Barbara Lee

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert-Kind- Gilchrest-Dingell amendment. This amendment to the farm bill will help farmers help the environment by providing funding for vitally important conservation efforts. These include: the Conservation Reserve Programs; restoration of 250,000 acres of wetlands; increased funding for Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program; and the creation of a 3-million-acre grassland reserve. According to the Kansas City Star and in a recent poll, 75 percent of Americans want conservation to be included in any farm package established by the U.S. Government. The farm bill, in its current form, excludes equitable relief for 60 percent of farmers. These farmers currently do not receive any benefits from the traditional commodity support programs. This amendment redistributes money more widely and equitable to producers and also improves the environment. This bill would also save billions of dollars in municipal water treatment costs and would reduce erosion and sediment in the water by providing natural buffers along rivers and streams. In the past, the U.S. Department of Agriculture opposed small farmers', ranchers', and forest landowners' requests for assistance in order to restore lost habitat. Also, according to the Bush administration, payments have gone to the largest 8 percent of farms, while more than half of all U.S. farmers share only 13 percent of the payments. As we establish a legislative framework to assist with land cultivation, we must also invest in sound environmental policies and practices. The Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment is supported by numerous organizations including: the League of Conservation Voters, the Water Environment Federation, the National Association of Water Companies, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, the Izaak Walton League, and Defenders of the Wildlife. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' for the Boehlert- Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell amendment.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, on the amendment offered by Mr. Hostettler to the FY02 District of Columbia Appropriations bill on September 25, 2001, rollcall No. 354, I was unavoidably detained on official businesses. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 2926, the Airline Stabilization Act, which will revitalize our economy and protect jobs in my district and around the country. I do so with the strong intention of supporting additional legislation, scheduled to be considered on the House floor next, that will provide relief for airport workers and those who have already lost their jobs in the airline industry. I also believe Congress needs to provide additional resources for airport security as soon as possible. Part of the aftermath of the tragedy our entire nation suffered on September 11 is that important industries in our nation's economy have become vulnerable. One of the most visibly affected industries has been the airline industry. We know of 100,000 nationwide layoffs because airplanes were grounded for four days and because activity at our national airports which came to a halt, are only now slowly beginning to become active again. As our nation recovers from this national tragedy, I believe that we must swiftly aid in this recovery. It is our obligation to help revive and ensure the viability of the airline industry by giving them the economic boost they require today. I believe that by getting our airline industry back on track, our nation's economy as a whole will prosper, and we will prevent the loss of even more jobs in the long term. Funds are included in this bill to give direct, prompt assistance to the airline industry. But the vast majority of the funds in the bill are loans that will be repaid. Additionally, there is a provision in the bill that I strongly support, to limit CEO compensation by putting a cap on executive salaries over $300,000 for two years. While I am cognizant that this bill does not contain language that would provide relief for workers who have been affected, nor does it include language that would provide increased security measures, I do believe that this bill will help to ensure solvency for much of the airline industry and prevent further job losses. I have stated since the tragedy last week that we must look for a multifaceted solution to this multifaceted problem. This bill is one small step toward restoring one facet--our economy--and for that reason I will support this bill.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our ranking member and my friend for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today really with a very heavy heart, one that is filled with sorrow for the families and the loved ones who were killed and injured this week. Only the most foolish and the most callous would not understand the grief that has really gripped our people and millions across the world. This unspeakable act on the United States has forced me, however, to rely on my moral compass, my conscience, and my God for direction. September 11 changed the world. Our deepest fears now haunt us. Yet I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States. This is a very complex and complicated matter. This resolution will pass, although we all know that the President can wage a war even without it. However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of restraint. Our country is in a state of mourning. Some of us must say, let us step back for a moment. Let us just pause for a minute and think through the implications of our actions today so that this does not spiral out of control. I have agonized over this vote, but I came to grips with it today and I came to grips with opposing this resolution during the very painful yet very beautiful memorial service. As a member of the clergy so eloquently said, ``As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore.''

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart, one that is filled with sorrow for the families and loved ones who were killed and injured in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Only the most foolish or the most callous would not understand the grief that has gripped the American people and millions across the world. This unspeakable attack on the United States has forced me to rely on my moral compass, my conscience, and my God for direction. September 11 changed the world. Our deepest fears now haunt us. Yet I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States. I know that this use-of-force resolution will pass although we all know that the President can wage a war even without this resolution. However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of restraint. There must be some of us who say, let's step back for a moment and think through the implications of our actions today--let us more fully understand its consequences. We are not dealing with a conventional war. We cannot respond in a conventional manner. I do not want to see this spiral out of control. This crisis involves issues of national security, foreign policy, public safety, intelligence gathering, economics, and murder. Our response must be equally multi-faceted. We must not rush to judgment. Far too many innocent people have already died. Our country is in mourning. If we rush to launch a counter-attack, we run too great a risk that women, children, and other non-combatants will be caught in the crossfire. Nor can we let our justified anger over these outrageous acts by vicious murderers inflame prejudice against all Arab Americans, Muslims, Southeast Asians, or any other people because of their race, religion, or ethnicity. Finally, we must be careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target. We cannot repeat past mistakes. In 1964, Congress gave President Lyndon Johnson the power to ``take all necessary measures'' to repel attacks and prevent further aggression. In so doing, this House abandoned its own constitutional responsibilities and launched our country into years of undeclared war in Vietnam. At that time, Senator Wayne Morse, one of two lonely votes against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, declared, ``I believe that history will record that we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States . . . . I believe that within the next century, future generations will look with dismay and great disappointment upon a Congress which is now about to make such a historic mistake.'' Senator Morse was correct, and I fear we make the same mistake today. And I fear the consequences. I have agonized over this vote. But I came to grips with it in the very painful yet beautiful memorial service today at the National Cathedral. As a member of the clergy so eloquently said, ``As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore.''

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a friend and a long valued member of the Oakland and Bay Area community, Chuck Foster, Executive Director of the Port of Oakland who is retiring from the Port after a long and distinguished career. Mr. Foster arrived in the Bay Area more than thirty years ago, having been stationed there during his service as a Naval aviator. He joined the Naval Reserves upon release from active duty and retired 15 years later with the rank of Captain. Given Mr. Foster's substantial aviation training while in the Navy, it is natural that much of his career after leaving the Navy focused on transportation matters, especially those in aviation. He served as the Assistant Director of Aviation at San Jose International Airport before being appointed the Director of Aviation at Oakland International Airport. He held that position for five years, until he was promoted to Deputy Executive Director of the Port. In 1995, the Board of Port Commissioners of the Port of Oakland appointed Mr. Foster Executive Director, responsible for the overall management of the Port's aviation, maritime and commercial real estate divisions and all aspects of Port administration. My friend Chuck Foster provided a unique combination of leadership and commitment that has nurtured the growth of the Port of Oakland, and in turn, the Bay Area region. Under his skillful leadership, the Port of Oakland's three divisions experienced extensive growth and the Port embarked upon an extensive, unprecedented expansion. During Mr. Foster's administration, Oakland International Airport has proposed a terminal expansion and reconfiguration project, as well as the development of a light-rail rapid transit link between BART and the airport. Additionally, the Port's Maritime Division acquired four of the world's largest Super Panamex cranes, initiated the deepening of Oakland Harbor to 50 feet and converted 530 acres of military land into commercial terminal facilities which serves as a model of base-closure economic conversion. Presently, the Commercial Real Estate Division has begun its project to convert more than 1000 acres of property into a thriving waterfront neighborhood. Chuck Foster's dedication and service to the Bay Area community does not end with his efforts at the Port of Oakland. Throughout his career, he has served on various boards and otherwise been active with numerous business and charitable community organizations. Whether his talents are directed towards his efforts with the Oakland Chamber of Commerce, California Council for International Trade, International House at the University of California, Berkeley or the Summit/Alta Bates Medical Center, he has approached all of these activities with the same dedication, vision and passion. Over his career, Mr. Foster has traveled extensively throughout the world, and his success in his business dealings for the Port is matched only by his role as an ambassador for the Bay Area and the Nation. He is the best of what America has to offer the world--committed to partnership and sound relations with those who are engaged in the growing world community. I am most appreciative to Chuck for the way he has attempted to address the needs and concerns of the residents of Oakland, particularly in West Oakland. The presence of residential neighborhoods in areas adjacent to industrial activity will always create tension and Oakland has been no exception. However, Mr. Foster saw to it that community groups had not only a voice, but a role to play in the Port's various activities and expansion projects. He has always sought to achieve a proper balance between economic growth and community needs. He formed community advisory panels for both the airport and seaport development planning processes and opened a Port office in the West Oakland neighborhood most impacted by the Port's maritime activity to ensure appropriate community outreach. These efforts have created an atmosphere of more than simply goodwill, but one of cooperation and a sense of community. Mr. Speaker, as Charles Foster leaves behind a long and rich history at the Port of Oakland, I would ask that Congress join me in expressing our thanks to him for his 15 years of service there and his earlier contributions to the nation in uniformed and civilian life. I am proud to recognize Chuck Foster's esteemed accomplishments and to extend my best wishes to him in his well-earned retirement.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member for yielding time to me. Today I rise to condemn the horrific tragedy of September 11 and to acknowledge today, September 12, as a national day of unity and mourning. I mourn the deaths of men, women, and children on four airplanes, who boarded these planes to visit their relatives, conduct business, embark upon vacations. I mourn the deaths and injuries of thousands of people who went to work yesterday at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, thinking it was just another Tuesday. I mourn the deaths and injuries of the brave firefighters, EMTs, and police officers who rushed to the aid of the victims and who became victims themselves. Their heroism will never be forgotten. And to the brave emergency personnel and volunteers still working tirelessly to save lives, words cannot express our gratitude. This tragedy has shattered the lives of so many men, women, and children throughout our country and in my home district in California. My heart goes out to them, and my prayers and my thoughts. As an immediate response, we really must increase resources and efforts to fight terrorism and to provide support for emergency services, reconstruction, and recovery. The United States must remain strong and vigilant in its sense of national unity, and move forward to protect against further atrocities. This was an attack on our Nation, its people, our democracy, and the rule of law. As we respond to this unspeakable horror, we must uphold our democratic principles, our laws, and our cherished beliefs. We must resist impulses to cast blame on the basis of religion and ethnicity. The Congress and the administration must work together to achieve a full and thorough investigation into the source of this act of terrorism in order to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. At a more fundamental level, we must work to create a peaceful world where those who would commit such desperate, despicable, and cold-hearted actions will not find support and protection. I urge adoption of this resolution.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition and disappointment with the Bush administration's decision to end the United States participation in the World Conference Against Racism and not to even send initially Secretary of State Colin Powell to represent our interests. Once again, the United States is on the wrong side of history. I traveled to South Africa to participate in the World Conference Against Racism as a congressional adviser, along with several of my colleagues with the Congressional Black Caucus. Prior to attending the conference, I joined my colleagues in urging the Bush administration to send a high-level delegation led by Secretary of State Colin Powell. As we all know, the decision of the United States to not participate in the conference was based on language in the draft document that would have resurrected the controversial debate of Zionism equals racism. Why then, on such an important issue, was the Secretary of State prevented from making every effort, and I mean every effort, to get rid of this destructive language? He should have been there doing that. I am totally convinced that the United States should have been represented by Secretary Powell because he is well respected, very bright, and probably would have been able to help the conference move forward by insisting that it stay focused on its purpose, the elimination of racism, rather than the Middle East crisis, which warrants our full attention in trying to get the peace process back on track. America should have asserted its leadership by fully engaging in the world conference against racism, not by detaching from it. It is an outrageous insult to millions of Americans that our first African American Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was not allowed to join in this important discussion. Many Americans are equally and rightfully outraged by the Bush administration's decision. We know, I know, this House knows, that this country has a long history embedded in racism. Full participation in the conference would have sent a message that the United States was joining the world in efforts to discuss strategies to eliminate racism, xenophobia, sexism, hate crimes, religious intolerance, and other forms of intolerance. No other country has this tragic history as we do. Who else should be leading the world community in addressing this? We should. However, the manner in which the United States has addressed the World Conference Against Racism is really a disgrace. It is a slap in the face to millions of Americans who have been affected by past United States policies rooted in racist ideology and are dealing with the consequences each and every day in their daily lives. The United States is sending a message that it is indifferent to the issues of circumstances facing Native Americans, Latino and Hispanic Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, as well as African Americans. I firmly believe that this is a grave mistake and a missed opportunity of the greatest magnitude. The World Conference Against Racism provided an important and credible platform to address racism in all its forms. This platform is also critical to the discussion of the 10 priority action points of consensus presented by the Africans and African descendents at the conference, and should have been embraced by the conference and by the United States Government. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record this statement on the Ten Priority Action Points. The document referred to is as follows: Ten Priority Action Points of Consensus african and african descendants caucus 1. The Slave Trade, Slavery and colonialism are crimes against humanity. 2. Reparations for Africans and African Descendants. 3. Recognition of the economic basis of racism. 4. Adoption of corrective national (domestic) public policies with emphasis on environmental racism and health care. 5. Adoption of culture-specific development policies. 6. The adoption of mechanisms to combat the interconnection of race and poverty, and the role that globalization (caused by governments and the private sector) has in this interconnection. 7. Adoption of mechanisms to combat racism in the criminal punishment (penal) system. 8. Reform of the legal system including national constitutional reforms and development of international and regional mechanisms for dismantling racism. 9. Adoption of policies specific to African and African Descendant Women that recognize and address the intersection of race and gender. 10. Support for the adoption of policies that recognize and address the intersection of race and sexual orientation. Mr. Speaker, the United States Government sanctioned slavery for hundreds of years, completely devastating the lives of generations and generations of Africans in America. It is long past time that this government formally deal with its participation in the institution of slavery and to begin the healing process for millions of Americans who are descendents of slaves. The United States should be leading the charge to address the lasting impact of the transatlantic slave trade, what to do about it, and specifically to discuss reparations. We cannot forget that America's racism is rooted in the institution of slavery. That must be dealt with in order to move forward as a healed and healthy country. As an African American woman and a Member of Congress, it is embarrassing that this miscalculated and callous decision to abandon the conference will once again leave the United States out of serious international dialogue. Racism is a fundamental question of human rights, and in the House Committee on International Relations and here on the floor we regularly question human rights practices in other countries. It is equally important that we apply the same scrutiny to our own society and examine the easily recognizable vestiges of slavery manifested in the current racial and economic divides that we experience today. The World Conference Against Racism provided our government with a credible platform to do this. Yet once again, as with the previous two conferences, we are absent. I want to urge my colleagues to support legislation offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), H.R. 40, which would commission a study to examine the effects of slavery and to begin a substantive discussion which I believe will move us forward toward healing our Nation. This legislation must move forward. Again, let me reiterate my deep disappointment at the decision of the administration to pull out of this conference. The next time this opportunity presents itself, the United States not only needs to attend this conference, but to host it.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. This bill does not enhance our security: it endangers it. It does not protect our environment: it threatens it. Increasing global warming does not enhance our security. Increasing our reliance on nuclear power plants and creating more nuclear waste does not enhance our security. Making only token changes in fuel economy standards does not enhance our security. This bill does not enhance our security. Instead it jeopardizes wilderness, ignores consumers, and rewards the fossil fuel industry at the public expense. This bill subsidizes the oil industry and gives billions in tax breaks to oil producers in an age of record-breaking profits. In contrast, it does nothing for California consumers and taxpayers who have paid billions in unjust and unjustified energy costs. Instead of promoting cost-based rates and badly needed refunds, it increases tax breaks and handouts for the oil, coal, and nuclear industries. When Minority Leader Dick Gephardt and other members of Congress came to my district of Oakland, California, they saw the faces of this crisis. They heard from small business owners who face potential bankruptcy. They heard from persons with disabilities for whom blackouts are nightmares and rising bills are an impossible expense. They heard from school administrators who have been forced to divert money from much needed textbooks, teacher salaries, and instructional supplies to paying energy costs. They heard from the people of California who have been paying the price in this crisis for the last year. Electricity cannot be treated as any other commodity. We cannot force Americans to choose between paying their utility bills and their grocery bills. Between electricity and rent. Between power and prescriptions. Those choices are simply unacceptable. Nor can we choose to destroy irreplaceable wilderness for short-term gain. There are simply places on earth that are too fragile, too vulnerable, and too special to drill for oil. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of those places. I strongly oppose this bill and I urge you to protect America's wilderness and to protect America's consumers and vote against this bill.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of our nation's Civil Rights' Leaders, the Honorable Clinton Wayne White. Justice Clinton Wayne White was born on October 8, 1921. Between 1942-1945, he proudly served in the United States Army Air Corp. After World War II, Justice White attended the University of California, Berkeley and received his Bachelor's Degree in 1946 and later he earned his LLB from the University's Boalt Hall School of Law. In 1949, he, along with one other African-American, was admitted to the California State Bar. It was at this time that Justice White truly became an inspiration to African Americans and future African American leaders. Justice White was a prominent defense attorney who publically criticized and challenged the criminal justice system's biases against African-Americans. He knew how to use the law to fight for social, economic and political progress for people of color. He was a warrior and a crusader, who truly believed in equality for all persons. It was his strength and determination for equity, which led Justice White to become President of the Oakland NAACP in the 1960s. He waged a successful campaign to change the Alameda County's jury selection system to include minorities. After several successful years as a leading civil rights attorney, Justice White was elevated to serve as a trial court judge in the Alameda County Superior Court and was later appointed to the State Court of Appeal. Even with his hectic schedule, Justice White still found the time to participate in many community organizations such as Men of Tomorrow and the Charles Houston Club. He was certain to make time to coach youth baseball teams in Oakland, because he cared about our youth and their future. In 1978, Justice White became the founder of the Clinton White Foundation which seek to enable and empower people to live their lives away from poverty and despair. Justice White was considered a mentor to current leaders in Alameda County, but to me, he is also and will always be my hero. I knew him when I was still a student in the early 1970s. His guidance and wisdom helped me through some very difficult times. I will always remember his kindness and compassion. I am proud to stand here alongside his family, friends and colleagues to salute Justice Clinton Wayne White, a man who was a legacy for all.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Thomas L. Berkley for his contributions to the community and to the nation. Mr. Berkley, who was born in Illinois in 1915, moved with his family to Southern California at the age of four. In 1936, he attended Fullerton Junior College, where he earned an Associate of Arts Degree. He went on to UCLA and completed his Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration and Finance, and then attended Hastings Law School in San Francisco where he received his Juris Doctor and became active in the NAACP. He was admitted to the California State Bar in 1943. After finishing his academic career, Mr. Berkley proudly joined the United States Army and fought bravely in World War II, achieving the rank of Second Lieutenant. At the end of the war, Mr. Berkley returned to Oakland in the Bay Area and became the head of one of the nation's largest integrated, bilingual law firms. He helped establish the careers of notable men such as Judges Clinton White and Allen Broussard, and former Mayors of Oakland, Elihu Harris and Lionel Wilson, Mr. Berkley has not only been active in law, but also in business and in the media. He was the president of Berkley International Ltd, Berkley Technical Services and CEO of Berkley Financial Services. Mr. Berkley also was the publisher of the Alameda Publishing Corporation which publishes the Oakland, San Francisco and Richmond Post newspapers. in the public service arena, Tom Berkley served as a Member of the Oakland Unified School District School Board and an advisor to the Greater ACORN Community Improvement Association. Mr. Berkley is a ``Man for all Seasons''. He is a visionary, a motivator, an educator, a mentor, and an entrepreneur. He has made a significant contribution in all of his many local, state, national, and international endeavors and has given his all for the betterment of our community and society. As a friend and supporter, Tom Berkley has always been a trusted confidant, and I have benefitted from his wisdom, his encouragement, and his compassion. I am honored to salute Tom Berkley, and I take great pride in celebrating with his family, friends and colleagues his distinguished life and accomplishments.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply disappointed in how the Republicans have stripped and completely weakened H.R. 2563, the Bipartisan Ganske-Dingell Patient Protection Act of 2001. This Patient Bill of Rights originally included strong patient protections that would have ensured timely access to high quality health care for the millions of Americans with private health insurance. This bill was a bipartisan effort to protect our patients but some Republicans decided to add some terrible provisions that protected HMOs over individuals. The original Patients Bill of Rights, the one I supported, would have given individuals more access to emergency medical services, access to specialty care, access to essential medication, access to clinical trials, and direct access to pediatricians as well as Ob-Gyn care. This bill would have also protected the doctor-patient relationships by ensuring health professionals are free to provide information about a patient's medical treatment options. H.R. 2563 did address the importance of allowing patients to appeal their health plans' decision as well as holding HMOs accountable for their actions. This bill would have established an independent, speedy external review process for patients dissatisfied with the results of the internal review. H.R. 2563 would have allowed individuals the right to sue when a medical judgment resulted in injury or death. The Republicans offered three amendments of which two passed to the Patient Protection Act that severely weakened major provisions. The first amendment fully expands medical savings accounts (MSA) which only benefit wealthier and healthier people. This provision will directly increase health care costs for those who remain in traditional insurance and managed care plans. The second Republican amendment weakens enforcement provisions found within H.R. 2563, makes it nearly impossible to pursue cases in state court, and stacks the deck against patients who have been harmed by insurance companies. Now that these two poisonous amendments have been attached to H.R. 2563, I can no longer support this bill because patients will no longer be protected. Individuals throughout our nation have been growing more and more frustrated with an inadequate health care system that does not listen to the needs of our people. The original bill would have provided many protections that are essential to upholding our patients' rights. But unfortunately, the bill was completely stripped by the Republicans who want to protect HMO insurance groups over average Americans. I was a stronger supporter of this bill but I now have to vote against this proposal. It's a shame that we cannot pass a real patients' bill of rights, and it's a shame that we are not addressing the 44 million individuals without any kind of health care coverage. I believe we need to provide all individuals access to affordable health care in order to improve our overall quality of life and health. This Congress should support a real Patients' bill of Rights and quality health care for everyone in this country. Today, this Congress did neither.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Thomas L. Berkley for his contributions to the community and to the Nation. Mr. Berkley was bom in Illinois in 1915. At the age of four, he and his family moved to Southern California. In 1936, he attended Fullerton Junior College, where he would later earn an Associate of Arts Degree. He went on to UCLA and completed his Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Administration and Finance. Mr. Berkley was accepted into Hastings Law School in the San Francisco Bay Area, and became active in the NAACP. He received his Juris Doctor in 1942 and was admitted to the California State Bar a year later. After finishing his academic career, Mr. Berkley proudly joined the United States Army. He fought bravely in World War II and achieved the rank of Second Lieutenant. At the end of the war, Mr. Berkley came back to Oakland and became the head of one of the Nation's largest integrated, bilingual law firms. He helped established the careers of notable men such as Judge Clinton White and Allen Broussard, and former Mayors of Oakland, Elihu Harris and Lionel Wilson. Mr. Berkley was not only active in law, but also active in business and in the media. He was the president of Berkley International Ltd., Berkley Technical Services and CEO of Berkley Financial Services. Mr. Berkley also was the publisher of the Alameda Publishing Corporation, which publishes the Oakland, San Francisco, and Richmond Post newspapers. Mr. Berkley is a visionary and a motivator. He helped turn the Port of Oakland to a world-class facility. He saw the need for guidance to our children, so he served as a director for the Oakland Unified School District. He saw the need for social and economic improvement in some of Oakland's neighborhoods, so he became an advisor to the Greater Acorn Community Improvement Association. Mr. Berkley has lead a tireless and committed crusade to better our society. He not only helped spur business development, but he also helped individuals achieve their goals and dreams. I am honored to salute and take great pride in celebrating with his family, friends and colleagues the distinguished accomplishments of Thomas L. Berkley.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, there are simply places on earth that are too fragile, too vulnerable and too special really to drill for oil. We have a real moral obligation to protect these places. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is really one of those places. Pillaging the Arctic will not solve our energy problems. It will, however, endanger precious habitat and wilderness and will endanger the way of life for thousands of Alaskan natives. Yes, we want more jobs but we do not have to sacrifice this wilderness area to get them. Developing new technologies will drive our economy forward and create new job opportunities. Building a natural gas pipeline from existing North Slope oil and gas fields will create jobs and increase our electricity supply. We can have both a healthy environment and a healthy economy. We do not need to sacrifice one for the other. I urge Members to support this amendment.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H. Res. 212, expressing the Sense of Congress on the UN World Conference Against Racism. I want to thank and express my appreciation to my colleague, Congressman Lantos, for authorizing this legislation. I believe this bill is a step in the right direction. In addition, I firmly believe that the United States must not boycott this conference. The World Conference Against Racism will provide an important and credible platform to discuss slavery, xenophobia, sexism, religious intolerance, hate crimes and other forms of racism. In addition, it is long past due for the United States to formerly acknowledge its role in the institution of Trans-Atlantic Slavery and to begin the healing process for more than 30 million African Americans--many of whom are descendants of slaves. Representatives from the Bush administration have stated that the United States will not send an official delegation to the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South African if language regarding slavery and reparations, is included in the WCAR agenda. However, I strongly believe that the Bush Administration's position on excluding the discussion on slavery and reparations is wrong and must be reconsidered. The United States' unwillingness to address this issue sends the wrong message. The United States Government sanctioned slavery in this country for hundreds of years, completely devastating the lives of generations and generations of Africans in America. It is imperative that this government, which played such a massive role in slavery, be at the table in discussions about slavery, its lasting impact, and on reparations. On the International Relations Committee, we regularly question the human rights practices in other countries. I believe it is equally important that we apply this same scrunity to our own society and examine the very visible vestiges of slavery manifested by the current racial and economic divides we experience today. When we do, we realize that as a country, we have not yet conquered the twin problems of racism and economic inequality. Ours is a country where people of color are regularly pulled over by our police force because they are simply the wrong color, or in the wrong neighborhood, or driving the wrong kind of car. It's happened to me, it's happened to millions of African Americans and other minorities. Ours is a country where millions of young men of color are behind bars. Our justice system claims to be blind, yet look at the skin color of those in prison, of those sitting on death row. Those are black and brown faces staring out from behind those bars. Ours is a country where the votes of African Americans and other minorities are less likely to be counted than those of white Americans. Ours is a country where blacks earn less than whites, are less likely to own homes than whites, and are still subject to the economic marginalization that has marked this nation for centuries. Ours is also a nation that is struggling to overcome many of these deep-rooted problems. It is time for America to also recognize that many of these problems are rooted in slavery. We can do more and we must. Racism is a fundamental question of human rights. Racial prejudice underlies much of the conflict and injustice in the modern world. It fuels wars, drives ethnic cleansing, and exacerbates economic inequities. Racial barriers compound health problems: HIV/AIDS disproportionately affects communities of color. This terrible disease is sweeping across Africa where millions are dyining. We may not know how to cure AIDS yet, but we know how to prevent it and we know how to treat it. We know how, but every day six thousand Africans die from AIDS. Six thousand a day. In the United States the AIDS crisis is having a devastating effect in the African American community. Although African Americans make up only 12 percent of the population, they make up more than 34 percent of reported AIDS cases, and African American children and women comprise two-thirds, respectively, of all pediatric and female AIDS cases in the United States. The World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance will represent a historic opportunity to find real solutions and provide real assistance to the victims of racial discrimination. We must send a strong message to the Bush Administration that we will no longer bury our heads in the sand. Minimally, the United States Government should apologize for the horrific institution of slavery and explore methods to address the current economic, health, and social inequalities experienced in daily life by the descendants of slaves: African Americans.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor James Henry Glover for his role as an inspirational African-American family-man, friend and colleague. James Glover was born in Kansas City, Missouri. In 1942, he enlisted in the United States Army and was stationed in New York, where he met his wife, Carrie Hunley. Mr. & Mrs. Glover moved to San Francisco and began a family. As a husband, Mr. Glover worked hard to provide his wife a secure and stable home. As a father, he ensured that his children received the best education possible. He instilled in them and all that knew him the importance of an education. Mr. Glover believed that people can continue to learn beyond the academics of the classroom. He believed that life itself taught lessons. From his experiences, he educated his family, friends and colleagues to the importance of tolerance, compassion for human beings and the power of love. Mr. Glover was active in the NAACP and in the National Kidney Foundation. He contributed his services to these organizations, because he believed in the empowerment of people and service to his community. I will always remember Mr. Glover as a proud father, always at the side of his son, Danny, with a smile on his face. Mr. Glover touched us with his love, his warmth, his compassion, his wisdom and his insight. He was an incredible human being who served as a wonderful role model and an inspiration for young African-American men. Mr. Glover was an extraordinary and honorable man, who will be dearly missed. His memory will be cherished by his three sons, Danny Glover, Rodney Glover and Martin Glover, and to his daughter Connie Grier. I Join his family and friends to salute James Henry Glover.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for offering this amendment and really allowing us the time to debate this issue and to talk about those that we never have a chance to talk about, those individuals in our districts who are really just hanging from a cliff in terms of the basic substance and in terms of their income and in terms of the housing conditions in which they live. This is just another example, this elimination of the public housing, drug elimination program, is just another example of really how shortsighted both in terms of policy and in terms of funding that this bill really is. Mr. Chairman, now one-third of all residents who live in public housing, I want to remind our colleagues that a third of our residents are elderly. They are elderly. Local police officers do not patrol public housing. So if one does not support this amendment, one is really also in fact allowing thousands of elderly people to live in unsafe environments. How ironic, Mr. Chairman, that as my colleague so eloquently laid out and so clearly laid out, my colleague from Florida, how this Congress will support billions of dollars to be spent on drug interdiction in Colombia and in Peru, a policy that many of us know does nothing to stop drug abuse in this country, but this Congress just this week sent a message and now again, unless we support this amendment, will be sending another message, unfortunately, that we do not support a few hundred million dollars for drug elimination and patrol right here in our own country, in our own communities. This is just downright wrong. This hypocrisy is really unjustified. I do not know how my colleagues go home and explain this to their constituents. I just do not know how they do it. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate also that this bill cuts a total of over $1.7 billion from our national housing programs. This is no time to cut any funds to the HUD budget, because the Federal Government of the richest country in the world should and must provide a safety net at least for decent and safe shelter. When the richest country in the world has a growing homeless population, a working population where individuals work sometimes 80 hours a week to afford just a modest place to live, not spending valuable quality time with their children and families, then we really are not that rich after all. This is really not the time to cut in real terms funding for community development block grants and home formula grants and public housing capital funds and, now, the drug elimination program. This whole budget really is a sham and a shell game, and it is a disgrace. It places this $2 trillion plus tax cut for the wealthy square on the backs of the homeless, public housing residents, the working poor. It is a real cynical ploy I think to pit all of these groups against each other so that they cannot come together and demand that this Congress finally stand up for them. They do not have a lot of lobbyists here. Our public housing residents may not have one representative here to really look out for them the way that they should. But I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and Members here today who are fighting drugs in our own country by fighting to restore this drug elimination program. It makes more sense than sending the money to Colombia and Peru for anti-narcotics efforts that really are not working. Mr. Chairman, this VA-HUD bill cuts $493 million from public housing programs including the complete elimination of the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program. It is just another example of how short sighted-- both in terms of policy and funding--this bill really is. I thank my colleague from Ohio for offering this amendment and for her leadership. Mr. Chairman, let me remind you that one third of all residents who live in public housing are elderly. Local police officers do not patrol public housing. If you do not support the Kaptur amendment, you are in fact also allowing thousands of elderly people to live in unsafe environments. How ironic, Mr. Chairman, as my colleague from Florida so eloquently and clearly laid out that this Congress will support billions to be spent on drug interdiction in Colombia and Peru--a policy that many know does nothing to stop drug abuse in this country--but this Congress will not support a few hundred million for drug elimination and patrol right here in our own country. This hypocrisy is unjustified and wrong and I don't know how you explain this back home Mr. Chairman, I reiterate, this bill cuts $1.7 billion from our national housing programs. This is no time for any cuts to the HUD budget because the federal government of the richest country in the world must provide a safety net, at the very least, of decent and safe shelter. When the richest country in the world has a growing homeless population and a working population where individuals must work 80 hours a week to afford a modest place to live, not spending valuable quality time with their children and families, then we really aren't that rich after all. This is not the time to cut in real terms the Community Development Block Grant, HOME formula grants, and public housing capital funds and the Drug Elimination Program. This budget is a sham and a shell game. This bill places the $2 trillion plus tax cut, of which working families will see pennies on the dollar of the tax cuts realized for the wealthy, square on the backs of the homeless, working poor, middle income, and public housing residents. It is a cynical ploy to pit these groups against each other. Fighting drugs in our own country makes more sense to me than sending billions to Colombia for anti-narcotics efforts that are not working. Support the Kaptur amendment.

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

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, let me say that the LaFalce-Lee amendment really aims to correct, as we heard, just one piece of this appropriations bill that cuts $1.7 billion in budget authority from HUD's budget. This amendment is also, incidentally, supported by the United States Conference of Mayors. It restores funding for some of the most vulnerable people in our society, those who are homeless and have the special problem of dealing with mental illness, disabilities, or who are turning around their lives in recovery from alcohol or drug abuse. The Shelter Plus Care and Supportive Housing Program subsidizes housing for people with these special challenges and also offers continuum of care services for mental illness and other disabilities. For example, in my home district in Alameda County of California, there are approximately 13,000 homeless people and many more at risk for homelessness. Mr. Chairman, most of these people now more than ever are women and children. In every one of our congressional districts there are homeless people. Shelter Plus Care operates nationwide and helps keep thousands of disabled and mentally ill people from walking the streets at night untreated and with no place to live. A California study found that supportive housing reduces emergency room services and in-patient hospital stays by more than 57 percent. So with this very small investment we can save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and provide humane treatment and shelter. In our affordable housing debate, we talk about rental assistance, we talk about home ownership for low-, moderate-, and middle-income individuals and families, which we all support. But our debate and our initiatives are very devoid of housing issues as it relates to the homeless, so this amendment really does recognize them as deserving of our attention, also. The offsets to this amendment still leave $100 million for this unauthorized downpayment assistance program. We have not even held hearings yet on this unauthorized program, so we have all supported downpayment assistance programs, even when my colleagues on the other side have not. This offset leaves intact a net increase also in HUD salaries and expenses over the last fiscal year. So, Mr. Chairman, there is really nothing compassionate about the cuts to HUD, nearly $2 billion in cuts made to fund the nearly $2 billion tax cut. That is not very compassionate, if you ask me. This bill actually cuts $493 million from public housing programs, including the complete elimination of the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program. It cuts $640 million from Section 8, $322 million from Community Development Block Grants, $200 million from empowerment zones, and $25 million from the Rural Housing and Economic Development Program. So now with this, also, we are really seeing the real impact in the cost of this Bush administration tax cut. So I guess what I want to ask tonight is, will this Congress really continue to place the burden of the tax cut on the back of the homeless, the mentally ill, and the indigent? What type of a society will we be if we approve this really I think disgraceful bill, if we do not amend it tonight? I ask Members for an aye vote on this amendment to restore and support decent and humane treatment for our homeless and the mentally ill, who also happen to live in the richest country in the world. Finally, let me just say that States, counties, and cities will get $6 billion in HOME and CDBG funds in fiscal year 2002 which can be used to do all of the activities authorized under the downpayment housing initiative.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Rangel amendment. Although relations with most communist governments, such as China and Vietnam, are normalized, the United States continues to prohibit virtually any and all political, economic, or even cultural exchanges between the people of the United States and the people of Cuba. Since the early days of the Cold War, our government has been entrenched in an absolute embargo that has created much suffering on this Afro- Hispanic island only 90 miles away. This embargo is archaic, it is inhumane, and it must be changed. Like many Members, I, too, have visited Cuba many times and met with the anti-Castro organizations. But, barring none, they communicated that the best way to address all issues, including human rights concerns, is to at least end the embargo, so dialogue can take place. We all must be concerned about human rights violations, wherever they may occur in the world, including in our own United States of America, as minorities in our own country clearly understand. But the United States embargo against Cuba is a failed policy that has only served as an impediment to a rational foreign policy. Now, for those who support fair trade, which I do, it is wrong to prevent the United States companies, our U.S.-based companies, our farmers, especially, from accessing the Cuban market. This could also mean thousands of jobs for United States workers. So we are really doing a disservice to our own people in our own country. Not only must we strike down the restrictions on United States citizens' travel to Cuba, but we should end the embargo, and we should end it right away. It is the right thing to do.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for introducing this amendment. I rise in strong support of the Filner amendment, which would prohibit the Office of Management and Budget from spending any funds to implement the final report of the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security. People with disabilities, minorities, and women are especially hurt by Social Security privatization. Today, there are approximately 45 million Americans receiving Social Security benefits, over 4 million of whom reside in my home State of California. Many people depend on this retirement benefit as a source of major income. Social Security is the principal source of retirement income for two-thirds of elderly Americans, representing 90 percent of the annual income for 29 percent of all seniors over the age of 65. In fact, Social Security benefits lifted approximately 13 million senior citizens out of poverty last year. Social Security is not just a retirement program for our seniors. For millions of Americans, Social Security is the only protection against the shackles of low lifetime earnings, the financial hardships related to death or disability, the danger of poverty in old age, and the uncertainty of inflation. Privatization undermines these protections and adds one more risk that workers would have to worry about, and that is Wall Street. Let me just bring a little diversity to this debate this evening. Elderly African Americans and Latinos rely on Social Security benefits more than white elders do. From 1994 to 1998, African American and Latino seniors and their spouses relied on Social Security for about 44 percent of their total income, while white elders and their spouses relied on the program for only 37 percent of their total income. This is because minorities, unfortunately, have a lower rate of pension coverage. Only 29 percent of elderly African Americans and 22 percent of elderly Hispanic Americans get a pension income. By comparison, 45 percent of white seniors do. Unfortunately, people of color are disproportionately represented among low-wage workers; therefore, it is much harder for them to set aside savings for retirement. Privatization of Social Security will jeopardize their retirement income. Now, people with disabilities are also hurt significantly by privatizing their benefits. As of January 2001, over 13 million Americans, or about 30 percent of all Social Security beneficiaries, rely on Social Security disability. For the average wage earner with a family, Social Security offers the equivalent of a $200,000 disability insurance policy. The vast majority of workers would not be able to get similar coverage from the private sector. The GAO concluded in a January 2001 examination of Social Security privatization plans that the income from workers' individual accounts was not sufficient to compensate for the decline in the insurance benefits that disabled beneficiaries would receive. The uncertainty of privatization also hits women extra hard. Poverty among American women over 65 is already twice as severe as among men in the same age group. Women are more likely to earn less than men and are more likely to live longer. Women also lose an average of 14 years of earnings due to the time out of the workforce to raise children or care for ailing parents or spouses. And since women generally have a higher incidence of part-time employment, they have less of an opportunity to save for retirement. Most privatization proposals make no provision for these differences and would thus make poverty among women even worse. Currently, Social Security provides guaranteed lifelong benefits. No matter what the stock market does the day one retires, or in the months leading up to retirement, an individual's benefits will be unaffected. The American people deserve the truth. Now that the Bush administration has passed a $1.6 trillion tax cut that primarily benefits the wealthy, they are trying to find another method of paying for Social Security due to the lost revenue. But the proposal to privatize Social Security does absolutely nothing to extend the life of the program or save it. It diverts money from the Social Security Trust Fund. We must put money in to protect the trust fund, not deplete the fund. We have an obligation to strengthen Social Security, not privatize it.

Ms. LEE

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

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

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of a community leader, Mr. William N. Guertin, who has served the interests of physicians and patients in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties since 1971. Mr. Guertin served as Assistant Executive Director of the Alameda-Contra Costa Medical Association (ACCMA) from 1971 to 1984 and in 1984 became Executive Director of the ACCMA. He continues to serve in that position. Today, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for his leadership in serving the public by promoting and improving the quality of medical care administered to patients throughout his tenure. Mr. Guertin is well-respected among medical association executives across the country, having been elected to serve on the Board of Directors of the American Association of Medical Society Executives (AAMSE) in 1994. He will be installed as President of AAMSE on July 27, 2001, in Washington, D.C., due to his exemplary accomplishments in the field of medicine The Alameda-Contra Costa Medical Association (ACCMA) is the second largest county medical association in California, currently with a membership of approximately 3100 medical doctors. Under Mr. Guertin's executive leadership, the ACCMA has promoted the quality of medical care and the well-being of patients in the East Bay community in numerous ways. Mr. Guertin has worked hard to protect physicians from impositions that interfere with their ability to practice medicine and to preserve their relationships with patients. This has directly benefited physicians by allowing them to maximize their abilities to provide quality care for their patients. Mr. Guertin has also been involved with exposing proposals that would exploit patients and physicians for profit. His goal has always been to uphold the quality of care for patients by exposing any measures that might hamper this goal in any way. He has extensively reviewed and analyzed health plan contracts while educating physicians on the perils of signing unfair agreements. Often these contracts will contain provisions that conflict the relationship between doctors and their patients by refusing doctors the right to provide medically necessary treatment to patients. As a result of Mr. Guertin's efforts, many physicians refuse to sign contracts that withhold their right to make treatment decisions for their patients. In his tenure at the ACCMA, Mr. Guertin has created programs and activities to promote public health, quality and access to care, and professional standards in the local medical community. This has allowed patients within the community to lead more robust and healthier lives. Mr. Guertin has continued to bring issues affecting quality of care to the attention of elected officials and the public to promote effective reforms. He has operated a community blood bank to maintain an adequate blood supply and needed blood services for patients in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. This has proved to be highly advantageous and convenient in efficiently providing vital care to patients within the community. Mr. Guertin has also participated on statewide and national advisory committees to promote medical association activities on behalf of physicians and patients. He has dedicated his life to promoting quality care for patients. He has worked diligently to ensure that physicians are able to promote quality medical care. Mr. Guertin is a respected leader, activist, and humanitarian. He has brought about a wealth of positive change to our community. I thank Mr. Guertin for dedicating his time and insight for many years and for providing such quality care to individuals. I also congratulate him on his election as the President of the American Association of Medical Society Executives. I am positive that he will continue his outstanding work in promoting the welfare of patients and improving the quality of our lives. Congratulations Mr. Guertin and I wish you the best in your quest to improve the lives of our community in the Bay Area and throughout the nation.