flood were no longer little deaths within life, but simple losses of money. And all their love was thinned with money, and all their fierceness dribbled away in interest until they were no longer farmers at all, but little shopkeepers of crops, little manufacturers who must sell before they can make. Then those farmers who were not good shopkeepers lost their land to good shopkeepers. No matter how clever, how loving a man might be with earth and growing things, he could not survive if he were not also a good shopkeeper. And as time went on, the business men had the farms, and the farms grew larger, but there were fewer of them. Now farming became industry, and the owners followed Rome, although they did not know it. They imported slaves, although they did not call them slaves: Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans, Filipinos. They live on rice and beans, the business men said. They don't need much. They wouldn't know what to do with good wages. Why, look how they live. Why, look what they eat. And if they get funny--deport them. And all the time the farms grew larger and the owners fewer. And there were pitifully few farmers on the land any more. And the imported serfs were beaten and frightened and starved until some went home again, and some grew fierce and were killed or driven from the country. And the farms grew larger and the owners fewer. And the crops changed. Fruit trees took the place of grain fields, and vegetables to feed the world spread out on the bottoms: lettuce, cauliflower, artichokes, potatoes--stoop crops. A man may stand to use a scythe, a plow, a pitchfork; but he must crawl like a bug between the rows of lettuce, he must bend his back and pull his long bag between the cotton rows, he must go on his knees like a penitent across a cauliflower patch. And it came about that owners no longer worked on their farms. They farmed on paper; and they forgot the land, the smell, the feel of it, and remembered only that they owned it, remembered only what they gained and lost by it. And some of the farms grew so large that one man could not even conceive of them any more, so large that it took batteries of bookkeepers to keep track of interest and gain and loss; chemists to test the soil, to replenish; straw bosses to see that the stooping men were moving along the rows as swiftly as the material of their bodies could stand. Then such a farmer really became a storekeeper, and kept a store. He paid the men, and sold them food, and took the money back. And after a while he did not pay the men at all, and saved bookkeeping. These farms gave food on credit. A man might work and feed himself; and when the work was done, he might find that he owned money to the company. And the owners not only did not work the farms any more, many of them had never seen the farms they owned. And then the dispossessed were drawn west--from Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico; from Nevada and Arkansas families, tribes, dusted out, tractored out. Carloads, caravans, homeless and hungry; twenty thousand and fifty thousand and a hundred thousand and two hundred thousand. They streamed over the mountains, hungry and restless-- restless as ants, scurrying to find work to do--to lift, to push, to pull, to pick, to cut--anything, any burden to bear, for food. The kids are hungry. We got no place to live. Like ants scurrying for work, for food, and most of all for land. We ain't foreign. Seven generations back Americans, and We ain't foreign. Seven generations back Americans, and beyond that Irish, Scotch, English, German. One of our folks in the Revolution, an' they was lots of our folks in the Civil War--both sides. Americans. They were hungry, and they were fierce. And they had hoped to find a home, and they found only hatred. Okies--the owners hated them because the owners knew they were soft and the Okies strong, that they were fed and the Okies hungry; and perhaps the owners had heard from their grandfathers how easy it is to steal land from a soft man if you are fierce and hungry and armed. The owners hated them. And in the towns, the storekeepers hated them because they had no money to spend. There is no shorter path to a storekeeper's contempt, and all his admiration are exactly opposite. The town men, little bankers, hated Okies because there was nothing to gain from them. They had nothing. And the laboring people hated Okies because a hungry man must work, and if he must work, if he has to work, the wage payer automatically gives him less for his work; and then no one can get more. And the dispossessed, the migrants, flowed into California, two hundred and fifty thousand, and three hundred thousand. Behind them new tractors were going on the land and the tenants were being forced off. And new waves were on the way, new waves of the dispossessed and the homeless, hardened, intent, and dangerous. And while the Californians wanted many things, accumulation, social success, amusement, luxury, and a curious banking security, the new barbarians wanted only two things--land and food; and to them the two were one. And whereas the wants of the Californians were nebulous and undefined, the wants of the Okies were beside the roads, lying there to be seen and coveted: the good fields with water to be dug for, the good green fields, earth to crumble experimentally in the hand, grass to smell, oaten stalks to chew until the sharp sweetness was in the throat. A man might look at a fallow field and know, and see in his mind that his own bending back and his own straining arms would bring the cabbages into the light, and the golden eating corn, the turnips and carrots. And a homeless hungry man, driving the roads with his wife beside him and his then children in the back seat, could look at the fallow fields which might produce food but not profit, and that man could know how a fallow field is a sin and the unused land a crime against the thin children. And such a man drove along the roads and knew temptation at every field, and knew the lust to take these fields and make them grow strength for his children and a little comfort for his wife. The temptation was before him always. The fields goaded him, and the company ditches with good water flowing were a goad to him. And in the south he saw the golden oranges hanging on the trees, the little golden oranges on the dark green trees; and guards with shotguns patrolling the lines so a man might not pick an orange for a thin child, oranges to be dumped if the price was low. He drove his old car into a town. He scoured the farms for work. Where can we sleep the night? Well, there's Hooverville on the edge of the river. There's a whole raft of Okies there. He drove his old car to Hooverville. He never asked again, for there was a Hooverville on the edge of every town.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note the significant achievements of Dr. Tadeo Aoki, MD and Doctor of Medical Science. Dr. Aoki has made important medical and scientific research contributions to Japan, the United States and the world. Dr. Aoki was born in Higashibori-Dori, Niigata Japan. He graduated from Niigata University, School of Medicine in 1955. He completed his internship at the Hospital of Niigata School of Medicine in 1956. He graduated from the Post-Graduate course of the 2nd Department of Internal Medicine at the Niigata University, School of Medicine in 1961, and he was awarded a Doctor of Medical Science degree. In 1962, Dr. Aoki was sent by the Japanese Government, as a visiting fellow in cancer research, to Sloane-Kettering in New York. He worked at the Sloane-Kettering Institute as a Scientist and then as Section Head of Immunology. In 1971 Dr. Aoki was appointed as the Head of the Immunology section of the National Cancer Institute, NIH. At NIH, he also served as the Associate Editor of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and as a Scientific Consultant to the ``Chiba Cancer Center''. In 1977, Dr Aoki left NIH to return to Japan. There, he was named Chief, Department of Research and Internal Medicine, Shinrkuen Hospital, Niigata City, Japan. In 1988, Dr. Aoki came back to the United States, and established the Laboratory of Medical Science in Rockville, Maryland. Dr. Aoki has been a consultant to the Argentina Medical Association, as a Visiting Scholar, Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, and as an Additional Member of the ``Niigata Association of Labor Health'', in Japan. Dr. Aoki presently resides in Niigata, Japan. During his long and very distinguished carrier, Dr. Aoki has made significant contributions to science and medicine. Before the development of molecular biology, he discovered the genetical control of host resistance and sensitivity to murine Gross leukemia virus transmission in mouse systems, using very complicated immunofluorecent microscopy by absorption of soluble antigen in plasma. He discovered the Ly-1, 2 isologous antigen system, which has been used for organ transplantation matching testing. He was the innovator of a new immuno- electronmicroscopy using hybrid antibody with anti-various markers to analyze the relation of location between different cell surface antigens. He was centrally involved in the discovery of a new illness ``Low NK Syndrome (LNKS). Many across the world have sought his advice on LN-KS and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). His consultation was requested regarding diagnosis and treatment for LNKS from the U.S., France, Argentina and Croatia. His published medical papers include more than 200 books and articles. I now ask that you join me in recognizing and honoring Dr. Tadeo Aoki.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to have witnessed real, grass root's effort and hard work come to fruition in the passage of S. 2558, The Benign Brain Tumor Cancer Registries Amendment Act, by unanimous consent of the House this evening. In January of 2001, I introduced H.R. 239, The Benign Brain Tumor Cancer Registries Amendment Act. A little over a year later, Senator Jack Reed introduced the Senate companion, S. 2558. The origin of this bill goes back to my constituent, Lloyd Morgan, a brain tumor survivor. Lloyd is from Berkeley, and I first met him at a town hall meeting. That day, Mr. Morgan brought to my attention the fact the National Program of Cancer Registries does not collect data on benign brain tumors and the critical problems that this public health oversight creates. I agreed to introduce legislation to correct the problem and soon after introduced The Benign Brain Tumor Cancer Registries Amendment Act. The bill is very simple. With the passage of S. 2558, ``benign'' brain tumors will for the first time be included in the data collection of cancer registries. Medical system organizations use cancer data in funding decisions, investigations, research, and care facilities. Because data is not being collected on benign brain tumors, these tumors do not receive critical research funding. Of course, lack of research directly impacts both survivors and patients. Additional research is vital because of the threat to life that both benign and cancerous brain tumors present. Brain tumors are the second leading cause of cancer death for children and the third leading cause of cancer death in young adults ages 15-34. The greatest increase in brain tumors has been among people 75 years of age or older. Only 37 percent of males and 52 percent of females survive five years following the diagnosis of a primary benign or malignant brain tumor. Each year, approximately 100,000 people in the United States are diagnosed with a primary or metastatic brain tumors. Nationwide, the incidence of brain tumors has increased by 25 percent since 1975 and the reasons for this increase are unknown. For many types of tumors, the distinction between benign and malignant is significant. For tumors of the brain, this distinction is not as clear. A tumor, whether malignant or benign, is a collection of cells that grow as rapidly as malignant tumors, however based on location and size, even benign brain tumors can be life threatening. Benign brain tumors account for almost 40 percent of all brain tumors. Not including these tumors in the cancer registry underestimates the incidence of brain tumors in the general population. All brain tumors, both cancerous and benign, are potentially life threatening. What would the passage of the Benign Brain Tumor Cancer Registries Act mean for my constituent Lloyd Morgan? In his words it means: ``that the doctors pronounced that would surely end my life within days or hours of discovery (they were afraid to move me by gurney to surgery because my brain was about to split in two) will now be counted. It also means that Jan McCormack who has watched her sister Carla deteriorate and is now on a death watch in hospice care from a ``benign'' brain tumor will be assured that her sister's tumors and ultimate death will also be counted. It means that Jeff Licht' situation where his ``benign'' brain tumor has come back 4 times after it was ``completely'' removed the first time will provide data on re- occurrence. And it means that for countless others who suffer devastating brain deficits and shortened lives because of ``benign'' brain tumors will now have their tumors and their untimely deaths count. And by counting and having information on these ``benign'' brain tumors we may finally find the information that has been missing to point the way toward causation and therefore prevention of these devastating illnesses.'' I sincerely appreciate Mr. Morgan for bringing this significant public health oversight to my attention, and for his tireless efforts in support of the legislation we initiated and ultimately passed here on the floor of the House tonight. The passage of this bill truly represents democracy in action.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Oakland City Councilman, Dick Spees, for a remarkable 24 year career in public service. Dick Spees has represented Oakland's District 4 since 1979. He was elected to fill an unexpired term and was reelected in 1981, 1985, 1990, 1994 and 1998. He served as Vice Mayor of Oakland in 1983 and 1984 and again in 1994 and presently serves on four of the Oakland City Council's committees. When Councilman Spees is not meeting with residents, participating in City Council meetings, attending community events or working diligently as founder of the Chabot Space and Science Center, you will probably find him at a meeting with one of the many boards and committees dedicated to developing Oakland. These boards and committees include: Governing Board, Oakland Base Reuse Authority; Co-Chair, BART-Airport Connector Stakeholders Committee; Executive Board, Association of Bay Area Governments; Member, Regional Airport Planning Committee; Executive Committee Chair, Chabot Observatory & Science Center; Vice Chair, Bay Area World Trade Center; Founder and Vice Chair, Oakland- Sharing the Vision, the Strategic Plan for Oakland; Member, Oakland Education Cabinet. Dick Spees is not only an exemplary member of the Oakland City Council, but he goes far beyond the call of duty which is demonstrated through his work and dedication to many projects. For example, he spends many hours developing the District's neighborhood groups, developing and marketing the Chabot Space and Science Center, completing funding for a BART-Oakland Airport Connector, and advocating in Washington and Sacramento for various Oakland programs. He loves and cares for the people and the City of Oakland, California. The City of Oakland has benefitted tremendously from the leadership and commitment of this remarkable public servant. I am proud to call Dick my friend and colleague. I ask Congress to join me and the constituents of California's Ninth Congressional District as we bid farewell and wish Councilman Dick Spees a long and happy retirement.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit. We know that for every action there is a reaction. We do not know what danger lies before us. Every American has the right to know what price in terms of human lives and economic resources that they will have to pay. We owe them some answers. This is about life or death. We owe them answers to the questions the gentleman from Ohio has raised and will raise, and far more. In a democracy the people have a right to know.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, today our Nation is debating the very profound question of war and peace and the structure and nature of international relations in the 21st century. Before us today is the serious and fundamental question of life and death: whether or not this Congress will give the President authority to commit this Nation to war. Always a question of the greatest importance, our decision today is further weighted by the fact that we are being asked to sanction a new foreign policy doctrine that gives the President the power to launch a unilateral and preemptive first strike against Iraq before we have utilized our diplomatic options. My amendment provides an option and the time to pursue it. Its goal is to give the United Nations inspections process a chance to work. It provides an option short of war with the objective of protecting the American people and the world from any threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The amendment urges the United States to reengage the diplomatic process, and it stresses our government's commitment to eliminating any Iraqi weapons of mass destruction through United Nations inspections and enhanced containment. It emphasizes the potentially dangerous and disastrous long-term consequences for the United States of codifying the President's announced doctrine of preemption. The administration's resolution forecloses alternatives to war before we have even tried to pursue them. We do not need to rush to war, and we should not rush to war. If what we are worried about is the defense of the United States and its people, we do not need this resolution. If the United States truly faced an imminent attack from anywhere, the President has all of the authority in the world to ensure our defense based on the Constitution, the War Powers Act and the United Nations Charter. Our own intelligence agencies report that there is currently little chance of chemical and biological attack from Saddam Hussein on U.S. forces or territories. But they emphasize that an attack could become much more likely if Iraq believes that it is about to be attacked. This is a frightening and dangerous potential consequence that requires sober thought and careful reflection. President Bush's doctrine of preemption violates international law, the United Nations Charter and our own long-term security interests. It will set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. Do we want to see our claim to preemption echoed by other countries maintaining that they perceive similar threats? India or Pakistan? China or Taiwan? Russia or Georgia? I would submit that we would have little moral authority to urge other countries to resist launching preemptive strikes themselves. This approach threatens to destabilize the Middle East, unleash new forces of terrorism and instability and completely derail any prospects for peace in the region. Unilateralism is not the answer. Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are a problem to the world community, and we must confront it and we should do so through the United Nations. Multilateralism and steadfast commitment to international law should be the guiding principle as we move into the 21st century. As I said, the purpose of my amendment is to let the United Nations do its work. Let us give inspections and other containment mechanisms a chance to succeed once again. Inspections did make real progress in eliminating weapons of mass destruction in the 1990s despite Saddam Hussein's best effort at obstruction and deceit. U.N. inspectors destroyed large stockpiles of chemical weapons, missiles and weapons of mass destruction. We can and should renew and expand this process. In addition to inspections, we should improve border monitoring through an enhanced containment system to prevent shipments of nuclear materials or other weapons to Iraq. And we should install surveillance technology on the border to detect such materials. As part of enhanced containment, we should work with the countries bordering Iraq and with regional seaports to ensure that United Nations Security Council resolutions are enforced, and we should plug holes in the current arms embargo blanket. We should also work on nonproliferation efforts globally to secure weapons materials. All of these are diplomatic options that we can and should undertake and which can lead to success. What we are doing today is building the framework for 21st century international relations. It will either be a framework of unilateralism and insecurity or multilateral cooperation and security. It is our choice. During the Cold War, the words ``first strike'' filled us with fear. They still should. I am really appalled that a democracy, our democracy, is contemplating taking such a fearsome step and really setting such a terrible international precedent that could be devastating for global stability and for our own moral authority. We are contemplating sending our young men and women to war where they will be doing the killing and the dying. And we, as representatives of the American people, have no idea where this action will take us, where it will end and what price we will pay in terms of lives and resources. This too should cause us to pause. We have choices, however, and we have an obligation to pursue them, to give U.N. inspections and enhanced containment a chance to work. What this resolution does state very clearly and firmly is that the United States will work to disarm Iraq through United Nations inspections and other diplomatic tools. It states that we reject the doctrine of preemption, and it reaffirms our commitment to our own security and national interests through multilateral diplomacy, not unilateral attack. I urge you to protect our national interests by giving the United Nations a chance by supporting this amendment. It does not foreclose any future options. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers).

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark). (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)