Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple and, hopefully, should be very noncontroversial. It passed this body last year by voice vote, and I am asking for support again this year. This amendment is good for education, the budget, and our national security concerns and it supports our students. It is good for the spread of democracy. Let me explain why I say that.

This amendment prohibits funds in this bill from being used to enforce new regulations, promulgated in June of 2004, that severely restrict and in many cases eliminate opportunities for United States students to study abroad in Cuba.

The revised travel regulations take our policy towards Cuba in exactly the wrong direction. These regulations are plain punitive and undemocratic. They simply do not make sense for Americans. Regulations that have already denied and will continue to deny many American college students the basic opportunity to gain experience, knowledge and insight through study abroad in Cuba should not be funded.

This is an issue of freedom for our students to travel and gain invaluable experience and educational opportunities that only international study abroad programs can provide.

After the House passed this amendment last year, students and institutions from across the country were

very relieved. They want the opportunities to conduct their studies, learn about other cultures, and make independent judgments for themselves.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply moves students closer to what they really deserve. And make no mistake, isolating Cuba and preventing these important contacts between students and Cuba will not change the Government of Cuba.

In 1963, let me remind you that Attorney General Robert Kennedy sought to lift the entire U.S. travel ban to Cuba. He believed that the travel ban was inconsistent with our views, our views of a free society. More than 40 years later we are still debating an outdated policy from a bygone era, but this is just a very simple amendment that will speak right to our American students. We need this policy to allow our young people to change ideas, values and experiences.

These types of exchanges are what will truly bring change to Cuba. Our students are the best ambassadors for democracy. Also, Mr. Chairman, money spent enforcing these regulations, I think this money would be better spent tracking down terrorist finances.

Before the new regulations were enacted, the Miami Herald reported that the Office of Foreign Assets, which, of course, is the department responsible for tracking the finances of terrorists, international narcotics, and weapons of mass destruction, has six more times personnel, I could not believe this, six more times personnel working on Cuba licensing than tracking bin Laden.

Now, OFA officials are tracking students and Cuban American families instead of focusing on terrorists.

Today, I stand against squandering our resources to enforce these ineffective, outdated policies as they relate to our students and to our education. And I ask Members to support the ranks of American students to be educated, to travel abroad, to gain experience and to make judgments for the themselves.

American students are allowed to visit and participate in educational opportunities and programs in China and in other countries which we may or may not agree with, and so I believe that our own young people deserve this right. It is basic to their educational desires if they choose to do this.

Finally, I want to remind my colleagues that last year the State Department and the 9/11 Commission both underscored the importance of our youth in spreading American values. Patricia Harrison, Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, stated before the Committee on International Relations, on which I serve, she said, One of our greatest assets in public diplomacy is the American people themselves. Programs, she said, that which bring Americans and foreign citizens in direct contact, can and do have tremendous positive impact.

The recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report stated that we must rebuild the scholarship exchange and library programs that reach out to young people and offer them knowledge and hope. I cannot agree more. It is in our best interest to allow our youth to spread the message of American values and hope so that people can see for themselves who America is and what we stand for.

This amendment is straightforward, Mr. Chairman, and should not be controversial. We are talking about mainstream family values, education, freedom to learn and the freedom to export our American principles.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Lee amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, let me comment with regard to the gentleman's presentation, and I thank the gentleman for calling to our attention the letter. But I am opposing U.S. foreign policy. And it is my contention that we should not allow letters from foreign citizens to dictate those types of foreign policy measures that the United States of America should be making in terms of our educational programs for our American students.

This is about American students and their right to participate in educational programs. It has nothing to do with any of the issues that this letter addresses.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for his leadership and for helping us correct a failed 40-year policy which does not work.

This is about the right of American businesses, the right of Americans to travel, to create jobs, to create a level playing field for our country and the world economy.

Let me just respond to the gentleman from Florida. I think what the gentleman just talked about in terms of Cuba's black population, I need to remind the gentleman of the prison population here in America of African Americans. Look at the health disparities and look at the unemployment rates.

I think we need to understand that we who are supporting this amendment are talking about the right of Americans to travel, to create businesses, to create business opportunities and jobs. This is about giving Americans the opportunity to develop their own perspectives and own opinions. It has nothing to do with incarceration rates, and it has nothing to do with our own incarceration rates in America.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is woefully underfunded. It is unfortunate that the administration and many of our Republican colleagues seek to cut programs that help the most vulnerable in our country.

Fairness in housing should not be on the chopping block. This is America. That is why we are here to offer the Green-Lee-Hastings- Grijalva amendment. This amendment would restore much needed funding to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Fair Housing Initiative in the amount of $7.7 million, equal to the fiscal year 2005 account level.

Mr. Chairman, the Fair Housing Initiative Program and the Fair Housing Assistance Program are essential programs at HUD. They handle over 3.7 million fair housing complaints annually. Housing should be a basic right of every human being, and no one should be discriminated against. It is really just that simple.

HUD's Office of Fair Housing works daily to address the concerns of fair housing, civil rights and the disabled. But they still have a long way to go to gain the public confidence in the enforcement of civil rights laws, protecting minorities and people with disabilities.

Currently, and let me just mention this, because a lot of our colleagues do not know this, but discrimination complaints against the disabled are on the rise. A HUD report found that some landlords profiting from federally subsidized housing discourage, they discourage and they continue to discourage, disabled people from applying for housing through discriminatory practices.

Mr. Chairman, this is just simply unacceptable. It is wrong. How in the world can we allow anyone in this country, any landlord, to discriminate against the disabled?

The Department of Housing and Urban Development has a responsibility to every person in this country to ensure that there is no housing discrimination in America. We must work with HUD and the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity to ensure that they have the resources and the authority needed to protect minorities and the disabled in public housing and prosecute those, yes, prosecute those, who have violated the civil rights of these individuals.

Mr. Chairman, I close by reminding this Congress that many people who are discriminated against, who are seeking fair, equal and quality housing are in our own congressional districts, in your congressional districts and in my congressional district. This is not a partisan issue, and should not be.

We must make sure that we restore the $7.7 million needed. We need really more than $7.7 million. Let us at least restore that in the fair housing accounts to ensure that housing is fair and accessible for all. That is a basic, basic principle in terms of our American democracy that we should always adhere to. We should not discriminate, and we should fund every program that allows for nondiscrimination efforts. We need to make sure that this $7.7 million is restored.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, and I ask my colleagues to support the Green-Lee-Hastings-Grijalva amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to first start by thanking the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and our ranking member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for their hard work on this bill and for making sure that it is a bipartisan bill. I also thank them for their very difficult work in establishing the priorities in terms of our foreign policy funding priorities. I know that every year they are given, I believe, an inadequate allocation and that they both wish that they could do more to meet our foreign assistance priorities.

But, Mr. Chairman, I am compelled to come to the floor today and offer this amendment because every year the global HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria pandemics kill over 6 million people combined. Just imagine that, over 6 million every year. That is more than the number of people who die from war, famine, terrorism or natural disasters each year combined. That is really quite mind-boggling. What is worse, each of these three diseases is completely, completely preventible and treatable; and in the case of tuberculosis and malaria, they can be completely cured.

So while we have begun to focus our efforts and funding with regard to this pandemic, I believe that we cannot afford to drag our feet and just let 6 million people die like this year after year. When do we draw the line and say enough is enough and we are going to escalate our efforts and put more resources into this pandemic?

We cannot in good conscience, Mr. Chairman, ignore this human tragedy that unfolds around us each and every day. We must act, and we must act in a bold fashion.

That is why today I am offering an amendment to add $600 million in emergency funding to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, adding to the $400 million already in the bill, and bringing our total contribution to $1 billion.

Unfortunately, last week $100 million was actually cut from the Global Fund in the Labor-HHS bill by this body. The Global Fund is one of the most powerful tools that we have as an international community to combat these three diseases. In fact, we created the framework for the Global Fund back in 2000 with the passage of the Global Aids and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000, which was signed into law by President Clinton.

And we provided the very first contribution in 2001 to help attract further financing from other donor nations.

Today, the Global Fund is a model for what the future of international development may look like. Designed strictly as a financing instrument, the Global Fund seeks to attract, manage, leverage, and disburse funding to support locally-driven strategies to combat AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. To date, the Global Fund has approved $3.4 billion for over 300 grants in 127 countries.

However, this year the Global Fund faces one of its biggest challenges: renewing over the $1.8 billion in existing grant agreements and approving upwards of $1 billion in new contracts, and this is still not enough. With the renewing of these contracts, there is just not enough money.

Without increased support from the United States and other donor nations, the fund may be forced to cut back on funding new grants and, worse, may be forced to cut crucial funding for people already on anti- retroviral therapy. Mr. Chairman, that would quite frankly just be totally disastrous.

Around the world, momentum is building in support of increased funding for the Global Fund and other international development initiatives. Two weeks ago, France announced it that would double its Global Fund contribution through 2007. Last week, Japan pledged $5 billion in new funding to help Africa combat AIDS, TB, and malaria, with a sizable contribution going to the Global Fund. And, with the upcoming G-8 summit taking place in Scotland next week, and with the British Prime Minister's focus on a huge new development initiative for Africa, the United States can and must do more. By providing $600 million in emergency funding, my amendment would take that first step.

Mr. Chairman, because my amendment is an emergency spending request, it will exceed the foreign operations subcommittee's 302(b) allocation and, therefore, I know that that is subject to a point of order. But I would hope that given the gravity of the pandemic, that my colleagues would consider this as a moral effort, strictly a moral effort to those who desperately need our help. Given the magnitude of the deaths and the pain and the suffering caused by HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria, and the devastation that these diseases leave behind, I would ask the Chair to reject the point of order.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The goal of the Lee-Conyers-Kilpatrick-Waters amendment is to limit the transfer of free guns and other defense articles to the Government of Haiti which have been used to wreak havoc on the Haitian people. Many in the general public and here in Congress have been under the misconception that there is an arms embargo to Haiti. However, since 2004, close to 3,000 weapons have been transferred to Haiti from the United States and, in all probability, have gone to arm the Haitian National Police force.

This amendment requires a limitation on all transfers of excess property to the Government of Haiti because they are using excess arms and ammunition from the United States to arm criminals in the Haitian National Police force. This amendment specifically would prohibit all arms transfers by the State Department in accordance with all relevant sections of current law.

This limitation is critical, Mr. Chairman, because the people of Haiti are not safe, and they remain targets of political violence, torture, and, in many cases, murder. Unfortunately, too often the perpetrators of this violence are the Haitian National Police. There have been numerous reports in the news and firsthand accounts of human rights' and faith-based groups who have traveled to Haiti and seen the hostile environment Haitians face.

The Haitian National Police are intimidating, murdering, and executing the poor and political opposition with weapons transferred from the United States to the Government of Haiti. This is simply unacceptable. The Government of Haiti has access to weapons for police training and security and have paid for defense articles out of their own budget without our government and this Congress' free transfer of arms and ammunition.

This amendment is basically about accountability and saving Haitians' lives. The United States must not be complicit in helping to arm criminals, and that is why I urge my colleagues to support the Lee- Conyers-Waters-Kilpatrick Haiti arms limitation amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the co-chair of the Haiti task force.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I also want to thank the chairman for supporting this amendment, and I want to assure him that if we need to, in conference, make it explicit that no humanitarian assistance or excess property would be prohibited by this, we will definitely do that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I thank the gentlewoman from New York and the gentleman from Michigan for their support and their very clear statements.

Also, if there are no other requests for time, I want to, once again, thank our chairman for his support and clarify again that the point he raised is certainly a concern all of us have, and we will make sure that humanitarian types of excess property that we all care about in getting to Haiti is excluded from this provision.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Ms. Lee of California

Amendment No. 13: Page 132, after line 13, insert the

following:

prohibition on certain international narcotics control and law

enforcement assistance to the government of haiti

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life and achievements of Dr. Claude H. Organ, Jr., M.D. of Oakland, California. An internationally renowned surgeon and medical educator, Dr. Organ was the second African American to serve as president of

the American College of Surgeons. Throughout his career, he was known for his tireless efforts to ensure the inclusion of African Americans, women and other severely underrepresented minorities in the training and practice of surgery. Dr. Organ passed away in Oakland on June 18, 2005 at the age of 78.

A native Texan, Dr. Organ attended public school in Denison, Texas and received his B.S. degree from Xavier University in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Though he was initially accepted at the University of Texas medical school, he did not attend after school officials discovered that he was black and offered to pay his expenses if he enrolled elsewhere. He instead chose to attend Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, Nebraska, where he received his M.D. in 1952, and where he later completed his surgical residency.

After serving as a Lieutenant Commander MC in the U.S. Navy Medical Corps from 1957 until 1959, Dr. Organ joined the faculty of the department of surgery at Creighton University in 1960. There, he rose to the rank of professor and chair of the department, and later became a professor of surgery at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, where he served from 1982 until 1988.

Dr. Organ came to Oakland in 1989 to establish and lead the University of California, Davis/University of California, San Francisco East Bay Surgery Department. In that role, he became known for his work in building the department into a highly respected training program, and made a concerted effort to recruit and support African American students, particularly African American women, who were studying to become surgeons. Throughout his career he oversaw the training of dozens of surgeons, all of whom looked to him for guidance as a teacher and a mentor, and strived to emulate the professional and personal excellence that marked his career and conduct.

While practicing medicine and educating residents, Dr. Organ also served as a member of a number of professional and academic medical associations. He was the editor of the prestigious Journal of American Medical Association's Archives of Surgery for 15 years, and in 1999 was honored by the American College of Surgeons with its highest honor, the Distinguished Service Award. Over the course of his career, he authored or co-authored more than 250 scientific articles and book chapters as well as five books. In addition, Dr. Organ spent many years serving as president of the Society of Black Academic Surgeons, president of the Board of Trustees of Xavier University, and as president of the Urban League of Omaha.

On Wednesday, June 22, 2005, the family and friends of Dr. Claude H. Organ, Jr. will gather to pay tribute to his extraordinary life. In addition to his myriad scientific and academic contributions to the surgical field, Dr. Organ leaves a legacy of excellence in his commitment to ensuring equality of opportunity for all surgical students and residents. Dr. Organ's work as a healer, a teacher and a mentor changed countless lives, and I salute and thank him for all that he has given to people of the 9th Congressional District, the Bay Area and our country.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise to say this: you know for the sake of $140,000 tax cuts for those making more than a million dollars, Republicans continue to force working men and women, our children, and the poor to pay, putting the priorities of the wealthy over basic investments in education, health care in our communities. It is immoral; it is just downright wrong.

This bill widens the disparities which the Congressional Black Caucus is trying to close. The Republican leadership is totally detached from the realities on AIDS funding, by freezing funding for the Ryan White AIDS Care Program and ending the Global AIDS Fund Contribution. Critical support for HIV/AIDS patients is totally denied. They are detached from the reality on human services. Slashing the community services block grant program in half only hurts the poorest who have no other place to turn. They are detached from the reality of job training, cutting adult job training programs by $31 million, which makes it much more difficult for the 7.6 million Americans who are out of work to get ahead.

The Republican leadership is detached from the reality on youth services. Cutting services for successful programs by 36 million young people not only undermines our efforts to help our youth and become successful in life, but it helps generate a whole cycle of hopelessness and despair.

Let me just say, I think the Republican leadership is totally detached from the reality on education. Cutting funding for No Child Left Behind by $806 million only shortchanges public education. This bill fails to live up to any standard of morality. In fact, it really does take morality to a new low.

If this bill is to reflect our values of compassion, Mr. Chairman, it needs to stop taking from the poor and giving to the rich. This bill does nothing to close the glaring disparities put forth by the Congressional Black Caucus that we are trying to close.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his leadership and for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage today in a colloquy with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), our ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. And let me first thank the gentlewoman for her consistent leadership on so many national security issues.

Let me just say briefly that I appreciate this opportunity to discuss an issue very briefly that is of critical importance, that is, making sure that the United States Government is not involved in violating the will of any people anywhere in the world which duly elects a government through democratic means.

In 1982, Congress passed the Boland amendment, which prohibited the Federal Government from using taxpayer dollars for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Nicaragua. I offered an amendment to this intelligence authorization bill that broadens this concept to ensure that our Federal intelligence dollars are not used to support groups or individuals engaged in efforts to overthrow democratically elected governments. Unfortunately it was not made in order.

In an ideal world, we would not specifically stipulate this, but events in Haiti and more recently in Venezuela have led me to wonder whether we need to codify this straightforward, nonpartisan position. So I think that we must do all we can not only to support

the spirit of democracy throughout the world, but also to ensure that it is allowed to flourish and to grow.

I would like to ask the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) if she has any thought about how we need to move forward, basically because I believe again, as I said earlier, that such actions fly in the face of our own democratic principles.

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her comments and her attention to this issue. I look forward to working with her.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for her leadership and for really seeing the wisdom and knowing that this is a defining moment to bring us all together in our Out of Iraq Caucus.

The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) has recognized the fact that there were those who voted for the war and those who voted against the war, but we know what is going on with our young men and women now, and so the gentlewoman decided to bring us all together to try to help us figure out how to get out of this mess. I think the country owes the gentlewoman a debt of gratitude.

Also, to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), I just want to say to her, sometimes she is the lone voice in the wilderness. Sooner or later, though, if you call it the way it is and stick with your principles and stick with what you believe is right, people will hear you; the country will hear and the world will hear, and I think that is what we are seeing now. So I just want to thank her for her leadership as well.

Mr. Speaker, so often we get caught up in the rhetoric of our positions and what we believe, and oftentimes forget about the human face and the toll of

such a war, such an illegal and immoral war.

The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) so eloquently talked about the callousness and the insensitivity of this administration toward those who have died and who are risking their lives, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did not acknowledge the sacrifices and the pain that a courageous mother, Cindy Sheehan, must be feeling.

As the daughter of a veteran of two wars, I feel this, and I understand this, and I think that our administration, whether they have children in Iraq or not, I think that they should stand up for these young men and women and feel their pain and try to help figure out how to first say, I am sorry; and secondly, say, let us begin to figure out how we develop a plan and begin to bring our young men and women out of harm's way.

Mr. Speaker, that is how we really support our troops. Empty rhetoric does not work when young men and women are dying.

So let me just say, I visited the troops, I guess it was probably a couple of years ago at Walter Reed Hospital. This is the untold story of this war. There are thousands of our kids who will be disabled for life, thousands of our young men and women who lost their limbs, who cannot see, their faces have been blown off. It has been a financial difficulty; they have come back to the lack of financial and economic security. Some of them are losing their houses, they have lost their jobs, their credit cards. And we serve on the Committee on Financial Services and we know how the credit card companies are messing with them in terms of their debt and the bankruptcy issues.

They come back and, upon their return, they see that they have very little in terms of veterans benefits. They have long lines they have to wait in. The mental health services are almost nonexistent. We know what post-traumatic stress syndrome is. Our young men and women need mental health services like they have never needed it before. Yet, we cannot get legislation nor funding to provide this kind of care for our kids, and I think that is a shame and a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, I went to a funeral of a young man who was killed in my district in the war, and it was unbelievable. This young man was a proud soldier, and I was so proud of him, because he was determined that he was going to go and serve our country and wave the flag and make sure that democracy prevailed in Iraq, and he honorably died, and it was very sad. But his family told me that while they may not have agreed with what he wanted to do in terms of going into the military, that they supported him going; they loved him and they missed him, but they wanted to get more involved in trying to help us figure out a way to ensure that no more kids are killed like this. I hear this over and over and over again. I think all of us here hear that over and over again.

But yes, we went and we bombed the heck out of Iraq, so we have I think a duty and a responsibility to help rebuild and reconstruct the country. But as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) said, we need to first begin to develop a plan to get our young men and women and bring them home, get them out of harm's way, because they are the targets of the insurgency. I do not believe there is going to be any stability as long as the Iraqi people believe and see that their country is occupied by U.S. forces. So we are putting them and keeping them in harm's way.

So we need to bring them home, and we need to figure out a plan to do that as soon as possible.

Also, let me just say that in the Committee on International Relations, a committee upon which I serve, we had authorized or reauthorized the State Department Reauthorization Act a couple of weeks ago. So I tried to offer an amendment for withdrawal, and I think there were 12 or 13 votes for that. But then I decided that since the President and since Secretary Rice continued to say that we do not want to permanently occupy Iraq, we do not want permanent bases, I said, well, let me do an amendment to the State Department authorization bill and all it would say is we just do not intend to have permanent bases in Iraq. Well, I think, on a bipartisan vote, it got about 15 votes there.

Mr. Speaker, I share that because we hear the administration saying, no permanent presence, no permanent bases; yet we see just the opposite in terms of funding and appropriations and beginning to create this scenario to build permanent bases. So we have to ask the question: What is really going on?

We know that the administration misled the American people and the world that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We knew that then. Now, I think the Downing Street memo and the other facts are coming out so that the public will understand what we said then, we knew that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda and 9/11 and Iraq.

We knew that then, but now, thank God for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the hearings that we are holding. We are beginning to educate the American people so that they know what we knew. And I think people are listening, people are beginning to say was this worth it? Was this worth it? Was this worth over 1,700 of our young people being killed, countless number of Iraqi civilians being killed, $300 billion- plus, and I think Defense Appropriations just had another $45 billion in it, that was not with my vote, but to that, some voted for the other day, and so where does this end? Where does this end?

And so I just wanted to say tonight in closing that we need to insist that the administration announce that they will develop a plan for bringing our young men and women home, announce a plan for stabilizing and to help bringing in the international community to stabilize Iraq, and this means the international community in a real way.

And we need to make sure that the administration says to the American people that there will be no permanent bases in Iraq. Because, if we do that, we are going to be up to trillions of dollars in terms of this war. And I hate to see that happen, because here we have people who are homeless, we have young kids who need a decent education, and we need affordable housing, we need a universal health care system.

And we need to take care of some domestic needs. With the war going on like this and with billions and billions of dollars being spent, especially if we intend to have permanent bases, we will never meet our domestic needs and the responsibility that we owe to our American citizens.

So I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for her leadership and for making sure that all of us come to this floor and call it like it is and tell the truth, and begin to beat that drum and begin to wake up America so that we can save our kids from being bombed and from the suicide attacks and from the violence that they are dealing with in such an honorable way.

These kids are courageous, they deserve our support, and they deserve our support in a real way. And that means our support by insisting that they come home so they can be with their families and get the type of care that they need.

I have noticed this administration is so detached, totally detached from the impact and the ramifications of what they have done in terms of their policy, their warmaking policies. Remember, Secretary Rice was one of the chief architects of this war. Perhaps it is very difficult for her to realize that being one of the chief architects of this war, that Cindy Sheehan lost someone that her policies were responsible for.

So I think not only should we encourage Secretary Rumsfeld to meet

with them, we should insist on that. The Defense Department, the Pentagon, and the White House, they owe these families an audience. They owe them an audience.

And the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) asked the questions that would be very difficult, I think, for this administration to respond to if, in fact, Cindy Sheehan asked those questions. But I believe they have paid the supreme price and they deserve the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State and all of those who crafted this war, they deserve to meet with them to hear from them, and these parents need that audience and that is the minimal thing that we should insist on.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise to engage in a colloquy with a great leader, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), who, of course, is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations.

First, I just want to thank the gentleman for the very hard work that he consistently does for the security of our Nation. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss an issue that is of great importance, and that is ensuring that our Federal defense dollars are not used to support groups or individuals engaged in efforts to overthrow democratically elected governments.

Mr. Chairman, in an ideal world, we would not need to have to explicitly stipulate this, but events in Haiti last year and, more recently in Venezuela, have led me to wonder whether we need to codify this straightforward, nonpartisan position.

Furthermore, the administration has committed its second term to spreading democracy around the world. This is an important sentiment, Mr. Chairman, but we need to be sure that if this administration, or equally any future administration, does not agree with certain democratically elected governments, that it does not use the Department of Defense funds to overthrow those democratically elected governments. Such actions fly in the face of our own fundamental democratic principles.

I would like to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) if he could comment on this and what his views are with regard to the ideas that we are presenting today.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to thank the gentleman for his attention to this issue and so many issues that are important to our Nation. I also look forward to working together and especially will request his help in developing a working definition in the United States Code because now, quite frankly, there is no working definition for ``democratically elected governments.'' We have been searching legal databases, and I am frankly quite surprised that no such definition exists in the U.S. Code.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on June 16, 2005 during rollcall vote No. 268. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on final passage of H.R. 2862, the FY06 Science, State, Justice, Commerce appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to send my deepest condolences and prayers to the family, friends and colleagues of my good friend Brenda Pillors, especially to her partner Mr. Marwan Burgan and my good friend and colleague Congressman Ed Towns from New York.

I first met Brenda at the very beginning of her congressional career over 25 years ago when I was a congressional staffer to my predecessor Representative Ronald V. Dellums and she was a Congressional Black Caucus fellow. Her legacy of service to this institution, the CBC, and the 10th Congressional District of New York is one of the most memorable careers during a truly historic era. Serving as legislative assistant and eventually as legislative director, Brenda was instrumental

when former Representatives Shirley Chisholm and Walter Fauntroy traveled to visit Haitian refugees in detention camps. My recollections of their great work continue to inspire my activism for rights of Haitians.

As one of the last two Chisholm staff still working on the Hill, Brenda played a leadership role, in coordinating the Congressional Black Caucus memorial service that Congressman Towns and I organized earlier this year. Brenda and I sat next to each other during Shirley Chisholm's funeral in Florida, and I will always remember those moments, sharing our grief and our memories of Chisholm's legacy. Looking back at that time, I never imagined that we would be mourning another great woman only six months later.

Brenda Pillors was solid as a rock. Humble, caring, wise and considerate, the knowledge, presence and spirit of Brenda will be missed by all. And her respect, her dignity, and her beauty will be remembered by many. My thoughts and prayers are with all who knew and loved her.

Mr. Chairman, first let me thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and I want to thank him for helping really to make some sense out of this entire U.N. reform effort with his substitute.

I rise in opposition to the deeply flawed Hyde bill and in support of the Lantos substitute.

I am glad that we are having this debate on the floor today. I think it is a very healthy debate. I do not think anyone will argue with the fact that the United Nations is in need of reform, but I question the end goal of this overall process with regard to the Hyde legislation.

Is the effort real reform, or is it the Republican leadership's, and I think it is, a very cynical attempt to maybe begin to send the message that we would like to help dismantle or, even worse, begin to pull back or withdraw from the United Nations. I say this because it seems very much in line with public statements of the administration's nominee for the United Nations Ambassador, Under Secretary John Bolton.

As many have observed, the nomination hearings have shown just how much disdain Under Secretary Bolton has for the United Nations and the U.N. system. What message does this send to our allies when such a nomination is made?

Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that many of my colleagues on the other side are vocal critics of the United Nations, but I think the Hyde bill turns criticism really into contempt. It ensures that we return to arrears with the United Nations by requiring withholding of our dues for any one of a number of inflexible reasons. In effect, it is my belief that the Hyde bill sets up any U.N. reform effort to, quite frankly, fail. There simply is no reason to link much-needed U.N. reforms with the withholding of dues in such a drastic fashion.

Mr. Chairman, we should work to reform the United Nations, but, at the same time, also work to support the important programs and the initiatives at the U.N. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, contrary to Under Secretary Bolton's assertions, the U.N. has made a difference in keeping the peace and in diffusing conflicts and easing regional tension. But there is more that needs to be done. The Lantos substitute acknowledges this.

Our efforts should be working with our friends to promote peace and security throughout the world. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, the United Nations is needed now more than ever. How can our commitment to peace and democracy be taken seriously when the administration's nominee has been quoted as saying such things as, ``The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If you lost 10 stories today, it would not make a bit of difference.'' Or, ``If I were redoing the Security Council today, I'd have one permanent member because that is the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world.''

It is a dangerous and cynical message to be sending on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. I find it incredible, Mr. Chairman. It is very incredible that at the time when we have nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction pointed in all directions, that we would simply be looking to pull back from the family of nations. It is simply a terrible message to be sending to the rest of the world. In an interdependent world like ours, international organizations like the United Nations should be recognized as an indispensable partner not only in the administration's stated policy of spreading democracy throughout the world, but also in helping us in securing our national security goals.

So please support the Lantos amendment. It does achieve what we need to do with regard to United Nations reform rather than trying to blackmail in pursuit of political interests.

Mr. Speaker, how can we spread democracy abroad if it is being, quite frankly, abused here in the House?

The Republican abuse of power appears to no know bounds. Last Friday the Republicans literally cut off debate on the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act. Apparently, it was not enough to bar witnesses critical of the PATRIOT Act, or to force Democrats to fight to get a critical witness in front of the committee, or to schedule that hearing for a day when the House was not in session. When dissenting voices started to speak, the hearing was abruptly ended, and the microphones were turned off.

Critics of the PATRIOT Act say that it represents the threat of unaccountable, undemocratic government, and the behavior of its Republican supporters here only serves to prove that point and is proof of that.

Hubert Humphrey once said that ``Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate.''

I hope that this Republican abuse of power will be ended before it is allowed to undermine our freedom.

Once again, how can we spread democracy abroad when it is being abused right here at home in the House of Representatives?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this very misguided $409 billion defense appropriations rule and bill. As the proud daughter of a veteran of two wars, I believe that our Nation is best defended by funding priorities that truly make our Nation and world safer. This bill, I am sorry to say, does not do that.

What does it say about our priorities when Congress appropriates $45 billion more for the unnecessary war in Iraq, without any accountability, direction, or exit strategy or even a plan to end this permanent occupation? Does the President plan to have permanent bases in Iraq?

We are in an impossible situation. Taken to war under false pretenses, our troops have become the very rallying points for the insurgency they are trying to contain.

This administration continues to stonewall what is a very simple question: What is the plan to bring our troops home? The purpose of this funding bill is to provide for our national defense. Yet in the same way that this war has made us less safe, the funding priorities in this bill are for weapons systems and military contractors, and billions of additional funds are unaccounted for in waste, fraud, and abuse. This only undermines our national interest.

Mr. Speaker, we must get our funding priorities right. And the American people need to know what the President's plan is. What is his strategy? What does he consider success? The information that the Pelosi amendment is requesting is absolutely necessary to begin what the American people are demanding, and that is the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq.

It is incredible to me that we are sacrificing our funding needs for our critical efforts here in America, such as for housing and health care and education. Once again, we must get our funding priorities correct. We must get them straight. We must know what the President's plan is. We must know what he intends to do. The Pelosi amendment gets that information. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of the artistic and political icons of our

time and a longtime personal friend, Oscar Brown, Jr. Throughout his life, Oscar defied convention not only by blurring the lines between art and activism, but by consistently and passionately articulating a message of hope, freedom and equality for all people. Oscar passed away on May 29, 2005, in his hometown of Chicago, Illinois.

A performer from an early age, Oscar was known for acting his songs as much as for singing them. Through the popularity of songs like ``Brown Baby'' and ``Signifyin' Monkey,'' he became known for his use of art as a way to celebrate African-American culture and to denounce racism.

I met Oscar during the early 1970s in Oakland, California. I was amazed at his profound sense of history, his insight and clarity on the root causes of racism and economic exploitation, and his ``bold defiance'' of all that was corrupt. He often spoke of his deep love for and dedication to his family. A man of tremendous strength, dignity and sensitivity, Oscar Brown, Jr. was a man for all seasons.

Oscar wrote a number of plays that addressed the issues of cultural politics and social division, and made those expressions even more powerful through his regular inclusion of Chicago youth in their casts. One of his best known plays was ``The Great Nitty Gritty,'' which focused on gang problems in Chicago and featured a number of local teenagers onstage and in the production process.

Oscar remained a cultural force in Chicago throughout his life, and is credited with inspiring or influencing countless artistic careers. His bright spirit touched and improved the lives not only of those he knew and mentored, but of the countless others who found hope, purpose and pride through his work.

I was in Los Angeles on December 4, 2004, and learned that Oscar was performing locally. My spirit led me to go see him perform, not knowing that this would be the last time I would see and hear this great genius. After a magnificent performance, I went backstage and we talked and reminisced, and in his unique way, he gave me his candid critique of the United States government and the critical issues facing us. He was excited when I invited him to be my guest at the upcoming Congressional Black Caucus dinner in September, and again talked about his love for his family.

On June 24, 2005, Oscar's family and friends will gather to celebrate his extraordinary life. Oscar was a visionary thinker, a cultural legend, and political guru. My life, like the lives of many, has been enriched by my friend: the great, the magnificent, Oscar Brown, Jr. He will be deeply missed.