Barbara Lee

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3156, the bill to award the Congressional Gold Medal to President Nelson Mandela. As one of the most gentle, charismatic, and dynamic leaders in history, the life of Nelson Mandela stands as source of strength for all who have experienced and oppression, and an inspiration to those ho continue the struggle to overcome injustice and discrimination against others. After suffering conditions that would cause most to lash out in pain and anger, this remarkable peaceful man never countered racism with hatred. Despite spending nearly three decades of his life imprisoned, Nelson Mandela never wavered in his commitment to peace, freedom, and social and economic justice not only for the people of South Africa, but globally. In this way, he provides for us a profound example of the ability of the human spirit to rise up and triumph over evil forces. Many in this chamber may be aware of the pivotal role that my predecessor, The Honorable Ronald V. Dellums, played in proposing sanctions against the apartheid regime of South Africa, which helped to bring its downfall. The sanctions were ultimately instrumental in the release of Nelson Mandela from prison and the successful transition of the country to a truly non-racial democracy. On May 10, 1994, as an international poll observer in South Africa, I had the humbling and incredible experience to witness the first free, peaceful, democratic elections which chose this extraordinary human being as President. There is no more appropriate and fitting leader to lead the people of South Africa into their bright and hopeful future. In the past four years, under the leadership of Nelson Mandela, South Africa has grown substantially stronger and healthier, and stands as a world leader in its own right. I am proud and pleased to join with my colleagues today in support of H.R. 3156. It is fitting at this moment in our history to recognize and honor the President of South Africa, His Excellency Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela, with the Congressional Gold Medal.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to join my CBC colleagues, and so many others, in support of this bi-partisan resolution condemning the outrageously brutal slaying of Mr. James Byrd, Jr. on June 6, 1998 in Jasper County, East Texas. I also want to send my heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Mr. Byrd. I am gratified that this Congress has acted expeditiously to publicly express its collective outrage at this horrific incident. It is almost unfathomable that today, in 1998, we are still plagued by this kind of hatred. When I heard the details of this murder, my blood went cold, and chills went up my spine. The details are painful to hear, but it bears repeating so that we fully understand the severity of the problem. Mr. Byrd was walking home from his nice's bridal shower on June 6, 1998. As he walked home three young white men offered him a ride home. They then drove to a remote area 7 miles outside of town where they mercilessly beat him and then proceeded to chain him to the back of a pickup truck and dragged him until the torso of his body was torn to pieces. His head, neck and right arm were severed and located a mile away from his body. Fingerprints were the only means possible to identify the body. Mr. Byrd was a son, a brother, a father. He was known as a friendly spirit. Unfortunately, it was this friendliness and belief in humanity that led to his ultimate demise. It is unfortunate for all of us that we need to be suspicious of the kindness of strangers for fear that they may in fact have ulterior motives. The three men charged with this heinous crime have past criminal records and have ties to white supremacist groups. It is easy to dismiss this act and its perpetrators as aberrations, so outside of the norm, that they do not warrant much of our attention. But it is exactly this complacency that has allowed this insidious hatred and violence to continue to reach into our communities and our young people. This is not an isolated incident. We have seen hate crimes around this country escalate. We cannot turn a blind eye any longer. We must act swiftly and quickly to end our complacency and condemn these acts. This action is clearly a hate crime and I expect that it will be charged as one. Justice should be swift but fair. I hope if the accused are found guilty that they are imprisoned for the remainder of their lives. I believe in the sanctity of life, even for those who do not value the lives of others. These incidents threaten the security and foundation of our communities and this very nation. We cannot return to the days when lynchings, and similar acts of brutality, such as this one, were acceptable. I feverently hope that this horrifying murder will spur all people of conscience to act within their own communities to ardently work to stem the tide of hate that invariably leads to these violent acts of brutality.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Democratic budget plan. This is really the best budget that we have seen for several years although it certainly does not have everything that any of us would like to see in a budget, but it has some things that most of us would like to see. The Republican budget lacks details, is mean- spirited because it still takes from the middle class and the poor, and it adds to the silver plate for the rich. The Democratic plan, however, gives $10 billion in tax cuts through entitlement initiatives, and it does not allow Republican cuts in health care, welfare to work, education, environmental protections, infrastructure, veterans and other programs critical to the health of our Nation. We are in one of the most prosperous periods, yet in the midst of our celebration of our wealth we are ignoring and passing by a sizeable part of our American family. One-third of our population have less buying power than 20 years ago. Our schools and our cities, countryside and housing are in shambles, yet this House majority acts as if the majority of people in this country are millionaires. The Democratic budget is a coalition budget which accommodates the values of a broader group of fellow Americans. I urge my colleagues to support the Spratt amendment.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the recommended rule on this budget resolution for several reasons. First, this rule would pit the $10.1 billion cut in Medicare against funding for income security programs such as public housing, disability assistance, and WIC nutrition programs. This proposed rule demands the cruel and callous task of choosing whether to cut vital Medicare programs for our elderly citizens, or programs to provide basic services to our poor. The policy of pitting people who need critical social service programs against each other is unethical, particularly since we are now experiencing a boom of wealth in our Nation. It is our responsibility to assure that we provide a safety net for those who need it, rather than decide who should fall through it. I also oppose this rule because it is extremely limiting to this vital discussion in which we are about to engage. The debate on the Federal budget is a discussion of our national priorities, and the fundamental principle of democracy really dictates that we all have an opportunity to participate in the lawmaking process.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the exceptional work of an exceptional person, my former colleague and close friend Lee Halterman, on the occasion of the celebration of his retirement from Capitol Hill. H. Lee Halterman worked for my predecessor, the Honorable Ronald V. Dellums, for 27 years. During that time, Lee served Ron and the constituents of the then 7th, then 8th, now 9th Congressional District of California in a wide variety of capacities. Lee began as a teenage volunteer, too young to vote, but not so young that he couldn't run a successful campaign in the Berkeley area of the District. While attending the University of California at Berkeley, Lee was the Berkeley District Office Director and after graduation was able to work full time during the day while attending Bolt Hall School of Law in the evenings. In 1978, Lee took a leave of absence to accept the prestigious position of legal officer at the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva, Switzerland. Lee returned to the United States to work in the Dellums Berkeley office, and then the Oakland office as District Counsel and co-District Director. In 1993, when Mr. Dellums became chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Lee commuted regularly between the Congressional District and Washington to serve both as the Counsel to the House Armed Services Committee and as General Counsel to Representative Dellums. At the same time, Lee directed the policy staff which developed the Committee's agenda and advised the Chairman on military and foreign diplomatic issues of the day. The list of positions held by Lee tells only part of the story. His work is well known among local and national progressive political activists, academics, and policymakers. The 1983 book, Defense Sense: The Search for a Rational Military Policy, which was written by Ron Dellums with Lee Halterman and the late Max Miller, serves even today as a primer for those who seek a constructive alternative approach to the formation of the nation's foreign and military policies. Lee has demonstrated the ability to use his keen native intelligence, considerable political acumen, insight, wit and humor, to bring together the most disparate parties and work out solutions to the most intractable problems. As a result, Lee is accepted and respected by progressives and conservatives, civilians and General-grade officers, public and private officials alike. His counsel and assistance on complex problems is not only welcomed but sought. During his tenure on Capitol Hill, he was generous with his talents, not only with the House Armed Services Committee and Representative Dellums' office, but with the House Leadership and other Committees as well. Lee Halterman has been a trusted advisor, skillful manager, and extraordinary writer, a political observer, a legislative strategist, and many other things, but perhaps most of all Lee has been a true and gentle friend to so many of those he has worked with, and who have come to know him over all of these years. I know I speak for all of them when I wish him well in all of his future endeavors.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in strong support of the Moakley amendment to H.R. 3534. This amendment is essential in that it corrects several major defects that are now embedded in H.R. 3534. As a new Member to this House, I am acutely aware, as I know my colleagues are, of the ramifications of the actions that we take in this body. I have many problems with the main bill, H.R. 3534 and will vote against it. But the last minute provisions that were inserted by Mr. Dreier set up parliamentary procedure which favors tax cuts over using revenues for their intended purpose, like excise taxes, or for investing in national priorities. The new language looks at the way revenues from a program are used, before applying the point of order. Revenues that are used for a tax cut are exempted from the point of order. This exempts a whole class of legislation from the need to raise the private sector mandate point of order. For instance: a bill which increases revenues, like the gas tax, and requires that the money be used to repair bridges or our infrastructure, would be subject to a point of order. But if this same tax is used to reduce taxes to a billionaire to avoid a tax obligation, a point of order would not apply, there would be no floor discussion allowed for this class of loophole. I know that many of my constituents, our hard-pressed middle-class working people, know that the actual value of their wages have declined, during the same time that more billionaires and CEO's with unbelievably large salaries, have been created. These constituents would be very angry to learn, find it hard to believe that we would support a bill that does not allow discussion when tax breaks to the wealthy are given but forces a discussion if the tax obligation provides for improving the public good. Further, my constituents would find it alarming that a point of order does not apply, in other words, no debate would be allowed, if a tax hike is used to give a tax break to someone, and the net effect is zero income. My constituents would be enraged with another aspect of the Dreier amendment to H.R. 3534 that would not allow discussion if increased tax revenues from trust funds, like the Superfund revenues, are used on programs for the national welfare, but if increased tax revenues are used to create more loopholes which provide escape from taxes for a privileged few, no point of order applies. My small business constituents would really feel attacked by another aspect of the Dreier amendment which would not allow debate on mandates which give a tax break to someone else but increases his, a small businessman's, costs. The American people learned many lessons in the last few years. One of the lessons is that although we are upset by having to pay taxes, that taxes are essential in a complex, fast-paced country like ours. We value our leadership in the world; to maintain that leadership we must have a national Government that functions. We need to know that basic needs are taken care of, like our airports, our environment, our infrastructure. Many of these programs are paid for by special taxes with protected revenues, our trust accounts like Superfund, like airport taxes, like black lung. These trust funds would be severely effected by H.R. 3534 without the Moakley amendment. One of our abiding principles is that we must have representation with taxation. We must allow the same points of order to be raised when we give a tax break to the rich as when we promote a program for the rest of us. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Moakley amendment.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Patricia A. Ford, the 1998 recipient ``Unionist of the Year'' award bestowed by the Central Labor Council of Alameda County on May 8, 1998 in Oakland, CA. Raised and educated in Oakland, California, Patricia A. Ford began her career as a labor activist in the early 1970's when he helped to form an employee caucus at Alameda County's Highland Hospital. The group sought to reform its independent union, the Alameda County Employees Association, and Ford helped lead a successful effort to affiliate the union with SEI as Local 616. Ford became one of the new local's first and most effective shop stewards, and Local 616 members quickly tapped her for leadership. In 1975, she was the first African-American woman elected Vice President of the Executive Board, and in 1978, the first African-American woman elected Local 616 President. Meanwhile, Ford made the union her career as she became the first rank-and-file member selected to work as a field representative. In 1989, the Local 616 Executive Board appointed Ford to the union's top position, Executive Director and a member of the Executive Committee of the Central Labor Council of Alameda County. She was the first African-American to serve in that capacity. Under Ford's leadership, Local 616 made tremendous strides, successfully extending its organizing into the private sector, where it now represents employees of Prison Health Services and the AIDS Project of the East Bay. Ford also developed and hosted the first SEIU- sponsored Civil and Human Rights Conference, attended by leaders and members from throughout the SEIU western region. Since then, the International Union has expanded the Civil and Human Rights Conference to all regions. In 1992, Ford was elected to the SEIU International Executive Board, and became President of SEIU Joint Council 2 in the Bay Area. In 1995, Ford was elected Secretary-Treasurer of the Western Conference, a position she still holds. In April 1996, Ford made SEIU history when she was elected as the International Executive Vice President on a leadership slate headed by International President Andrew L. Stern. She, thus, became the first African-American, and only the second woman, elected to a top leadership post at SEIU. Ford was a member of the Board of Directors of the Alameda Alliance for Health which manages the MediCal program for Alameda County and is a parishioner of the Williams Chapel Baptist Church in Oakland, California. She has a son, Andre, and two grandchildren, Ayauna Phajae and Christopher Erin. Her life-long commitment to service for all working people has been a model for all of us. With heartfelt congratulations, I salute Patricia A. Ford as the Central Labor Council of Alameda County's 1998 ``Unionist of the Year.''

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment. As a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, as a woman who never would have had access to a higher education in California's public universities had it not been for affirmative action policies and programs, and who, as a child, upon entering school, was not allowed to attend public schools or public facilities due to segregation, I urge Members to vote no on this amendment. Eliminating affirmative action denies equal opportunities to many of our qualified young people who deserve to have equal access to a college education. When the University of California Board of Regents considered ending the affirmative action program several years ago, as a member of the legislature, I pleaded with them not to take such a drastic action because of the fact that affirmative action, not quotas, which have been illegal since the Bakke decision, but actually affirmative action was the primary mechanism in place to assure that qualified students of color and women were afforded a public university education. Many of us, myself included, predicted that minority admissions, which what we have heard today in terms of the decline of the minority admissions, would be very stark, and it is more stark than what we had imagined. For example, this decline overall of 61 percent, that is outrageous. Only 191 black students were admitted out of a total of 8,034 into the University of California at Berkeley. Medical school admissions are equally alarming. There are no African-American students and very few Latinos entering medical schools at several of our campuses. It has been shown, time and time again, that a large percentage of persons of color will return to provide medical services for underserved communities. We condemn these underserved communities to remain underserved when we do not provide admission to qualified applicants who have as their goal to provide health care services to these communities. In 2 years of the Regents' policy, we have begun to see the unraveling of 30 years of progress. Why would we want to subject the rest of the country to this ill-conceived experiment? Conventional wisdom says that as California goes, so goes the rest of the country. I ardently advise my colleagues to learn from the mistakes of my home State and vote no on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the Riggs amendment. This amendment will prohibit any institution of higher education that participates in any Higher Education Act program from using race, gender, ethnicity or national origin in its admissions process. Namely, the Riggs amendment seeks to eliminate affirmative action policies throughout the higher education system of this country. As a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, as a woman who never would have had access to a higher education at California's public universities had it not been for affirmative action policies and programs, who as a child, upon entering school, was not allowed to attend public schools and public facilities due to segregation, I urge you to vote no on this amendment. America never has been nor is it a color blind society. Thirty years of affirmative action have helped change the landscape of our universities and colleges. However, it has not changed so much that we are in a position to abandon our efforts. While African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans comprise 30% of the college-age population in the U.S., they only comprise 18% of college students. The percentage of women receiving doctorate degrees is 39%. However, in male-dominated fields like mathematics, engineering, and physical science, the percentage falls to 22%, 12% and 12% respectively. The percentages of African Americans receiving PhDs is 4%; Latinos and Asian Americans with PhDs are 2% and 6% respectively. These figures are dismal and while some progress has been made, now is not the time to impede this progress. It is inconceivable to me that individuals are arguing that we no longer need affirmative action programs. Eliminating affirmative action denies equal opportunities to many of our qualified young people who deserve equal access to a college education. When the University of California Board of Regents considered ending affirmative action programs several years ago, as a member of the California legislature, I pleaded with them not to take such a drastic action because affirmative action was the primary mechanism in place to insure that qualified students of color and women were afforded a public university education. Many of us, myself included, predicted that minority admissions and enrollment would decline precipitously. Results have been even more stark than we imagined. Let me tell you what has happened in California since the demise of affirmative action. The Fall 1998 class on the University of California's undergraduate campuses will be the first to have been admitted based on the new Regent's policy. Only 652 out of 3675 African American, Latino and Native American applicants were offered enrollment for next year--a decline of 61% from last year. A 61% decline in one year. African American enrollment fell by 66% and Latino enrollment fell by 53%. At UCLA African American enrollment fell by 43%, while Latino enrollment fell by 33%. One of my constituents was recently included in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about the effects of the new policy. Jamese LaGrone is a 17-year-old senior at Oakland's Holy Names High School. LaGrone was the junior class president, an athlete, worked on the yearbook and took a number of advanced placement courses. She has a 4.0 grade point average and scored 1390 on the SAT. Clearly, she is a well-rounded teenager who has worked in and out of the classroom to make the grade. I defy anyone to say that this student is not qualified to attend the University of California, Berkeley. Yet, she was rejected by the University of California, Berkeley. She is among 800 African American, Latino and Native American applicants with 4.0 averages and a median SAT score of 1170 rejected by the University of California, Berkeley. Medical school admissions are equally alarming. Only 3 Chicanos are registered at the University of California at Davis, one at the University of California at Irvine, and two at the University of California at San Diego. These numbers are only slightly better at the University of California at Los Angeles and the University of California at San Francisco. There is only one Puerto Rican registered in the entire University of California system. There are no African Americans among the freshman classes of medical school at either the University of California at San Diego or the University of California at Irvine. These admission numbers have implications for the delivery of health care services to underserved communities. It has been shown time and time again, that it is primarily persons of color who will return to provide medical services for these communities. We condemn these underserved communities to remain underserved when we do not provide admission to potential, qualified applicants who have as their goal to provide health care services to these communities. Only one year after the Regents decision to ban all affirmative action policies, the acceptance rate at Boalt Hall law school at Berkeley dropped 81%; at UCLA, the rate fell 80%. The message being sent to students of color is that they are not welcomed in the University of California system, so that even those few offered admission choose to go elsewhere. For example, no African American students who received admissions to Boalt Hall chose to attend; only 7 of the Latino students who received admission elected to attend; the two Native American students accepted also declined admission. In two years of the Regent's policy, we have begun to see the unraveling of thirty years of progress. Why would we want to subject the rest of the country to this ill-conceived experiment? I have heard my colleagues on so many occasions talk about how the Department of Education should have less influence on education policy. Yet, here we are on the verge of putting the Department of Education in the business of dictating admission policy for our higher education community. Sixty-two presidents of the country's most prestigious universities have come out in opposition to the elimination of affirmative action policies. These presidents have attested to the importance of diversity in fostering a rich educational environment and how affirmative action policies play a key role in achieving this diversity. This amendment directly contradicts what the majority of educators throughout the country have said that they need. We cannot tie their hands on how they can achieve their mission. I cannot stress enough what a devastating effect and far reaching implications the Riggs amendment will have for the future of this country. It will only further widen the disparities in education and income between men and women, and whites and people of color. I cannot believe that Members of this House want to see the resegregation of America's colleges and universities. I urge a no vote on this measure to ensure that those qualified students, regardless of their race or gender, have an equal opportunity to pursue their dreams. Conventional wisdom says that as California goes, so goes the rest of the country. I ardently advise my colleagues to learn from the mistakes of my home state. I hope that in this case, that conventional wisdom is wrong. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding time and for her leadership in this effort to save lives. Mr. Speaker, for years I have been supportive of needle exchange funding legislation as a member of the California legislature. Studies conclusively show that needle exchange programs, while dramatically reducing the spread of HIV, do not encourage drug use. On the contrary. Needle exchange programs can provide a bridge to treatment. They have been shown to have a positive impact on identifying intravenous drug users, a very hard to reach population, and bringing these individuals out of crime and into medical care treatment and prevention programs. IV drug use accounts for 75 percent of all new HIV infections among women and children, and for 40 percent of new HIV infections overall. The passage of this bill would be dramatically damaging to people of color and communities which I represent. The disproportionate number of African-American and Latino individuals who are infected with HIV is astounding: Minorities make up 64% of HIV infections. Even more shocking, while African-Americans make up 16% of the U.S. population, they comprise 45% of those infected with HIV. These statistics demonstrate a state of emergency for people of color. Two-thirds of Americans support needle exchange programs, which are a lifesaving event in the right direction. I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 3717.

Ms. LEE

Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, as one of many friends and longtime admirers of Bella Abzug, I rise today to pay tribute and express my heartfelt admiration and respect for this exceptional woman. Bella Abzug was truly loved by many in the world who were positively impacted by her groundbreaking work on a myriad of crucial progressive issues. The first time I met Bella I was working for my predecessor, the Honorable Congressman Ronald V. Dellums. Bella and Ron worked closely on a number of progressive causes, remaining at the forefront of peace, social, and economic justice issues, as well as efforts to normalize relations with Cuba. Bella was a true pioneer. She had a brilliant mind, and her tireless efforts over the decades to build diverse coalitions and protect the civil rights of women, the poor, and people of color throughout the world will long be remembered and respected. Her most recent efforts through the Women's Environment and Development Organization, which she co-founded, have permanently changed the impact that all non- governmental organizations have on policy making. Her influence was truly global. A great strategist for the advancement of feminist issues, Bella's unyielding dedication to gaining access to political power for women was also remarkable. Personally, I was a fortunate recipient of her encouragement, guidance, and a political knowledge from the time I began my public service. The last time I spoke with Bella was at a fundraiser for my California State Senate Race. Her involvement at this event is an example of her continual energy and support, for which I will be forever grateful. For me, Bella has been a truly inspiring mentor and role model. I am proud to join my colleagues I paying tribute to and expressing my admiration for this superwoman. I am honored to have been able to call Bella a friend. It is my hope, that as I travel this new road, I will in some small way be able to keep her spirit and tenacity alive by continuing the ongoing struggle to remove barriers which prevent women and people of color from participating fully in society. Bella, I know you are watching and listening. We all love you, and we truly miss you.

Ms. LEE of California

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, first, to Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard, to Mr. Gephardt, Mr. Bonior, to the entire California delegation, to all of the Members of this great institution, I am grateful for your support and for your leadership as we move into the next millennium. I would like to pay special recognition, first, to my family; to my mother, Mildred Massey; and to my father, Garvin Tutt; and to all of my family for their consistent support and their love. They instilled in me at an early age a deep sense of passion for justice. And I am extremely grateful to each and every one of my family members. And I want to take this opportunity to publicly tell them that I love you very, very much. I had the opportunity to be here for several years, in fact, 8 years. My children, Tony and Craig, were able to attend schools here in this great District. So in a way, we are coming back to our second home. I say to my predecessor, my friend and political mentor, the Honorable Ron Dellums, your legacy is one that will live forever, not only in this great institution, or in the Ninth Congressional District, but it will live forever throughout the world, throughout the world. I thank you for your confidence in me. I accept the challenge to continue to be a long-distance runner for economic, social, and political justice. In contemplating what I wanted to say at this very magnificent and glorious yet very humbling moment in my life, I reflected upon the great economic recovery that we are experiencing in this country. But my heart and my head and the facts keep telling me that this recovery has been for some, but not for all. So as we move into the next century, I intend to continue to challenge those policies which continue to widen the gap between the rich and the poor. But I also intend to provide solutions for new and creative ways to increase the standard of living for all, not just for some. I want to ensure that all of our children have access to a good public education; that we do enact universal and accessible health care for all; and to ensure the solvency of our Social Security system; that we support economic development efforts which create good jobs that pay a livable wage with benefits for working men and women; that we protect our globe and the wilderness and ensure clean air, and clean water, and create more public transportation systems; and that we protect a woman's right to reproductive choice. In addition, I shall continue to maintain the high standard of constituent services and responsiveness to local needs established by my predecessor. As we witness the world's becoming smaller and smaller, our efforts to encourage fair and free trade, respect for human rights abroad, and a truly effective foreign assistance program is really a must on my agenda. Finally, a fundamental basic principle that I bring to the United States Congress is the fact that we provide, and should provide, equal opportunities for everyone, and shatter the walls of discrimination based upon race, national origin, gender, age, disability, and sexual orientation. So I look forward to our national debates, and yes; sometimes our struggles. For my grandchildren, Jordan and Joshua, and for the children of this country and the world, I pledge to myself and to you to the effort to do the right thing, and to leave them a better future. I thank the people of the Ninth Congressional District for this honor. I do not take it lightly. I accept it with a sense of excitement and optimism. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in discharging this awesome responsibility. As my first act, I would like to sign the discharge petition to have a full and fair debate on campaign finance reform. Thank you, and may God bless you.