Barbara Lee

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for yielding me this time and just emphasize my very strong opposition to the Republican prescription coverage plan. Mr. Speaker, this proposal really claims to help seniors, but in actuality all it really does is help insurance companies. This plan will not guarantee access to coverage, and it will limit seniors' choice of drugs and pharmacies. It could even raise costs for some seniors with medical problems. It is really a sham, and it is a disgrace that the Republicans would not allow a debate on a Democratic proposal which includes a full prescription benefits package including $21 billion in assistance to Medicare health providers and a $3.6 billion rural health package. Why do we want to have our seniors to be subjected to have to deal with the HMOs and the insurance companies for their medications when these for-profit businesses have really been an impediment to quality patient care for our senior citizens? Our seniors do deserve better. Let us go back to the drawing board. Let us allow for a full debate, one that really does make sense, which will help all of our seniors ensure that they live a safe and sound, long, healthy life.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Ryan-Kucinich amendments to cut construction funds for the National Ignition Facility. Every time this project comes before us, its costs rise and its scientific rationale grows more dubious. Criticism of NIF has come from groups as diverse as the Friends of the Earth and the Armed Services Committee. This project has already sucked up billions of taxpayer dollars while endangering our environment and sabotaging efforts to reduce nuclear proliferation. The National Ignition Facility represents the flagship of the Stockpile Stewardship nuclear weapons program. That is no great honor. This project, together with National Missile Defense, symbolizes the American failure to lead the way on global nuclear arms control. If the National Ignition Facility continues to fail to achieve its stated goal of ignition, it will remain a financial quagmire that has depleted badly needed financial resources. If it succeeds, it threatens to send the arms race spiraling to an ever higher level. Now is the time to seriously evaluate this program. We should not put more money into construction for a project that is neither necessary nor productive. This project is now approximately one billion dollars over budget. It is 5 years behind schedule. Ultimately, there are economic, geopolitical, and environmental reasons to oppose continued construction of the National Ignition Facility. Economically, NIF is over budget and over due. Geoplitically, this effort to create thermonuclear explosions in a laboratory setting undermines U.S. efforts to reduce nuclear weapons across the globe. Environmentally, Californians are already justifiably concerned about the release of tritium into their environment. Increasing nuclear waste is not the solution. I repeat, it is time to seriously reevaluate this program. I urge your support for the Ryan-Kucinich amendments.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the Serrano-Jackson-Dixon- Crowley amendment to increase peacekeeping by $241 million. United Nations peacekeepers perform the critical functions that help maintain peace and stability. Many U.N. peacekeeping missions have brought about successful results in El Salvador, in the Middle East, and in Mozambique. As a member of the Subcommittee on Africa, I am especially concerned about the prohibition on new peacekeeping missions in Africa. This prohibition really does send a message that Africa does not matter, and that promoting peace in Africa is of no concern to this Congress. Many of us here strongly disagree. Africa does matter because it is a continent of vast resources, enormous diversity, and millions of people whom the world has neglected and exploited. Years of colonization have balkanized the continent of Africa. The least we can do is to support a strong United States peacekeeping mission on the continent of Africa. In February, the President declared AIDS in Africa to be a threat to national security. It is our moral obligation to fight the war on HIV and AIDS. To do that, however, Africa must have peace, security, and stability. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I stand here to really challenge all of us in the United States to be a leader, not just in Europe, not just an Asia, but also in Africa.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for offering this amendment. I just want to make a couple of points with regard to where we are now in terms of U.S. policy toward Africa and vis-a-vis peacekeeping. Our Congress has begun to promote trade and investment on the continent of Africa. However, these speeches, our votes, for trade and investment on the continent of Africa really become hollow words or deeds with no real teeth in the measures unless we really do support peace and stability on the continent of Africa. United States corporations want peace and stability. I am sure they support any efforts that this country will be engaged in in order to ensure that the continent is stabilized. Peace is a prerequisite to development. Funds for peacekeeping missions really will prevent millions of individuals from being killed on the continent of Africa. This is really a minimum investment which our country should step up to the plate to. I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for offering this amendment. I believe there are millions of African Americans in this country who want their tax money going for such an investment.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeGette amendment and want to thank her for her leadership once again this year on this issue. This amendment would strike the language banning the use of Federal funds for abortion services for women at Federal prisons. Through our judicial system, we certainly try to seek appropriate responses to illegal actions. Women in prison are being punished for the crimes that they committed, whether we agree with the fairness of the criminal justice system or not, they are doing their time, that is a fact. However, we are addressing a different issue today. Today we discuss civil liberties and rights which are protected for all in America and remain so even when an individual is incarcerated. Abortion is a legal option for women in America, whether my colleagues agree with it or not. It is a legal option. Since women in prison are completely dependent on the Federal Bureau of Prisons for all of their health care services, the ban on the use of Federal funds is a cruel policy that traps women by denying them all reproductive decision-making. The ban is unconstitutional, because freedom of choice is a right that has been protected under our Constitution for 25 years. Furthermore, the great majority of women who enter our Federal prison system are impoverished and are often isolated from family, friends and resources. We are dealing with very complex histories that often tragically include drug abuse, homelessness, physical and sexual abuse. To deny a basic reproductive choice would only make matters worse than the crisis in essence that the women are already faced with by being in the Federal prison system. The ban on the use of Federal funds is a deliberate attack by the anti-choice movement to ultimately derail all reproductive options for all women. As we begin chipping away basic reproductive services for women, I ask my colleagues, what is next? The denial of OB-GYN examinations and mammograms for women inmates? Who is next? Limiting choice for incarcerated women puts other populations at great risk. This dangerous slippery slope erodes the right to choose little by little. Freedom of choice must be unconditionally kept intact. Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to protect this constitutional right for women in America and vote yes on the DeGette amendment.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise on the point of order. I would like to be heard on the point of order.

Ms. LEE. On the point of order.

Ms. LEE. I would like to be heard on the point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Weiner- Stabenow amendment which would provide this badly needed increase in funding for the COPS program. The COPS program has been a valuable tool to increase peace and safety in communities across the country. Cities and communities across the Nation are turning to community policing.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Community policing is a strategy that builds on fundamental policing practices with an emphasis on crime prevention and lasting solutions to problems. It works. It requires new resolve from citizens and new thinking from police officers. On May 12, 1999, the United States Department of Justice and COPS reached an important milestone by funding the 100,000th officer ahead of schedule and under budget. But we must not stop here. We must maintain our investment in this very worthwhile program. Funding for COPS will provide many thousands of additional officers on our Nation's streets and will provide safety in our schools. COPS grants are also used to invest in the technology needed to solve crime and reduce the current backlog. This program is important because the funding is used to prevent crime and violence, and it fosters better relations between our police officers and the public. In many of our urban communities, tensions have mounted between police and minority communities. We must do everything we can to reduce these tensions. Increasing funding for community policing really will help do this. Through the school and value-based partnership initiatives, COPS will also reach out to our youth before they become entwined in criminal activity. The COPS program is about law enforcement, training, support, prevention, and most importantly safer communities. For these reasons, we must provide additional funding. I stand in strong support of this amendment and encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this worthy program.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support to an increase in funding for Housing for People with AIDS--HOPWA. HOPWA is the only federal program that provides community based HIV- specific housing. It is vital to the lives of persons who are living with HIV/AIDS because it allows people to benefit from their treatments and helps to keep them from being exposed to other life-threatening diseases, poor nutrition and lack of medical care. Up to 60 percent of people living with HIV/AIDS will need housing assistance at some point in the course of their illness. According to the National AIDS Housing Coalition, one-third to one-half of all people living with HIV/AIDS are either homeless or in imminent danger of losing their homes. In my district, Alameda County, the Ryan White Planning Council Needs Assessment Surveys in 1998 and 1999, ranked housing as the highest area for ``unmet need'' and ``served but unsatisfied'' of eight service categories. This study also indicates that anti-retroviral therapies are helping people living with HIV/AIDS live longer healthier lives, thus our responsiveness to their housing needs is more urgent than ever. In the Bay Area community I represent, housing costs are reaching astronomical heights and are becoming increasingly impossible for even moderate wage earners to meet. The working poor and the disabled, including persons with HIV/AIDS, are in great jeopardy. Since 1992, HOPWA funding has provided essential development awards for projects ranging from a rehabilitated five bedroom house in north Berkeley to a newly constructed 21 unit complex in East Oakland. HOPWA has also provided the resources and support for 20 emergency housing beds, 40 transitional housing shared units, and 174 permanent units throughout my district. Yet, these programs have only addressed a small portion of the housing needs for persons and families affected by HIV/ AIDS. The rental market vacancy rate in my district is less than 1% and market rents throughout Alameda County far exceed Fair Market Rents (FMRs). With the limited rental assistance available from the HOPWA program, people living with HIV/AIDS are unable to find and rent affordable housing. Additionally, HIV/AIDS Housing Programs operate at capacity and routinely maintain lengthy waiting lists. While, HOPWA has provided the much needed gateway for people with HIV/AIDS to access housing, treatment and care services, we need to do better. Many persons living with HIV/AIDS are forced to make difficult decisions between life sustaining medications and other necessities, such as housing. These decisions become even more dire when the cost of housing is taken into consideration. For many people with HIV/AIDS, HOPWA has been life saving. In August 1999, the County Board of Supervisors declared a State of Emergency with respect to AIDS in the African-American Community of Alameda County. The Congressional Black Caucus' Minority Health Initiative, partnered with HOPWA to push forward a community wide response to the State of Emergency including closing the housing gap for people with HIV/AIDS. In my district we are finally seeing positive results from our efforts. For example, the Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) has been able to successfully partner with county agencies like the Office of AIDS & Communicable Diseases, and Cal-PEP, a community- based AIDS service organization, to provide access to short-term transitional housing for people living with HIV/AIDS, who have recently been released from incarceration. Often times, the incarcerated population is over looked or under served regarding AIDS services. HOPWA has helped to close that gap by providing housing and treatment services, but also to render prevention education services on post- exposure and secondary exposure risks for HIV/AIDS. Mr. Chairman, like all of us, people living with HIV/AIDS dream of living in suitable and quality homes. We must ensure that all people have a place they can call home. We have to do everything we can to close the housing gap. I urge you and my colleagues to support this amendment because HOPWA will help close the housing gap, but also will help to reach our goal of eradicating HIV/AIDS. It is the right thing to do.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, let me just say first of all that I am reminded tonight of the fact that really the right to decent and affordable housing should really be a basic human right and this bill goes in the opposite direction. As a member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, I am acutely aware of the enormous housing needs of our Nation, and especially in the State of California. Housing costs in northern California, which I represent, are particularly alarming. Housing costs are reaching astronomical heights and are becoming increasingly impossible for moderate wage earners to meet. The working poor, the disabled, and our senior citizens are in greater jeopardy than ever. Today, I talked to a constituent who is a senior citizen in my district, and who is in desperate need of housing. She has been told that there are from 3 to 5 years in terms of a waiting list. Now, that can be a lifetime for an elderly individual. If anyone needs confirmation of this crisis, I direct their attention to the State of the Cities report released by HUD this past Monday in Seattle. This report outlines the paradox between economic growth that is increasing employment and homeownership and the dramatic increases in rents and housing prices. The report also notes that over the 1997 to 1999 period, house prices rose more than twice the rate of inflation and rent increases exceeded inflation for all 3 years. Furthermore, among the top 10 markets that HUD identifies as the hottest high-tech markets, house prices rose more than 18 percent in the last 2 years, and in 1999 rose by 27 percent. That is outrageous. In this best of all economic times, deservedly celebrated as unusual in its longevity, why are we now talking about cutting out the bare necessities for those who absolutely cannot survive without help? Why are we cutting the bare bones of housing and the economic opportunities to really reach some level of self-sufficiency? We kick people off welfare and tell them to be independent and we keep a few scaffolds to hold them up until the foundations and the pillars can be reinforced. With the cuts in this bill, we are kicking out these few scaffolds and supports that remain. So what do we suppose will be the outcome? Congress must do more than maintain the status quo with the underfunded Section 8 program. Congress should do better than ignore the moving to work program and dismissing welfare to work vouchers. We can also do better than underfunding elderly and disabled assistance programs by $78 million. Mr. Chairman, the American Dream is one of living in suitable and quality homes. It rightfully gives us a serious stake in this society. Having safe, clean affordable housing really allows us to have a solid place from which we can accumulate some wealth, for those who can afford to buy a home, to care for our families, to send our kids to decent schools and to invest in dreams for the future. This bill really does turn those dreams into nightmares. This Congress is elected to serve everyone in this Nation, as well as to be particularly attentive to our own constituents. This bill is neither attentive nor cognizant of the fact that millions are homeless or live in substandard housing. It also ignores the fact that millions are living from paycheck to paycheck or are neglecting other basic needs, such as nutrition or health needs, because of the high cost of housing. This bill really does not serve everyone. And I cannot in good conscience, and I hope many of us here tonight, will not vote for this and neglect our constituents and other Americans. Housing really should be a basic human right. So let us go back to the drawing board and put forth a budget that values the housing requirements of the poor, of our senior citizens, of the disabled, of the homeless, of our working men and women, who deserve a decent and affordable place to live. That is the right thing to do.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I was sitting in my office watching this debate with a member of my staff who happens to be Native American. You cannot imagine how he feels listening to this debate on this amendment which once again sends a message to the Native American community that they really are not one of our nation's priorities. I rise to oppose this amendment because it is a slap in the face of American Indians. My district has the largest concentration of American Indians. The 22 million dollars that is proposed for Native health care will never reach them. Not only do we under fund services for services on Indian Reservations, but we fund even less to urban Indian communities. Many of these urban Indians are forced to travel long distances for hours at a time just to access the most basic health care. Many of these services they are not able to access in the inner cities or urban areas because they cannot afford to. This is a disgrace. The amendment to direct $22 million for Indian Health Care does not even scratch the surface of the needs in Indian country. If the Majority really wanted to do something positive for Native Americans, this budget would have taken more consideration and care to provide funding to address diabetes, to fund maternal health care, to ensure that substance abuse and mental health services are sufficiently funded to make a difference. To think that we are going to support such measly funding when compared to the needs of Native Americans and then try for more next year? I say this! Next year, when we reconsider this funding, many Native Americans will have died from diabetes, alcoholism, heart disease and HIV/AIDS! They can't wait till next year. Soon we will take under consideration the Ryan White Care Act. Did you know that funding for HIV/AIDS care in many cases never reaches Indian Country. HIV/AIDS care, that is subsidized by the Federal Government is billed to Tribes! That's right. Indians are not able to access ADAP with out being billed. HRSA funded services are billed to IHS or to Tribal Health Care programs. This is an outrage. We all know how expensive HIV/AIDS therapies are. Yet, when it comes to the tribes, we don't give them nearly enough for those services. Those services have to come out of the IHS general budget! A budget that is already, desperately underfunded! Last week we moved out of this house a bill for National Missile defense system that many experts say won't even work. Billions of dollars! Yet we have the audacity to cut substantially Indian Health Services, and then, try to come back and make $22 million look like we are doing the Tribes a favor? Native Americans suffer disproportionately high rates of diabetes, substance abuse, unemployment, and in many cases have inadequate access to quality education. Why? Because we neglect to live up to treaties between the Government and Tribes throughout the country. If we the Members of this House had the needs of Native Americans in mind, we would not have underfunded Native Americans by over $300 million. We would not pit Native American health care against the arts and humanities. The best thing to do at this moment is to withdraw this amendment and offer another amendment to fund Native American health care, and not at the expense of programs that will also suffer the outcomes of this budget.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of increasing the Child Care Development block grant by $417 million in order to meet the dire needs of our children and families. How in the world do we expect single women to get a job and become self sufficient if affordable and adequate child care is not available? Reliable and quality child care is necessary for the healthy development of our children and for parents' productivity at work. I was in the California State Senate when the Welfare Reform Bill was signed into law. Then, I adamantly opposed the bill because I knew that while most women on Welfare want to work, they do not have affordable and accessible child care. I was on the Conference Committee in the State Senate that negotiated the California Plan. Over and over again we heard testimony from women who pleaded with us to provide resources for child care so that they could go to work. While we directed additional resources for child care, today there are still over 200,000 families on the waiting list in California. In many states, parents pay more than 10 percent of their income for child care. Women who make minimum or low wages can not afford 10 percent of their income for child care. Yet, welfare reform has forced women to take low paying jobs to meet the very stringent work requirements that the Congress has imposed. And now, we want to reduce even further these meager resources to low-income working families who need it now, more than ever. I raised 2 boys as a single parent. I will never forget the long waiting lists, being told there were not enough slots for my kids and then, when I could find decent child care, I couldn't afford it. And, that was in the 70's and 80's. This country is enjoying an incredible economic boom, and in the dawn of a new century, we can certainly establish children as our priority. We must do whatever it takes to find the resources to ensure the future. It is unconscionable that in the year 2000 families must choose between food, clothing, housing, or child care. We can and we must do better. Also, in no way, in the year 2000 should we be reducing the number of children being served in child care centers. This debate really does go to our fundamental values, our most basic priorities. Do we care about our children's future or not?

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to strengthen special education, and I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for introducing it. Special education students have particularly acute needs which begin early in childhood. We know that the right attention can make an enormous difference in children's lives and impact their future. Teachers' aides are needed to provide one-on-one support. Counselors can help disabled children follow often very difficult paths through childhood, adolescence and into adulthood. Right now schools are forced to make terrible choices. They can put limited funds into special education and deny other basic needs, or they can neglect those children and try to meet the basic needs of other children. Those are choices our schools should not have to make. Last month the House overwhelmingly passed the IDEA Full Funding Act, so why are we not appropriating the funds to meet the needs of some of our most vulnerable children? This is not right. I support the DeLauro amendment to increase special education funding without denying other vital programs. Our children must be our national priority, not huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, we celebrate the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the establishment of La Pena a Cultural Center in Berkeley, California. La Pena Cultural Center is a nationally and internationally respected multi-cultural community arts institution working for social change while presenting culturally specific art from diverse sectors of the community. For the past quarter century, La Pena has raised the social and cultural consciousness of our community through projects that bring people together to work on transforming our future. La Pena mission is the belief that artists and cultural workers contribute to positive social change by creating understanding among people, by stimulating discussion and by presenting a powerful vision of the future. Throughout the year, La Pena presents many educational programs that increase understanding of different cultures and encourages the development of all disciplines that keep alive our cultural roots and diverse heritages. La Pena also operates a multi-purpose center that serves as a gathering place to support the Center's mission, as well as support the work of community organizations that are active in social justice. To ensure La Pena's long term continuity and growth, the Center is launching an Endowment Campaign to raise $500,000 over the next three years. This capital base will generate an unencumbered income of $30,000 annually to support the Center's needs. As this capital base grows, funds generated by The Endowment will enable La Pena's many programs to thrive. I proudly join people throughout the Bay Area in recognizing this momentous occasion of celebrating 25 years of extraordinary service by La Pena Cultural Center.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, today I honor David S. Thompson, the past President of Northern California Small Business Financial Development Corporation. Mr. Thompson has made a major contribution to hundreds of economically disadvantaged small business enterprises throughout the greater San Francisco Bay Area. This contribution has resulted in over $19 million of loan capital provided to this important segment of our regional economy that otherwise would not have occurred without his leadership and oversight. In addition to providing solid direction and guidance to this non- profit public benefit corporation, Mr. Thompson has excelled in forging genuine strategic alliances with community-based organizations and financial institutions in a positive effort to maintain the flow of capital to minorities, women and the truly economic-disadvantaged of our local small business population. As Executive Director of the City of Richmond's Redevelopment Agency, Mr. Thompson has contributed substantially to the economic revival of his own community for nearly twenty years. Additional positions he has held with the City of Richmond over the years include Project Manager for the Marina Bay Development and the City's Business Assistance Officer. The Redevelopment Agency is a department within the Community and Economic Development Division which administers the City's community, economic and housing development programs including Redevelopment, Community Development Block Grants, HOME and Youth Build. Mr. Thompson is active with a variety of nonprofit organizations in the Bay Area, involved in small business development financial and management assistance including the Northern California Community Loan Fund, Bay Area Small Business Development Corporation and West Contra Costa Business Development Center. It is with great pride and honor to recognize the overall contributions made by David S. Thompson to the State of California's Small Business Loan Guaranty Program and to the hundreds of small business persons who have benefitted from this commitment of time and energy.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, today I salute, congratulate, and honor Ursula Sherman. Ms. Sherman has been a founding and active Board member of Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency (BOSS) for more than 29 years. Ms. Sherman came to California in 1938 after her family spent five years in Paris as refugees from Nazi Germany. She learned the importance of volunteerism as an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin and during her year as a researcher at the Nuremberg trials, where she fully grasped the concept that there but for the grace of God go I. Ms. Sherman became an advocate for youth as a children's librarian and University of California at Berkeley visiting lecturer. In her ``other'' vocation as a community activist organizer, she worked hard at integrating Berkeley schools in the late sixties. She and members of the Jewish Community organized the Hillel Streetwork project, which later became Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency or BOSS. This organization continues to serve the homeless and mentally-disabled populations in the East Bay, thanks to her leadership 29 years ago. In addition to her work in BOSS, Ms. Sherman is also a past or current board member of such organizations as The Jewish Music Festival, The Traveling Jewish Theater, the American Jewish Congress of Northern California and the Berkeley Public Library Foundation. In honor of Ms. Sherman's many contributions to our community, BOSS is hosting a Tea Ceremony in her honor at the Rose Garden Inn in Berkeley, California. Proceeds from this event will benefit BOSS's 21st Century Charitable Fund which is dedicated to ending poverty and homelessness in our community. I proudly join the friends and colleagues of Ursula Sherman in recognizing her community leadership and activism, as well as celebrating her many years of extraordinary service to the people and organizations of the East Bay.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise to support this amendment. Sooner or later, this Congress will come to grips on what really defines our national security and realize that it is not billions and billions of dollars to build a national defense system that will not work. A national defense system or Star Wars II will create greater instability and accelerate nuclear proliferation. As I mentioned earlier, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the American Physical Society have both pointed out that, in addition to economic questions, in addition to geo-political questions, and in addition to moral questions, it just will not work. Our national security needs really should be defined by how our budget priorities guarantee the security of our children and our families. Two hundred seventy-five thousand homeless veterans do not go to bed at night secure. Forty-four million Americans with no health insurance do not go to bed at night secure. Children who have no future because we have not invested in their education do not go to bed at night secure. During the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s, we listened to my predecessor Congressman Ron Dellums set forth a clear analysis and profound arguments in opposition to an escalating military budget and to Star Wars and to raise our awareness to the fact that a strong and secure America is not based upon how many missiles we build but rather upon how secure Americans are from within our own borders. It was true then. It is true now. Spending billions and billions of dollars on a national missile defense system that will not work takes us in the wrong direction.

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Tierney amendment and thank him for introducing it and engaging in this debate. Today, we are debating a defense bill that includes billions of dollars for a national missile defense system that is profoundly flawed. Now, I had the privilege to work with my predecessor, Congressman Ron Dellums for many years, and I remember and many of us remember his vigilance, his dedication and his careful analysis and profound arguments against star wars. Well, here we are again. In the 1980s, critics of star wars rightly argued that it would cost billions, restart the nuclear arms race and ultimately not work. National missile defense is star wars with a new name, and all of the old problems. This program will cost billions of dollars at a time when we have failed to solve deep and far-reaching social problems here at home. We will be putting billions of dollars into an unproven military system when we have some 275,000 homeless veterans living on the streets of our cities and 44 million uninsured Americans with no health care. This year's appropriation will be followed by billions more if we go down this road. We will be putting billions of dollars into a system in the name of national defense that will actually create greater international instability and accelerate nuclear proliferation. National missile defense, or Star Wars II, undermines the antiballistic missile treaty with Russia and, in all likelihood, it will probably convince the Chinese to expand their nuclear arsenal. National missile defense escalates the international arms race and escalates and accelerates nuclear proliferation, and it will not protect us from the most likely nuclear threat. In all probability, a nuclear assault will not come as an ICBM but as a suitcase bomb that Star Wars systems will never see and will never shoot down. Finally, we will be putting billions of dollars into a system that expert after expert has told us will not work, even against attacks from ICBMs. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the American Physical Society have both pointed out that in addition to moral questions, in addition to geopolitical questions, in addition to economic questions, national missile defense systems will not work. These physicists tell us that MMD can be fooled by countermeasures that can be produced by any country that is capable of building a nuclear bomb in the first place. Understand, I am not opposed to ensuring our national security. What I am opposed to is this national missile defense system, Star Wars II. Nor am I alone in making this distinction. The United States has failed to respond to the new realities of the post-Cold War. Let me give a quote which I recently discovered: ``It is as if President Bill Clinton's military was structured to go to war with President Ronald Reagan's, rather than that of Iraq or North Korea.'' This quote comes from an organization, Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, a group that includes retired brigadier generals, rear admirals, and some of the Nation's foremost businessmen and women. It is leading the way in calling for sensible, rational, and necessary budget cuts. This organization was commissioned by President Ronald Reagan's Assistant Secretary of Defense to analyze today's military budget. In their report, a Cold War Budget Without a Cold War, they convincingly argued that the proposed ballistic missile spending and the defense budget as a whole are excessive and out of sync with actual security needs. The 20th century was really stamped and we are still dealing with the imprint, I would say, of the Cold War. But it is our responsibility really to forge safer and sounder and saner policies in the 21st century. National missile defense is really not the way to do that. Rather, we should do what this amendment does. We should ensure that there are adequate funds to ensure that our retirees, for example, have access to medicines and to pharmaceuticals which they so deserve.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for Israel's redeployment from Southern Lebanon. Prime Minister Ehud Barak ensured Israel's compliance with the 1978 United Nations Security Council Resolution 425, which calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from all Lebanese territories. His commitment to redeploy Israeli forces by June 7, 2000 must also be commended. Prime Minister Barak has shown remarkable leadership in Israel and in his commitment to advance peaceful negotiations with all of her neighbors; I am confident these steps will bring genuine peace to the Middle East. Prime Minister Barak's appeal to the Lebanese President, Emile Lahoud, to use the Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon as a springboard for peace is a step in the right direction. As these countries move forward in their efforts, it is also extremely important that the American government work to encourage peace in the entire region. For many years, I have been committed to moving forward to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict in the spirit of peace. I have stood with great conviction, alongside my constituents, many of whom have close ties, to urge a peaceful resolution to conflicts in the Middle East. Prime Minister Selim al-Hoss has assured the safety of residents in Southern Lebanon. Lebanon has been a victim of far too much blood shed in recent decades. It now stands in the midst of a crucial transition. Therefore, the physical security guaranteed by all parties must also ensure protection for religious freedom, political independence and liberty. Only under these conditions, will Southern Lebanon be able to fully redevelop its communities and provide its people with the ability to lead fruitful lives. Again, I offer my support and encourage Prime Minister Barak and President Lahoud to continue on the path of peace and progress.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I am a firm believer in self-determination for China. Now China is a Communist country whether we agree with it or not. However, countries, regardless of their political or economic system, should not be rewarded when they are allowed to round up and intimidate and arrest people, put people in slave labor camps with no due process. Why would the United States enact a trade policy that rewards this behavior, as well as environmental degradation and religious persecution and violation of women's rights? This is wrong. Annual review, at the very least, provides a tool to help ensure China's respect for human rights and nuclear nonproliferation. With regard to our own country, the Economic Policy Institute estimates over 870,000 United States jobs will be lost over the next decade, with the loss of over 84,000 jobs in my own State of California. This is really scary. We do not want to cut off our relationship with China. I support fair and free trade. We simply believe that human rights and fairness for American and Chinese workers should be the bottom line. This vote defines who we are as a people and as a Nation. I urge my colleagues to oppose PNTR for China.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, as we enter a new century and a new millennium, relations among the nations of the Pacific Rim and Africa are becoming more significant. Trade with China represents a substantial component of our country's international commerce. As Congress has debated United States trading policies toward China and Africa during the past couple of weeks, I have carefully considered many fundamental issues. I am a firm believer of self-determination for China. China is a Communist country, whether we agree with that system of government or not. Nevertheless, whatever political or economic system is in place, it is wrong to round up, to intimidate, to arrest people, and place them in slave labor camps with no due process. It is reprehensible for the United States to endorse this behavior by rewarding it with a favorable trade regime. The time is now to send a strong message--an unyielding message that the United States will not condone mass suffering and oppression. Trade must be open, it must be fair. Standards for human rights must be included in all trade agreements, environmental protections must be in place, women's rights should be advanced, workers' rights must be protected, religious freedom should be protected and American jobs should not become a casualty of trade policy. Many argue that the best way to ensure China's respect for all these issues, is to admit China to the World Trade Organization and to grant it Permanent Normal Trading Relations status (PNTR). I disagree, and believe an annual review provides for this. China's persistent gross violations against free exercise of religion, against women and reproductive freedom, and against political expression should prohibit the U.S. from relaxing its policies toward China and should cause us to ask why we want to relax our trade policies toward China and reward China for this repression. Annual review, at least presents an effective mechanism for China's compliance with international worker, environmental, and human rights standards. Annual review, moreover, is the most viable insurance for the American worker. According to the Economic Policy Institute, over 870,000 jobs will be lost over the decade. What will happen with these workers? If this bill passes, the U.S. trade deficit will continue to escalate, leading to job losses in virtually every sector of the economy. In my state of California 87,294 jobs will be lost. This is very scary. I support free trade. But our trade policies should also include a fair ideal with American workers. Our trade policies should put an end to slave labor in China, rather than reward it. We are not talking about cutting off our relationship with China. We want to make sure that our trade relations are such that people of China and the United States can benefit from a fair and free trade policy. I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure. Very seldom do we have these defining moments; this vote defines who we are as a people and as a nation. As an African-American whose ancestors were brought here in chains and forced to help build this great country as slaves I must oppose any measure that allows for the exploitation of people whether here in America, in Africa, China or anywhere in the world.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in celebration of the Grand Opening of the Over 60 Health Center, Center for Elders Independence and the Mable Howard Apartments located in the new Over 60 Building in Berkeley, California. This event will take place on Sunday, May 21, 2000, and include public tours, food and entertainment. The Over 60 Building is a unique collaboration of three local non- profit organizations. Over 60, a division of LifeLong Medical Care, is the oldest community health center serving seniors in the United States; the Center for Elders Independence is one of 13 nationally- acclaimed ``Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly'' (PACE); and Resources for Community Development is a developer of low-income housing in Alameda County. This partnership will offer a full continuum of medical and community-based long term care services for low-income elders that will allow them to remain independent, socially active and live in a community throughout their life span. In addition to the health care component of this new facility is the Mable Howard Apartments, named posthumously for one of Berkeley's most active, committed and influential residents. This site includes forty affordable studios and one-bedroom apartments for seniors with health care services just an elevator ride away. The opening will showcase the building, introduce the local community and media outlets to these services, and unveil a community mosaic art project featuring beautiful tiles handmade by over 600 elders and children that are installed throughout the building. This art project was funded in part by the National Endowment for the Arts. The Over 60 Building is truly an innovative model of care for seniors, quickly becoming a source of civic pride and a valuable resource for the citizens of Berkeley. I am excited to join in this grand opening and look forward to the possibility of similar facilities being established throughout the country.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Absolutely. In my State of California we estimate 87,294 jobs lost in the next century.