Loretta Sanchez

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support of H. Con. Res. 413, which honors the contributions of Rosie the Riveter--the brave women who served on the home front during World War II. Over six million women served this county during World War II by taking on jobs that had been traditionally held by men. They served as welders, and engineers, and helped produce planes, trucks, guns and ammunition that were crucial to helping the U.S. achieve victory. These brave women opened the doors toward equal rights and new employment opportunities, and highlighted the needs of working mothers, which in turn led to the creation of child care programs. Their efforts helped change social attitudes of traditional gender roles and allowed the women greater opportunities and independence. I would like to join my colleagues in honoring the life and work of these great women and thank them for their contributions to this nation.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Kent Gibbs of the Orange County Council Boy Scouts of America. Mr. Gibbs became President/Scout Executive of the Orange County Council Boy Scouts of America in 1982. Immediately after he assumed his new post, his organization was faced with severe funding cutbacks and a forced thirty percent staff reduction. Despite all of these hardships, Mr. Gibbs was still able to provide services for young men and women across Orange County. Mr. Gibbs was also heavily involved in the undertaking of a $21 million Major Gifts Initiative to provide funding to support outreach efforts into the inner city communities and needed capital improvements. The Orange County Council has been recognized as a Quality Organization by the national organization of the Boy Scouts of America, and Mr. Gibbs was a recipient of the James E. West Fellowship and Heritage Society Award. I would like to extend my best wishes to Mr. Gibbs on the occasion of his retirement and thank him for his service to the communities of Orange County.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) for introducing this important and very necessary amendment. Members of the Armed Forces are entitled to a quality of life equal to that of the Nation they are pledged to defend. Whether you are prochoice or prolife, agree or disagree with the merits of reproductive freedom, the fact remains, women of the United States have a constitutional right to these services. I want to read a little excerpt from a letter I received from a general in the Army who goes on to say, ``One day, a noncommissioned officer, an NCO, who was one of the battalion's senior women, came into my office and asked for permission to take a day off later in the week and to have the same take-off for a young soldier in the battalion. She said the soldier was pregnant and wanted an abortion and yet had no way to get an abortion at the U.S. Army medical facility in Germany where they were stationed. ``She had got information about a German clinic in another city, and they were going there for the procedure. The soldier did not have enough money to return to the U.S., saved for the abortion, nor did she want to talk to her chain of command about this issue. I told the NCO to go with her and to let me know what happened. ``Later, the NCO told me that the experience had been both mortifying and painful. No painkiller of any sort was administered for the procedure. The modesty of this soldier and the other women at the clinic had been violated due to cultural differences, and neither she nor the soldier understood German.'' It was a problem. It was a bad experience for all that, at a very vulnerable time, this American who was serving her country overseas could not count on the Army to give her the care that she needed. What makes the situation of a soldier different from that of a civilian woman? She is subject to the orders of the officers appointed over here. Every hour of the day belongs to the U.S. Army and she must have her seniors' permission to leave her place of duty. She makes very low pay and so relies on the help of friends and family to pay for travel for medical care that is not given by the Army. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Tailhook, Aberdeen, Air Force Academy rapes, rapes in the Pacific theater, rapes in the Iraqi theater. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to talk about what is not in this bill. A sensible, conservative legislative initiative that would have made it easier for the military to prosecute sexual assault offenses in the armed services. The majority prohibited me from offering an amendment that would have made this vital change to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It would have replaced a woefully outdated statute currently being used by the military to prosecute sexual assault with a version we use at the Federal level, title 18, used also in 37 other States, that was approved by this body 18 years ago. The current military mechanism for prosecuting sexual assault was written in the 1950s, and it really does not reflect today's reality. My bill would have emphasized the acts of the perpetrator, rather than the reaction of the victim during an assault, which is an all-too- common complaint within the military justice system. It would have expressly provided for cases involving voluntary and involuntary intoxication of the victim, which are common fact patterns in military sexual assault cases. It would have expanded the definition of sexual abuse to include a broader scope of sex acts. It would have also included a provision which specifically relates to the sexual abuse of a prisoner, unlike the current UCMJ. This provision is particularly timely given the tragic incidents which have occurred in Abu Ghraib prison. We are facing a sexual assault crisis within our armed services. Our women and our men are being raped in Iraq. The Army currently has investigations of 110 counts of sexual abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some say this is combat-related stress. Well, in March of this year, the Air Force reported that it is investigating 92 reports of rape in the Pacific. Those troops are not in combat. In a report released by the Department of Defense just this week, it was reported that across the Department of Defense there were 901 reported cases of rape in 2002 and over 1,000 in 2003. Now, I think that is a problem, and the Pentagon obviously thinks it is a problem, also. So this would be an opportunity to make some positive changes on this issue because it is our job as Members of Congress to provide oversight of the executive departments of this Nation. It is our responsibility to provide assurances to men and women in uniform that they are safe and that when crimes are committed, our laws assure that justice will be served. I am disappointed that my amendment is not being considered today. I think it is a disservice to the military men and women of our Nation.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Barbara Noel, a Santa Ana High School teacher, who was recently honored with the Bravo Award. The Bravo Award was established in 1983 by the Music Center Education Division to recognize teachers for creativity and innovation in Arts education. Three Bravo Awards are handed out each year: one to a school, one to an arts specialist, and one to a general classroom teacher. Barbara is only the second dance teacher in 22 years to win this prestigious award and I am very excited for her. I wish to thank her for innovation and dedication in teaching the arts to out school children.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for introducing this resolution, and, in particular, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for including in this important bill a reference to Mendez v. Westminster. I rise today in support of this resolution recognizing the importance of Brown v. Board of Education. But Brown v. Board of Education was actually built on a few important cases, one of which is the Mendez v. Westminster, which happened, if you can believe this, in Orange County, California. In 1945, Felicitas Mendez took her child, Silvia, and her niece and her nephew down the block to the local school to enroll them. The niece and the nephew were lighter skinned; they could go to that school. She was told that her own daughter, who was darker skinned, would have to go across town to the Mexican school. Felicitas Mendez was a Puerto Rican. The Mexican school took the Asians and the blacks and all the other dark-skinned people, like Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. Well, Gonzalo and Felicitas Mendez decided to fight that, and they filed a lawsuit, along with four other families, against Westminster, Anaheim, Santa Ana, and El Modena districts, seeking an injunction against all schools in Orange County. On February 18, 1946, Mendez v. Westminster was decided in favor of the Mendez family, and on April 14, 1947, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Mendez family's case. It was the first case in Federal Court of the doctrine of separate but equal, naming it unconstitutional. California Governor Earl Warren signed desegregation of California, 8 years ahead of the rest of the Nation. Of course, 8 years later Thurgood Marshall would use that case as he argued Brown v. Board of Education, and Warren sat on that Supreme Court. The bravery and the dedication of Gonzalo and Felicitas Mendez opened the doors for better education to all children in the United States, and I thank this Congress for acknowledging how important Brown v. Board of Education is.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 378, a resolution which calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Catholic Father and human rights champion Thaddeus Nguyen Van Ly. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), for bringing this resolution to the floor. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the bill, and I am proud to work with him on the bipartisan Vietnam Caucus. On this day, the 10th anniversary of Vietnam Human Rights Day and the 14th anniversary of the Vietnamese Manifesto of Nonviolent Movement For Human Rights, there can be nothing more appropriate action for this Congress than to pass this resolution about Father Ly. Why would that be? Well, we as Members of the United States Congress have a special responsibility, for, you see, it was testimony to this Congress, to this Nation, that Father Ly gave us that put him behind bars. In fact, we brought forward that testimony in a human rights caucus hearing on religious freedoms in Vietnam, or, should I say, the lack of religious freedom in Vietnam. So we have a particular responsibility to let the world know and to put pressure on the Vietnamese Government with respect to Father Ly's incarceration. In reaction to Father Ly's defense of human rights and his pronouncements on the need for religious freedom and nonviolent resistance, the Government of Vietnam branded him a traitor, a traitor, and prohibited him from carrying out his religious duties as a priest and sentenced him to 10 years of prison for ``damaging the government's unit policy.'' The imprisonment of Father Ly is not only a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it is a direct attack on each and every one of us who value human rights. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, and I thank the gentleman from California for being such a strong supporter of human rights in the world, and I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 613, the resolution which recognizes the 10th anniversary of Vietnam Human Rights Day, which is today, May 11. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for sponsoring this resolution and allowing me to be an original cosponsor; and I am proud to share with the gentleman membership in the Vietnam Caucus, along with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith). The initiatives of the caucus, including this bill, are examples of what we can accomplish when we decide to work together in a bipartisan manner. Mr. Speaker, I represent the largest Vietnamese community in the world outside of Vietnam in Orange County, California. It is fitting then to speak on the House floor about this anniversary of Vietnam Human Rights Day. More importantly, it is the 14-year anniversary of the Manifesto of the Nonviolent Movement For Human Rights. This was written by a courageous and bright man, Dr. Nguyen Dan Que. I have had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Que. In fact, I went to his home in 1998 when I was in Vietnam. As we were meeting, his home all locked up, the military police came to the home to try to get me out of there. Of course we had locked up the house, and we continued our conversation. One of the things that Dr. Que said to me was that it was important for America and Americans to continue to push for human rights in Vietnam. What type of human rights are we talking about here? Well, the right to assemble as we do here today, that is not allowed in Vietnam. The right to choose your own God and the way you want to worship that God, that is not allowed. You have to only do it through the official church or churches that the state of Vietnam approves. The right to free press. Every piece of paper written to be distributed must be done by the state in Vietnam. In fact, when I was meeting with the cardinal of the Catholic Church of Vietnam, he said one of the things that he cannot do is to hand out a newsletter to people that come to church on Sunday. The right to collectively bargain one's labor for decent wages and a decent place to work. All of these things are not allowed in Vietnam, and this is what Dr. Que speaks to. He speaks to the human rights issues within Vietnam. I guess the most important thing that Dr. Que said to me that day in 1998 was that the reason we need to keep pushing for human rights in Vietnam is that it inspires and it gives hope and it gives courage to those within Vietnam who are fighting for basic human rights. Religious leaders like the Venerable Tic Kwzug Doh; a geologist like Gizug; and General Do, whom I had an opportunity to meet with, who had been a former communist and understood what was going on in the country and decided he would speak out; and, yes, Dr. Que. Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the dissidents within Vietnam who speak every day; and yet each and every one has been imprisoned, either taken away without charges or with false charges, or imprisoned in house arrest. I hope today we will vote this unanimously to send a strong message that human rights are important in every country, and in particular for those who have not seen them for a long time.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for H. Res. 578, a resolution that would support the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month. Before I became a Congresswoman, I was a businesswoman. I started my own consulting firm in Santa Ana, California assisting public agencies and private firms with cost-benefit analysis, strategic planning and capital acquisition. I have spent many years in the financial sector, and know first-hand the importance of financial literacy and education. As Chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Task Force on Banking and Finance, I am committed to increasing financial literacy in minority communities. Later this year, I will be holding an issues conference with leaders from the financial world to discuss ways of connecting the financial sector with Hispanic youth to educate them on business and career opportunities. We will also explore the obstacles minorities face in obtaining capital and examine the effectiveness of today's top financial companies in preparing Latinos as leaders in the banking and financial sector. Mr. Speaker, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of financial literacy. Financial knowledge enables individuals to become more successful, manage their money wisely and contribute to the economy. It is critical that we educate our young people and encourage them to seek out opportunities in the business world. I thank the Gentlelady from Illinois for introducing this important bill, and would urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor two very extraordinary Americans who are celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary--Henry and Barbara Wirstschafter. Henry and Barbara are a joy to know. Perky, humorous, and filled with the spirit of life, the two share their love and their youthful spirit with their four children: Gary, Joy, Robert and Greg, and their six grandchildren. For many years, the two have participated in the life of the community. Henry and Barbara met back in 1953, and were married in June of 1954 in McGee, Arkansas. Since that time they have had the opportunity to tour the country. They even saw the world come together when they volunteered for the 1984 Olympic Games in Los Angeles. In addition, they recognize the special needs of the community. Henry and Barbara have been loyal and dedicated in helping the less fortunate. They assist the hungry with their involvement with Meals on Wheels, and they assist the poor by providing families with affordable housing units. Their loyalty and dedication to assisting others is a true virtue. Surely their secret to a long happy life together is to be warm, outgoing, motivated, optimistic, and to be of service to others. For Henry and Barbara, their marriage has been filled with many wonderful memories. All who know Henry and Barbara have been charmed by their presence. Happy 50th wedding anniversary, and best wishes.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Garden Grove Elks Lodge 1952 for their contributions to my community of Garden Grove, California. The Garden Grove Elks Club is just one of thousands of Elks chapters across this Nation. They operate on the ideals of charity and patriotism, contributing to schools, police and fire departments, and also working with their youth in their community. The Elks Club consists only of volunteers, those citizens who strive to make a difference based solely on the goodness of their heart. I would also like to recognize Elks Lodge 1952's newly installed officers: Dave Offhaus, Dave Skelton, Gary Mueller, Randy Barrows, Lynn Johnson and Jim Faulkner. I wish these new officers much luck in the coming year, and I would also like to extend my appreciation for all that they do for our community.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Cesar Chavez, a man who bravely fought against labor injustices and paved the way for the many rights enjoyed by this nation's workers. Mr. Chavez grew up on the fruit and vegetable fields and learned first hand the plight of labor workers and the terrible conditions they endured. Chavez rose from those fields and became the head of the United Farm Workers of America. When the UFW began their strikes in the 1960's in protest of the treatment of farm workers, Chavez led the successful cause with support from unions, church groups and students. After the strikes were over, Chavez maintained the fight to ensure greater minority rights by fighting for greater educational and political opportunities. One can not deny the great impact Chavez had on the millions of labor workers in this country. His bravery and determination proved that blue-collar workers are an invaluable part of the American economy.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, April 2, 2004, I was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation. I request that the Congressional Record reflect that had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 116: ``yea'' (On Motion to Recommit Conference Report with Instructions for H.R. 3108); Rollcall No. 117: ``aye'' (On Final Passage of H.R. 3108).

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, March 17, 2004, I was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation. I request that the Congessional Record reflect that had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: Roll Call No. 62: no (on the ordering the previous question for H. Res. 561).

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my outrage over the Vietnamese Government's imprisonment of Mr. Nguyen Vu Binh. On December 31, 2003, writer Nguyen Vu Binh was sentenced to 7 years in jail plus 3 years of house arrest after that. His charge? Writing and exchanging with various opportunistic elements in the country and communicating with reactionary organizations abroad. My colleagues might be surprised to know that the United States Congress is one of those reactionary organizations. On July 19, 2002, Mr. Binh submitted testimony to the congressional Human Rights Caucus, highlighting Vietnam's assault on human rights, and I would like to read an excerpt from that. He said, ``The ultimate goal of the Vietnamese government is to isolate, separate and divide the democracy activists. They achieve this goal through tactics carefully applied to each target.'' Two months after he submitted this testimony here, Mr. Binh became a target and was taken into custody. This simply must stop. I urge the Vietnamese government to facilitate the immediate release of Mr. Binh and to afford its citizens the freedoms that they deserve.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 339, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act of 2003. According to a report released yesterday by the CDC, poor diet and a lack of physical activity are among the leading causes of death in the United States. In fact, obesity is fast approaching to be the number one cause of death in our country. Unless our families become healthier, the CDC estimates that one in three children, or in the Hispanic community, one in two children, will become diabetic. This year, California State University at Fullerton is proposing a Center for the Prevention of Childhood Obesity, which would work with schools and other organizations to arm teachers and parents with the tools that they need to prevent obesity in their children. It is also heartening to see some food companies such as McDonald's and Kellogg making positive changes in the way that they produce food, and I would argue that these changes are due in large part to some of those lawsuits brought against certain food companies regarding nutritional value, content information, or long-term consequences of eating high fatty foods.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, March 2, 2004, I was unavoidably detained due to a prior obligation. I request that the Congressional Record reflect that had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 32, ``yes'' (on H.R. 3796). Rollcall No. 33, ``yes'' (on H. Res. 526).

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join my colleagues in recognizing and honoring the work of the League of United Latin American Citizens, LULAC, on their 75th anniversary. Serving as the nation's oldest and largest Hispanic organization, LULAC has improved the lives of millions of Latinos across our nation, by never wavering from its commitment to advance ``the economic condition, educational attainment, political influence, health and civil rights'' of our country's Hispanic population. During LULAC's early years, they faced great opposition from those who did not wish to see the status and well-being of Hispanics improve. Many members were harassed and threatened. yet the dedication and determination of LULAC's founding members persevered. Today, this organization has become one of the greatest Hispanic civil rights organizations in America, with an all-volunteer membership and a glowing list of accomplishments. Representing Latinos from all over the nation including, Guam and Puerto Rico, LULAC has taken the lead toward groundbreaking accomplishments for the Hispanic community. One of these is particularly dear to me. In 1945, LULAC took an active role in the fight against segregation in my home County of Orange in California. The Orange County School System kept its schools segregated on the grounds that Mexican children were ``poorly clothed and mentally inferior to white children.'' Eventually, LULAC was successful in their lawsuit to integrate this school system. The following year, LULAC, along with Gonzalo and Felicitas Mendez, filed the Mendez v. Westminister lawsuit that ended 100 years of segregation in the California public school system. Thanks to this suit, I, the child of Mexican immigrants, was able to benefit from a great public education in Orange County. Many don't realize that the Mendez case laid the foundation for the watershed case of Brown vs. Board of Education eight years later. Mr. Speaker, one cannot deny the great impact this lawsuit had on bringing greater educational opportunities not just to Hispanic children, but to all children across the nation. Yet, this is just one example of the great work LULAC has done since their founding in 1929! This organization has fought for voting rights and the inclusion of Hispanics in the political process. It has provided access to educational mentoring and tutoring, and has helped fund millions of dollars in scholarships. And LULAC continues to fight for the betterment of Hispanic workers, especially in the area of Hispanic health issues. I am very honored to be standing here today to express my appreciation for all of LULAC's accomplishments. I wish them continued success in the future as they continue their work for improving the lives of Americans in the Hispanic community.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this substitute to H.R. 3030, which will improve the Community Services Block Grant. In the Republican version of H.R. 3030, a church could decide that an individual is not qualified to work in a federally funded community services program, simply because that individual does not hold the same religious beliefs. There is no question that this is a clear violation of civil rights. It must be amended. Religious organizations provide essential community services around the country. However, we must not allow these organizations to discriminate against people who want to work in federally funded social service programs. The Democratic substitute would forbid such discriminatory practices. Don't misunderstand me. I absolutely support the amazing work that local religious organizations do to help poor and disadvantaged families. In Orange County, the Orange County Rescue mission provides food and shelter to disadvantaged men and women. This work is necessary, and appreciated. Indeed, this good work should continue. Religious organizations should receive funding for community programs. The Democratic amendment would allow churches and other religious organizations to receive federal funds for community programs. But religious groups should follow the same civil rights protections secular organizations are required by law to follow in order to receive Federal dollars. Religious and civil rights groups support this effort, too, because they understand that discrimination based on religion has no place in the Community Services Block Grant program. These groups also know that Democrats support programs that help poverty-stricken individuals, whether those programs are operated by secular or religious organizations. The Democratic amendment will preserve Federal support to religious organizations providing critical community services. It only serves to strengthen those programs by holding them to the same standard of civil rights in employment practices that all other organizations must follow. Please join me in supporting this amendment.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this motion to recommit this bill with instructions to ensure that members of our military, veterans and their families are afforded bankruptcy protection under Chapter 7. Every American knows that our Nation's greatest debt is to the men and the women who have worn the uniform of our country so that we can live in freedom and prosperity. Unfortunately, this has come at a very high price to many of the service members and to their families. The war on terror is taking an entirely new toll, and a considerable portion of the burden is falling on our reservists. Never before have we asked so much of our troops. Nearly 250,000, including 120,000 reservists, have been fighting or are scheduled to begin service. Nearly 40 percent of the reservists suffer a major loss in income during this time. For many, the difference can amount to tens of thousands of dollars. As a result, service members are falling behind in their mortgages, depleting their life savings, losing personal businesses and racking up significant credit card debt. My colleagues might be surprised to know that some that are suffering the worst are medical doctors, self-employed doctors who were in private practices, but now have to leave them, have to keep the fixed overhead and pay that and come back. Their patients are gone, their nurses are gone, and they have thousands of dollars in unpaid bills. Mr. Speaker, this country has a history of undertaking efforts to secure legal protections so that service members can devote their energy to the defense needs of our Nation. This motion would continue those efforts. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my opposition to the Omnibus Appropriation Bill on which we will be voting today. This is an important bill. It funds 11 federal agencies and appropriates more than $820 billion. And although it contains many important provisions that I support, I regret to say that the bad in this bill far outweighs the good. In process, it was undemocratically constructed, often over-riding the will of the majority in both houses. In substance, it is laden with individual pork projects that benefit few, while it under-funds critical and vital government programs that could benefit many more. Let's first look at the process. A prohibition against the FCC change in the rules for media ownership was significally weakened in this Omnibus bill and the Labor Department's new overtime regulation was dropped entirely, despite the fact that both were agreed to by solid majorities in both Houses of Congress. But these are not the only reasons I have decided to vote against this bill. I oppose this bill both because of the priorities it represents as well as for those it fails to represent. Remember ``No Child Left Behind'', the President's education bill that passed with such fanfare earlier this year? This Omnibus bill provides a total of $24.5 billion for this program--$7.8 billion below the amount the Republicans promised for Fiscal Year 2004. In addition to this broken promise, the Majority has left our veterans behind, too. The veterans medical programs portion of the bill provides $230 million less than Republicans promised in their own budget resolution and $1.7 billion below the amount proposed by veterans' organizations. This bill does serious damage to several veteran programs. The most dramatic is the cut in funds needed to speed up the processing of applications for these benefits. At the present time, the Department is taking, on average, 157 days to process a claim. The Administration request, which the Committee funded, would have added no additional staff for processing claims. Veterans are not spared the 0.59 percent across the board cut. The cut will reduce funding for the administration of claims by $4 million, which will result in the estimated loss of 100 employees needed for claims processing. Although the Department of Homeland Security is not funded in this legislation, Homeland Security will be significally affected by two provisions in this bill. This legislation forces the rescission of $1.8 billion in prior year supplemental appropriations, including a significant portion of funds for the Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security will feel the sting of the 0.59 percent across-the- board cut and will have a dramatic impact on certain areas in particular. The planned increase of 570 Customs and Immigration agents for improving border protection will have to be cut by nearly two- thirds. It is true that passing appropriations bills is about making choices, about identifying priorities. I happen to believe that funding Veterans' Services and Homeland Security to protect our borders with additional Customs and Border personnel is a critical piece to this Nation's future. The Omnibus fails to provide for our children's education. It shuns our veterans in their time of need. It undermines the security of all of our citizens. It was done behind closed doors and thwarts decisions made earlier this year by both Houses. This bill is a failure of process and substance. I fear this bill will fail the American people. I would urge my colleagues to reject the unfair process and the unwise policies that flawed process has produced.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, November 22, 2003, I was unavoidably detained and unable to cast my vote. I request that the Congressional Record reflect that had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: (1) Rollcall No. 670: ``no'' (on Table Motion to Reconsider H.R. 1).

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks about the premium support provisions in this conference report that I believe will undermine the Medicare system on which elderly women rely. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my concerns today over the Medicare bill and how it will leave millions of seniors without the adequate care they deserve. Under this bill nearly 3 million seniors will loose their prescription drug coverage, while 6 million will likely see an increase in the price of their medications and nearly 10 million would see an increase their Medicare premiums if they refuse to join an HMO. This bill is not a plan for our seniors, rather it is a plan that benefits drug companies and the insurance industry. This legislation would even prohibit Medicare from negotiating better prices for prescription drugs. It would spend $7 billion, desperately needed for covering all retired Americans, on creating individual health security accounts for only those who could afford them. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation. We need to work for our seniors and provide them with a Medicare bill that helps them and not the big pharmaceutical and insurance companies.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, my home state of California has just been through a terrible series of wildfires. The fires burned more than 800,000 acres, destroyed over 3,300 homes, caused over $12 billion in property damage, and tragically took the lives of 22 people. What could have been done to prevent it? What should we do now to prevent such occurrences in the future? The answer, it seems to me, is active management and control of overgrown areas near development, usually referred to as the Woodland- Urban Interface. This will go a long way to preventing fires from destroying homes and worse, killing our citizens. We have a bill in front of us today, H.R. 1904, The Health Forests Initiative, that its proponents tell us will help prevent the kind of devastation that we endured in California. This conference report is certainly better than the initial House version of the bill. In the House bill, money used for clearing would have had to come from nearby logging activities. In the chaparral of Southern California, there is no logging, and that means no removal of forest fuels would have occurred to protect our homes and our families. The House-Senate compromise that is before us today is a step in the right direction. Most importantly, it provides $760 million to fund clearing forest fuels to prevent catastrophic wildfires. Nevertheless, there remain some fundamental problems with the bill. First of all, the Healthy Forests Initiative is only effective for federal lands. Roughly two-thirds of the lands that burned in California was not federal land, and therefore would be unaffected by the healthy forests initiative. Second, only half of the $760 million is set aside for forest clearing within 1\1/2\ miles of structures--the Wildlife-Urban Interface. The other half will go toward thinning in other areas. Moreover, where in the initial bill the clearing was paid for by nearby profitable logging, now we are giving $365 million to commercial loggers for these thinning activities. So, instead of asking logging companies to contribute their fair share to forest management and fire mitigation, we are subsidizing them to do it. I am disappointed with this bill. We had an opportunity to craft a bipartisan bill, one that would have addressed the pressing issue of protecting lives and property in the Wildlife-Urban Interface. Instead, the Healthy Forests Initiative puts commercial logging interests ahead of protecting our vulnerable communities. Once again, the Republican- controlled Congress has it priorities all wrong. While this bill does not sufficiently address this important priority, I am supporting an effort that does. I am working to provide more funding for community and individual-initiated and driven initiatives to clear fire fuels in their areas. We should be empowering local communities to clear these areas--they have the greatest knowledge of the environments in which they live, and the greatest personal stake in the success of these efforts. I am hopeful that this initiative will generate broad bipartisan support. In the meantime, I regret that I must oppose the Health Forests Initiatives, principally because it uses a great deal of resources, but it won't do very much to make our Southern Californian forests any healthier.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for bringing this to the floor, and I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde). Mr. Speaker, I represent the largest Vietnamese population outside of Vietnam in the world, in Orange County, California, so I have been following the relationship of the United States and Vietnam for the last 7 years that I have been in the Congress. I rise today to speak on behalf of House Resolution 427, a bipartisan resolution which highlights the courageous leadership of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, which is currently undergoing one of the harshest crackdowns in history, and the urgent need for religious freedom, and for basic human rights in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. This resolution, which I introduced with my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) is timely, important, and will do a great deal to advance the cause of religious freedom in Vietnam. Now, many of my colleagues will say, well, Loretta has opposed trade relations with Vietnam, or there has always been a difficult relationship with Vietnam, and the answer is yes, but that is in the past. This is about the current situation, and the current situation is about religious freedom, or the ability for the Vietnamese people to express their religious beliefs in the way that they want. Let us remember that the United States was based in part on those people who came to this land to seek their way of respecting and praising their Lord. And, in the same way, that is a basic human right for all people of the world. Despite the growing bilateral and economic relations that the United States has with Vietnam, the Vietnamese government has continued to blatantly disregard religious freedom in Vietnam. It is a basic right guaranteed by the Vietnamese constitution and enshrined in the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Vietnam has both ratified and has pledged to uphold. According to the 2003 report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, the Vietnamese government does not, does not fully support religious freedom. I would like to quote some of the statements from that report. It says, ``The current approach of the U.S. Government to advance religious freedom in Vietnam has failed to yield concrete results. Key religious dissidents have been imprisoned. Others remain under house arrest. In addition, the government has intensified its crackdown on religious minorities in the western provinces and in the Central Highlands.'' The report goes on to state that ``Therefore, the Commission recommends that the United States Government intensify its leverage to hold the government of Vietnam to its international obligation to protect human rights, including that of religious freedom.'' This resolution does just that. The latest incident, which occurred just this year, the one with the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, the largest religious denomination in that country, was because they held a meeting to elect new leadership, discuss their future, and to verify that the Prime Minister of Vietnam had promised a new era of understanding and respect. In stark contrast to that promise of respect and understanding, the Vietnamese authorities disrupted that meeting, intimidated the people at that meeting, and ultimately arrested most of the leadership. The Venerables Thich Huyen Quang and Thich Quang Do were taken into custody and remain in detainment. Now, one of them is 75 years old. I have met with him in Vietnam. He is not a menace to society. In fact, he was nominated by over 60 Members of Congress in the year 2000 for the Noble Peace Prize. He has about 2 decades worth of arrests from this current government. These actions are unconscionable but, unfortunately, they are nothing new. The Vietnamese government has routinely used intimidation, harassment, and imprisonment to punish individuals who choose to practice their own faith. I recently spoke with a high-ranking Vietnamese official regarding the crackdown on the church, and about religious freedom in Vietnam in general, and he said, of course Vietnam supports religious freedom, but he failed to deny that, in fact, they have imprisoned the leadership of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam. I was informed that if these leaders want to practice their faith, they are more than welcome to do so as members of the State-authorized Buddhist Church. Having the option of joining only one State-sponsored Buddhist Church is a far cry, in my opinion, of religious freedom. And enduring decades of imprisonment for peacefully practicing one's faith is not religious freedom. Vietnam has a long way to go. So, in closing, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Doing so will not only send a strong message to the Vietnamese government that its actions are not going unnoticed, but it will reinforce the human rights standards that we expect of Vietnam as we move forward in strengthening our bilateral relationship with them.