Loretta Sanchez

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, September 7, 2005, I was unavoidably absent due to a previously scheduled engagement. Had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: (1) Rollcall No. 464. On H. Res. 427, relating to the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, ``yes.'' (2) Rollcall No. 463. On H. Res. 428, expressing the sincere gratitude of the House of Representatives to the foreign individuals, organizations, and governments that have offered material assistance and other forms of support to those who have been affected by Hurricane Katrina, ``yes.'' (3) Rollcall No. 462. On H.R. 3668, the Student Grant Hurricane and Disaster Relief Act, ``yes.'' (4) Rollcall No. 461. On H.R. 3669, to temporarily increase the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for carrying out the national flood insurance program, ``yes.'' (5) Rollcall No. 460. On H.R. 3673, further Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, Hurricane Katrina, 2005, ``yes.'' (6) Rollcall No. 459. On H. RES. 426, providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules, ``no.'' (7) Rollcall No. 458. On H. RES. 426, providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules, ``no.''

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, September 7, 2005, I was unavoidably absent due to a previously scheduled engagement. I request that the Congressional Record reflect that had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: (1) Rollcall No. 457. On H.R. 3169, to provide the Secretary of Education with waiver authority for students who are eligible for Pell Grants who are adversely affected by a natural disaster: ``yes.'' (2) Rollcall No. 456. On H.R. 3650, to allow United States Courts to conduct business during emergency conditions, and for other purposes: ``yes.''

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, September 6, 2005, I was unavoidably absent due to a previously scheduled engagement. I request that the Congressional Record reflect that had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: on rollcall No. 455, on S.J. Res. 19, calling upon the President to issue a proclamation recognizing the 30th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act, ``yes''; on rollcall No. 454, on H. Res. 360, commemorating the 60th anniversary of V-J Day and the end of World War II in the Pacific, ``yes''.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for putting together this Special Order. I think the chart that was just up is a very important chart to talk about. A lot of people ask me what is the most important thing you are worried about when you go to sleep at night. They know that I sit on the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Homeland Security. I tell them the problem is the debt and the deficits that we are creating in Washington, D.C. because they will come back to haunt each and every family in this United States. The chart there shows that when President Bush took office we were running a surplus, a surplus in the annual budget that we had, in other words, our annual spending plan. President Clinton had structured our taxes in such a way that he brought down the deficit from earlier years, and we were in a surplus. We were collecting more taxes than we were spending in a year, which allowed us to take those additional taxes and bring down the debt, the actual debt that this country carried. But what happened when President Bush came into office? He began to change that around because spending went up and we collected fewer taxes. We have given three large packages of tax cuts in the time that President Bush has been in office. His own controller has said that the reason we are running deficits, 70 percent of that is due to the fact that we just do not collect taxes. We do not collect enough taxes to pay for the programs that we are spending on an annual basis. So 70 percent is due to the fact of those tax cuts. And those tax cuts, quite frankly, were not even very good; they are haphazard. They were used to buy votes and to make everybody think they had gotten a tax cut, but when you look at the tax packages and what has happened to us as a Nation in order to invest in our future, they were very poorly written and really do not do very much for our overall economy. But this deficit problem that we see on this chart, every year we are spending more than the moneys we are taking in in Washington, D.C. That is a problem because it adds to our debt. It is a problem because this just keeps growing and growing. Our debt is now over $7 trillion, and no one seems to mind here in Washington, D.C. We can give you tax cuts, we can spend $1.5 billion a week on a war in Iraq, and everything will be fine. When will that happen? Who will pay this debt? Well, sooner rather than later we will, my generation. And then when we cannot get to it, our children. After our children, our grandchildren. This is a major problem for us. The reason it is a problem is because unless you invest in your country for the future, you are going to become disadvantaged economically compared to the rest of the world. What do I mean by that? Every week that we spend $1.5 billion in Iraq, we get nothing back in return, not one little dime on that investment. Meanwhile, we do not invest in education, we do not invest in a health care system, we do not invest in telecommunications, we cannot even pass a transportation bill in this town, we do not invest in new technology. When you do not invest in those things that make you more productive, sooner or later the Chinese and people from India and other places will be smarter, will be better equipped, and will be better able to take over the global economy. We are not investing in our children. We are not investing in ourselves. We are not retraining those people who have lost jobs. We are not helping them. We are not building the next new thing. We are not putting enough money into research because we are not taking in the money at the Federal level because of those tax cuts and because we are spending it on a war that is bringing nothing, no rate of return back to us.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I will just say that the whole issue of Social Security, by the way, pension plans that many of our retirees are on or believe that they are going to be on in a few years, are really due to be lost under the Bush administration. Some of the policies that they have and some of the ideas that they have of really the security, the financial security, of people is really up for grabs with this administration with some of the ideas that they have, but that is another night. We can talk about what they plan to do to the American people on another night. I want to finish off by saying, you know, again, we feel it. You feel it. We feel the difference between what we experienced under President Clinton and what we are experiencing under President Bush. President Bush would have you believe it is because 9/11 happened, and because the terrorists are after us, and because we are now having to spend money in the war. And he is trying to tell you that that is why we have this malaise going on in our economy. I have got news for you. That has very little to do with it. It has to do with the priorities of where you put your money. The priorities should be in investing in America. The priorities should be in trade because we are in a global economy, but in fair trade, not free trade, in fair trade with countries who will not have slave labor competing against us, the American workers. It is about people who hold to promises, if we have trademarks, if we have copyrights, if we have intellectual property. If we spend the money to make a software system, it should not be pirated and copied the next day over in China and then back in our markets to compete against us. But other countries do that, and we sit here as an administration and they do nothing. They do nothing. So they have forgotten to fund education; they are cutting it back, in fact. We have not even begun to get into the whole idea of health care. If you are not a healthy country, you are not going to be a productive country. We have not talked about investing in technology and transportation and in telecommunication. Those are all issues that are important for us. But these issues of not understanding and not standing up to other countries who are mistreating us when we trade is another reason why this trade deficit is against us, and that in return hurts us economically and builds this debt and this deficit. But one of the biggest reasons why we have deficits and why we are adding to the debt is because again this President has told us that we can go to war, that we can do everything, that we should continue to spend, that we do not need to save as a country, and that somehow or another everything is going to work out, oh, and by the way, we do not have to pay taxes. That is his message. Well, we are smart people. Americans, we are smart people. We understand what is going on. The answer is we need to begin to change this, and we need to get our financial house in order. And I thank the gentlewoman for having taken the time tonight to discuss some of these issues.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Well, almost everywhere you look in the economy, if you really understand what is going on, the numbers are not strong; the numbers just are not strong. Again, one of the things we need to do as a country is to invest in our people and invest in our country, make ourselves economically strong, because other countries are doing it. China is investing. They are not spending $1.5 billion a week in Iraq. They are investing in their people, they are building their water systems, their sewer systems, their transportation systems, their telecommunications systems; they are making themselves stronger. That is what countries do in order to bring up their standard of living. Now, I have already told my colleagues that we are really not putting the money into education. Even the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Chairman Greenspan, said the other day in front of our economic committee, after everything he said and we had all kinds of questions, all kinds of things to say, and he kept coming back to the same thing: there is a problem in education in the United States, and if we do not fix education, nothing else matters. That is what he said to us, pretty much over and over: nothing else matters. It is productivity. So we are not investing in education, we have not been able to pass a transportation bill to put people to work in their own communities, building their transportation systems so they can be more productive, so they do not spend as much time in traffic, for example, and those are good-paying jobs. Those are good-paying jobs that spin off other jobs, but we are not doing it from here. Why? Because we are sending the money out. Meanwhile, we are talking about building schools in Iraq and building transportation systems in Iraq, and building water systems in Iraq, but we are really not doing it here in the United States. We are not putting the money where we need to have it put. And, let me also add that we have another major problem, and that is called the trade deficit. The trade deficit. Just earlier this year, when the tariffs came off of textiles with respect to China, our trade deficit went crazy against that country. And it will continue so until we figure out how to invest in ourselves, how to invest in our country, how to collect the taxes and pay down our debt, bring down the deficit every year, so that people will begin to believe us again, that we understand how to run a financially sound household here. I am sure that the gentleman from New York is probably going to talk a little bit about the statistics with respect to trade and what that is doing to us.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. In fact, the Bush administration does try to paint things rosy, but we have to admit, you can feel it out there. You can feel it in towns. You know it. You can feel it within your family. During the Clinton years, everybody was making money. People had jobs. They had good jobs. We could see the economy expanding. As an economist, I will tell you that in business school we learned that there are ups and there are downs in the economy. They are called cycles. A typical business cycle lasts 12 to 14 months. With Clinton in office, it lasted 8 years. There was a reason. He took the hard steps to bring in the money to pay down the debt of the United States. People realized that financially our house was in order, and it was sound, and it was getting sounder. But with Bush, it is completely the opposite. That is one of the reasons why we have an anemic job creation going on. And other figures that they throw out, oh, unemployment is down. Let me tell you why unemployment would be down. After a while when you cannot find a job and you stop looking for a job because there is just not a job to be had in town, you come off the unemployment rolls, you are not considered unemployed anymore. You are just left. You are not in the figures. If you used to have a job that paid $25 an hour and had vacation time and had a pension, had health care paid, and you look and you look and you look for that job, but there is not a job to be had like that, and you are losing your home because you cannot pay your mortgage, and your kids need to be fed, and the only job you can get is to go down to McDonald's or something and get a minimum wage job, that happens, guess what, you are no longer unemployed. You are no longer unemployed. That is why when they say unemployment is going down, what they mean is people are underemployed. They are taking whatever job they can find, without pensions, without medical health care for their families. These are not the same jobs that they used to have, that we used to have. That is why we feel it. We feel it in America. We know. Our gut tells us things are not as good today as they were back then under the Democrats.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Benjamin Mendoza, Sr., owner of Kelly's Body Shop in Santa Ana, California. Kelly's Body Shop was opened in 1978 by three separate owners but was then bought in 1994 by Mr. Mendoza who consolidated its ownership. Over the past 12 years, under Mr. Mendoza's ownership and strong management skills, Kelly's Body Shop has become one of the most successful businesses in Santa Ana, almost tripling its production and revenue in 2001. Mr. Mendoza considers it the mission of Kelly's Body Shop to provide quality, timely and satisfactory repairs and services to all of its customers and the people of Santa Ana, California. It is for these reasons that on June 15, 2005, the California Small Business Association awarded Mr. Mendoza a Small Business Award for his contribution and dedication to the city and people of Santa Ana. Kelly's Body Shop is an example of a successful business in California that continues to give back to its community. I believe that Mr. Benjamin Mendoza, Sr., will continue to expand his commitment to the communities he serves.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would first like to thank my friend from Virginia for bringing up this legislation today as well as the distinguished Republican leader for allowing it to be considered under unanimous consent. I would also like to extend my thanks to the ranking member of the Government Reform Committee and my fellow Californian for his support, and, of course, our leader, the gentlewoman from California. Mr. Speaker, Disneyland is the treasure of the 47th Congressional District of California, and it is also a national treasure. Its doors first opened 50 years ago, on July 17, 1955. This bill commemorates the anniversary, which will be celebrated this weekend in my hometown of Anaheim, California. The bill also celebrates the extraordinary life of its creator and visionary, Mr. Walt Disney. Since Disney introduced his lovable Mickey Mouse to the world in 1928, his creations and his legacy have been a joy and an inspiration to this country and to every corner of the globe. Disneyland and the world of Disney, of course, have gone far beyond its humble beginnings. Disneyland, itself, has grown from a single theme park with one hotel into a full-scale resort with two world-class theme parks; 2,200 hotel rooms; and 40 restaurant and retail locations. And it is Orange County's leading employer, directly employing 2,000 individuals and supporting an additional 45,700 jobs. It is, therefore, my pleasure and honor to recognize the 50th anniversary of Disneyland, for as we say in Anaheim, it is the happiest place on Earth. I thank, again, my colleagues for allowing me to offer this legislation today.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I intend to withdraw this amendment, and the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) has been kind enough to agree to engage in a colloquy with me on the issue of International Military Education and Training, or IMET, funding for Vietnam. I strongly support the IMET program. Sitting on the Committee on Armed Services, I understand that it is a vital tool for furthering regional security cooperation and promoting United States interests overseas. Vietnam held off on agreeing to participate in the IMET program for quite a while because they were concerned about scrutiny of their human rights record, and those concerns are well-founded. Vietnam is responsible for a broad range of human rights abuses, including the repression of ethnic minorities, detention and torture of political dissidents, and the repression of religious freedom. The U.S. designated Vietnam as a ``Country of Particular Concern'' in 2004 because of its violations of religious freedoms. With this designation, Vietnam joins a club including Burma, China, Iran, and North Korea. So, should the United States provide IMET for these countries? Why should Vietnam be any different? The Vietnamese military has reportedly been involved in numerous cases of human rights violations, including violence and brutal suppression of the peaceful Montagnard people in demonstrations in April of 2004. Providing humanitarian assistance to a country is one thing. Establishing trade relations is yet another. But military assistance such as IMET requires an even higher standard. Why would we want to establish military relations with a repressive regime, one in which our potential counterparts are directly involved in that repression? I think Vietnam should not be eligible for IMET assistance until it has demonstrated a willingness to treat all its citizens with the fundamental dignity and respect that they deserve. Can the chairman provide me with assurances that Vietnam's human rights record and the record of its military in particular will be taken into consideration as part of Vietnam's eligibility for IMET funding?

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his interest in the issue, and I am glad to hear that our policy towards Vietnam will not ignore human rights objectives. I sincerely appreciate the chairman taking the time with this important matter. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill which I am pleased to see includes an additional $20 million for the Department of Defense Family Advocacy Program. In an era of extended and repeated deployments, our military families are under more strain than ever before and the services of the Family Advocacy Program are desperately needed. DOD has made progress in its efforts to prevent domestic violence, but I hope that some of this additional funding will also be used to strengthen intervention programs which are still in need of improvement. As important as the Family Advocacy Program is, let me stress that it is only one part of the total domestic violence prevention and response effort envisioned by the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence in its 2003 final report. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the future to ensure that the recommendations of the task force are fully implemented and that our military families get what they deserve. I would like to thank the subcommittee chairman and my good friend, the ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), for recognizing that there remains significant work to be done on this issue and for making the safety and well-being of military spouses and children a top priority in this bill.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my firm support for the amendment offered by my colleague Ms. Velazquez and for continuous and increased funding for the Small Business Administration 7(a) loans programs. Designed as a public-private partnership, the 7(a) program helps small businesses that otherwise could not obtain a commercial bank loan. By minimizing the risk to lenders, the SBA's 7(a) loans program secures access for small businesses to the affordable capital they need to start, develop and flourish. 7(a) loans are the most widely used SBA program. These loans provide critical funding for start-ups, real estate acquisition, business expansion, recapitalization, working capital, and machinery and equipment purchase. The 7(a) loan program has proved to be an insightful and successful initiative. Just in 2003, these loans benefited more than 70,000 small businesses. And over the last decade, they provided resources for over 424,000 small businesses. Today, 7(a) loans provide 30 percent of all long-term loans for small business lending. Unfortunately, the budget under consideration today, fails to provide the resources that small businesses in this country require to continue flourishing. It fails to restore funding for the SBA's 7(a) loan program and to decrease the harsh conditions that small businesses confront to access affordable capital. I would remind my colleagues of the critical importance and contribution that small businesses represent for our country. Small businesses are the most important driving force of our economy. But they require access to capital in order to continue as the catalyst for the U.S. economy. The rationale behind the 7(a) program is that of investment, cooperation and success. It is a national partnership for growth, productivity and welfare. For all these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, which will benefit all Americans.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res, 27, a resolution withdrawing the U.S. approval of the WTO. While there are legitimate disagreements about how world trade is organized, and how trade agreements are negotiated, I think that it is important to have a forum and structure for international trade. And that's the World Trade Organization. Let's not overlook the fact that in the 10 years since the WTO's inception, we've seen global tariff rates fall and U.S. exports rise. Moreover, ninety-seven percent of our international trade is with other WTO nations. Withdrawing from the WTO would upset relations with these important partners and markets. That being said, the WTO is by no means a perfect institution. It is important that we are having this debate today. In the ongoing Doha round of trade negotiations, the U.S. and our global partners have the opportunity to substantially improve the WTO by reaching agreements on service negotiations, the reduction of tariffs and non-tariff barriers, and the authority of the WTO dispute resolution system. We need to see these negotiations through to a satisfactory end. Nevertheless, despite its imperfections, the WTO provides a stable and predictable global trading system that benefits the U.S. both economically and strategically. And although I will be watching the Doha Round with keen interest, I support U.S. participation in the WTO and therefore oppose this resolution.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Chairman, I rise today to express my disappointment at the under-funding of the Commodity Supplemental Food Program under the Agriculture Appropriations bill for FY 06. The Commodity Supplemental Food Program is a federal program designed to improve the health of senior citizens, pregnant women and children whose income is not enough to pay for nutritious food. Through this program, seniors, pregnant and breastfeeding women, and children younger than 5 in 34 States in this country have access to a monthly basket, which provides them with basic food, such as milk, rice, pasta, juice, canned vegetables, meat and fish, and cheese. Each basket is designed to satisfy the specific needs for people who often have to choose between purchasing food and satisfying other necessities. Each basket has the purpose of assisting elder people to stay healthy and active, and children to grow healthy and productive. Inadequate funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program would result in the removal of more than 75,000 people currently participating in the program. Seniors, women and children in poverty cannot wait until next year to get adequate funding for the food they need. For these reasons, I recommended to the Committee that funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program be increased to $148 million. Unfortunately, the House appropriation falls far below the amount necessary. I can only hope that my colleagues in the other Chamber will approve the adequate funds to avoid this social catastrophe. By approving increasing fund for this program we will show seniors, women and children in need, that we care and work for them.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 7, 2005, I was unavoidably absent due to a previous commitment. Had I been present and voting, I would have voted as follows: on rollcall No. 228: ``yes'' on Final Passage of H. Con. Res 44; on rollcall No. 229: ``yes'' on Final Passage of H. Res. 282.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this bill because, as a member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Committee on Armed Services, I can tell the Members that people are the most precious resource we have in our Armed Forces. As we get closer to Memorial Day, many of us here in Congress will go home and talk about how important it is to support our troops and our veterans, and that is a fine sentiment, and I agree 100 percent. But what does Congress actually do to follow through? Our obligation to support our troops by no means ends when they separate from their branch of service. Yet in the age of spiraling deficits, some folks in Washington seem all too willing to forget the promises that we have made to our veterans. The Veterans Administration is chronically underfunded every year, and it is struggling to provide the basic services and benefits that veterans have been promised. The President's proposed VA budget, for example, would have significantly raised out-of-pocket health care expenses for many veterans. That was his so-called increase, by increasing fees to our veterans. And I am glad that this Committee on Appropriations saw to it that we would not raise the out-of-pocket costs for veterans. That is not the acceptable answer for the VA funding problems. The answer to the funding problem is to adequately fund the VA in the budget so that the veterans will receive the kind of care that they were promised when they signed up to defend our country. While I am pleased that the Committee on Appropriations saw fit to increase VA funding from the wholly inadequate amount requested by the President, I am very disappointed that the efforts of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our ranking member, to provide significant additional funding, $2.6 billion, for our Nation's veterans, financed by reducing the tax cut for the very richest Americans, that all of this was blocked by the Republican majority. As a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, I readily advocate the importance of fiscal responsibility in government, but let us not do that on the backs of our veterans.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak about our Nation's military space programs. But first I would like to offer my sincere thanks to the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, and particularly the gentleman from New York (Chairman McHugh) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), ranking member of the HASC Military Personnel Subcommittee, for their hard work and support on another issue, that of revising the sexual assault statute in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the UCMJ, language included in this bill adopting a modern complete sexual assault statute that protects victims, empowers commanders and prosecutors, and improves the good order and the discipline of the Armed Forces. It offers military prosecutors a clear definition of sexual assault and refined tools for effectively prosecuting sexual offenses. It also affords increased protection for victims by emphasizing acts of the perpetrator rather than the reaction of the victim during the assault. As I said several months ago, we are at a critical juncture in dealing with sexual assault in the military. And I am thrilled to see that Congress is taking a major step to help with these problems in the military. Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss our Nation's military space program. Last year, I offered an amendment in committee regarding the Near-Field Infrared Experiment, or what we know as NFIRE. NFIRE would have fired a kill vehicle from its host satellite at an incoming intercontinental-range ballistic missile. The Missile Defense Agency would have tried to narrowly avoid a collision only through split- second timing, but admitted there was a nontrivial chance of intercept. I objected to the use of a kill vehicle flying from a host satellite because it basically would have been a de facto test of space interceptor technology. I felt strongly then, and I still do today, that we should have a coherent policy in place before we start conducting tests of weapons in space. Congress needs to be an active participant in the shaping of that policy. I am pleased that the Missile Defense Agency decided against including a kill vehicle on the NFIRE satellite, and I appreciate their reconsideration of the NFIRE test. I draw the NFIRE matter to the attention of this body because I think MDA's reconsideration was at least partly due to the recognition that this Nation needs to have a space policy in place prior to making decisions about testing or placing weapons in space.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California for introducing this very important and necessary amendment. Members of the Armed Forces are entitled to quality of life equal to that of the Nation that they are pledged to defend. Female military servicemembers and military dependents are stationed overseas, and they deserve the same rights as their counterparts who are stationed here in the United States. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, agree or disagree with the merits of reproductive freedom, the fact remains: women of the United States have a constitutional right to these services. Military women should not be forced to go to off-post medical facilities where language barriers and questionable conditions can be insurmountable obstacles. Nor should they be forced to arrange for leave and military transport to return stateside, requiring the intensely personal reason for their leave to be, at best, an open secret, if not outright common knowledge. If your daughter or your wife or your sister or friend had to make this tough reproductive choice and was stationed overseas, do you believe that, as an adult woman, they should be required to disclose this information to their commanding officer? Would you want to put her on a plane, alone? Our servicewomen and their dependents deserve better. This amendment allows military personnel and their dependents serving overseas to use their private funds to obtain safe, legal abortion services in overseas military hospitals. No Federal funds will be used. This amendment will not violate host country laws, nor does it compel any doctor who opposes abortion on principle to perform one. It will, however, open up reproductive services at bases and countries where abortion is legal. Current law treats the women who so bravely defend our country like second-class citizens in terms of their legal right to have an abortion. And this injustice needs to end. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rights of our servicewomen and dependents abroad. And again I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) for introducing this amendment.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for yielding me this time, and I rise today in support of the thousands of women serving their country bravely and honorably in the armed services today. Two weeks ago, in the Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services, there was an amendment put forward by the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) and it was wrong, and I told him it was wrong; but they passed it. A week ago, they changed it because it was so bad. And I told him, I do not even know what we are voting on, and yet the majority passed it. Today, they have a third amendment, because it was wrong and it did not make sense. This one, we can live with. It is just about reporting and reporting to the Congress. But I will tell my colleagues something I believe is true. Not every man nor every woman makes a good soldier. But if a woman can do it, and she wants to do it, and she is good at it, then let her do it. As I have said before, this is not a question of equal opportunity; it is a question of our national security.

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. Stem cells have tremendous promise to treat a myriad of devastating diseases and disorders. Embryonic stem cells can become any cell type in the body, and their promise lies in the ability to tailor-make cellular treatments, heart muscle for heart disease, pancreas cells for diabetes, or nervous system cells for spinal cord injury. Stem cells are relatively new on the research scene; it was only in 1998 that the techniques were developed to isolate stem cells from humans, and we have a lot to learn about how to make the cells develop in the ways that will be essential for therapeutic application. Today, I would like to highlight how the Reeve-Irvine Research Center has made significant head way in making the promise of embryonic stem cells a reality. Work recently published by Dr. Hans Keirstead and his group has shown that they are able to turn human embryonic stem cells into a clinically useful cell type. To use embryonic stem cells for therapy, it is critical to devise ways to cause them to turn into particular cell types. If un- differentiated stem cells are transplanted into the brain or spinal cord, they may become a teratoma, a tumor made of many different cells like bone, muscle, and hair. So, to be useful for therapy, embryonic stem cells must be ``restricted'' to differentiate into the desired cell types. That is, they must be told what specific cell type to turn into as they mature. Dr. Keirstead's group has developed a unique method to create these differentiated cells. Moreover, as report in Journal of Neuroscience, his group has been successful in transplanting these cells into an acute spinal cord injury. Once transplanted, these cells have been able to survive in a living organism, move to areas where they are needed, and do what they are supposed to. The result is a significant improvement in walking ability, at least at an early time point post injury. This finding is proof of principle that human embryonic stem cells can be a viable therapeutic agent. Dr. Keirstead's cells are on the federally approved list. They are among the very few lines that are actually usable, and he is among the very few who have had access to human embryonic stem cells. Dr. Keirstead's progress since 2001 when he received the cells has been remarkable. His group has learned how to maintain the embryonic stem cells, no small feat in itself. They have learned how to transform the cells into differentiated cells, they have learned how to use the cells to treat new spinal cord injury in animals. All this in less than 4 years, and in one lab. Imagine the progress that could have been made with, 100 labs working with embryonic stem cells on not only spinal cord injury but Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and so many others. The Reeve-Irvine Research Center is one of a handful of places in the U.S. that has the know-how to use embryonic stem cells. With more lines available, we could readily address issues related to paralysis by developing new cell populations, like motor neurons, or by testing the therapeutic quality of other lines. In addition, more researchers would be able to devote their talents to this area of research. My father is suffering from Alzheimer's. I know that my family would do anything to find a cure for this horribly degenerative disease. I would ask my colleagues, would your family do any differently? Would the families of your constituents do any differently? The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 before Congress today, if passed, would open the door to our country's brightest scientists to find the treatments that Dr. Keirstead's work suggests are really there waiting to be discovered. I urge my colleagues to support this research and to vote for H.R. 810.