Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, last week I had the opportunity to attend the 15th International AIDS conference in Bangkok, Thailand, my third conference since I have been in this body. As the only Member of Congress to attend this incredibly important event, I want to take a few minutes this evening to brief my colleagues and the American public about my experience.

Each time I have returned from one of these conferences, I am quite frankly filled with great hope but also a very profound realization of just how much it is that we have left to do.

Having spent a few days last week among the international leaders on the global pandemic, I can tell you that the international community is very, very disappointed by the rate of progress, to put it mildly, about the United States' failure to deliver on projected funding and programs. In fact, that point was unfortunately reinforced by Secretary Tommy Thompson's decision to allow a delegation of only about 50 people from his Department of Health and Human Services to attend the World AIDS Conference this year, down from about 236, 2 years ago, when we held the conference in Barcelona, Spain.

It is shameful that they have prevented many of our very best and brightest scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health from gaining new insights from their colleagues in the international community. It is also tragic that this administration's unilateralist and ideological tendencies have now spread to the fight against HIV/AIDS. It is morally wrong to allow right-wing ideology to trump science when it comes to the administration's HIV/AIDS prevention policies.

Their policies set aside 33 percent of all funding for abstinence- only programs which deny access to lifesaving education and technology, including condoms. Simply put, this is irresponsible. It is unethical and it is inhumane.

I believe it is unethical because their AIDS treatment policies are really focused more on protecting patents and big pharmaceutical companies rather than the urgent need to get fixed-dose combinations into the hands of those who need them, 98 percent, 98 percent of whom lack access to treatment. The emphasis should be on saving lives.

It is disingenuous that the administration has proposed cutting our support for the Global Fund by over 60 percent this coming fiscal year, proposing a measly contribution of $200 million rather than the $1.2 billion that is needed. We need to encourage the sharing of information by our scientists and researchers.

We need to do a lot better with coordinating our bilateral programs with national governments, the NGO community, and our field missions.

We need to simplify our anti-retroviral treatment programs by purchasing fixed dose combinations, drugs that are already available; and we must standardize our treatment programs according to the wishes of each individual country.

We have to fund the fund.

Although I applaud the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the gentlewoman from New York's (Ranking Member Lowey) efforts in doubling the administration's request for funding for the Global Fund by providing $400 million, I was disappointed last week when a point of order was raised with regard to an amendment which I offered which actually killed an amendment that would have raised our contributions to $1.2 billion this year, which is what we need to get started.

The fund is the very best way to get the money out into the hands of the NGO community immediately. It takes a multilateral approach, and it has the

potential to leverage vast new resources. We are the wealthiest country in the world. We should be leading the charge. The Global Fund is the best vehicle to show that type of cooperation and provide for the quick release of this money.

Perhaps most importantly, we must stress and implement a balanced, comprehensive HIV prevention policy that includes abstinence, being faithful, and condoms.

Mr. Speaker, we must also go further. As United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan said so eloquently in his remarks during the opening ceremonies on Sunday, we must place, he said, a special emphasis on reducing the cultural, social, economic, and political factors that increase the vulnerability of women and girls to HIV.

On July 9, just before leaving for Bangkok, I introduced H.R. 4792, The New United States Global HIV Prevention Strategy to Address the Needs of Women and Girls Act of 2004, with 54 original cosponsors. This bill would do just that. We need a focused effort on women and children. Women and children need the assistance of this country and a comprehensive strategy to address this pandemic.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 391, 392, and 393 on Monday, July 19, 2004, I was unavoidably detained due to inclement weather and delayed air service at Dulles International Airport, and unable to cast my vote.

Had I been present, I would have voted the following: On rollcall 391, the Viet Nam Human Rights Act of 2003, I would have voted ``no;'' on rollcall 392, concerning the importance of the distribution of food in schools to hungry or malnourished children around the world, I would have voted ``yea;'' and on rollcall 393, the Northern Uganda Crisis Response Act, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, due to my attendance at the World AIDS Conference in Bangkok Thailand, I regrettably missed a number of rollcall votes last week.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall Nos.: 370, 369, 366, 364, 363, 362, 361, 359, 358, 357, 356, 355, 354, 353, and 349. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall Nos: 368, 367, 365, 360, 352, 351, 350, and 348.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the exceptional achievements of retiring Port of Oakland Executive Director Tay Yoshitani.

Since his graduation from the United States Military Academy and the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration, Mr. Yoshitani's distinguished career has included the direction of the ports of several major cities. After serving as the Deputy Director of the Port of Los Angeles for six years, he became the Director of the Port of Maryland Administration in 1995. There he served with distinction until joining the Port of Oakland in 1998 as Deputy Executive Director, and later becoming Executive Director in October 2001.

As the Executive Director of the Port of Oakland, Mr. Yoshitani directed a staff of over six hundred employees and oversaw the management of the Oakland International Airport, the Oakland Seaport, and the historic Jack London Square. He has done an outstanding job managing not only the functions of the Port itself, but has also consistently demonstrated his commitment to sustainable development as a business goal through his pursuit of social equity and environmental responsibility in addition to economic vitality. In keeping with these principles, he established a new division at the Port, the Social Responsibility Division, which ensures greater access to jobs and business opportunities for the local community. Furthermore, Mr. Yoshitani is responsible for the establishment of a variety of other ground-breaking initiatives, such as the Public Art Program and Policy, the Port's sustainability Task Force, and the Annual Good Neighbor Awards, which recognize individuals and organizations delivering outstanding community service.

During his tenure as Executive Director, Mr. Yoshitani has also presided over the completion of a number of infrastructural improvements to all three Port divisions. In addition to supporting the Estuary Plan by initiating real estate and waterfront development in underutilized areas, he also presided over the completion of enlarged marine terminals, as well as the initiation of the construction of the Oakland International Airport's Terminal Improvement Program, the largest aviation project in the airport's 77-year history. Furthermore, under Mr. Yoshitani's direction, the Port has received over one hundred million dollars in Federal funding for various infrastructural improvements.

On July 14, 2004, Mr. Yoshitani will be honored in Oakland, California on the occasion of his retirement. I would like to take this opportunity to commend his exceptional achievements not only in the areas of Port economic growth and development, but also for his role as a leader in the areas of social responsibility and sustainable business practices. Mr. Yoshitani has distinguished himself as an exceptional business and civic leader, whose contributions have greatly enriched our community.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that today I rise, having just returned yesterday afternoon, from the 15th International AIDS Conference in Bangkok, Thailand, as the only Member of this body in attendance. This was the third International AIDS Conference which I have had the privilege to participate in: several years ago, Durban, South Africa; following that Barcelona, Spain; and now Bangkok, Thailand.

My experiences at these conferences, especially very recently in Bangkok, confirmed the vital need for this amendment, which designates $800 million in emergency funding for the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. Together with the $400 million which the base bill provides for the fund, my amendment would increase the total United States contribution to the fund to $1.2 billion this coming fiscal year.

Based on its projection of need, the fund estimates that it will require approximately $3.6 billion in fiscal year 2005. By bringing the total United States contribution to the fund to $1.2 billion, this amendment would provide one-third of that figure as laid out in the Global AIDS legislation. The funding will help treat an additional 2 million people for tuberculosis and an additional half million people for AIDS.

Having spent this week, well, the last few days, actually, among the international leaders on the global pandemic, and also with people living with the virus, I can tell my colleagues that the international community is quite disappointed, to put it mildly, about the United States' failure to deliver on promised funding to date; and this amendment would help restore what many see as really the lack of United States leadership and credibility on the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

This point was reinforced by Secretary of Health Tommy Thompson's decision to allow a delegation of only approximately 50 people to attend the World AIDS conference this year, down by 236 the year before in Barcelona. It is shameful, I believe, that this administration has prevented many of our best and our brightest scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health from gaining new insights from their colleagues in the international community and from sharing the research they have conducted on this pandemic with their colleagues in the global community.

It is tragic that this administration's unilateralist and ideological tendencies have now spread, unfortunately, to the fight on HIV and AIDS. It is morally wrong to allow right-wing ideology to trump science when it comes to the administration's HIV/AIDS prevention policies. Their policies set aside 33 percent of all funding for abstinence only. That denies access to lifesaving technology, including condoms. Simply put, this is irresponsible, unethical, and inhumane. Emphasis should be science based, not ideological.

It is unethical, I believe, that the antiretroviral treatment policies are focused more on protecting patents and big pharmaceutical companies than on the urgent need to get fixed-dose combination into the hands of those who need them. Emphasis really should be put on saving lives.

And I think it is pretty disingenuous that the administration has proposed cutting our support for the Global Fund, given all these enormous problems that we have, to a measly contribution of about $200 million, rather than the $1.2 billion, which is desperately needed.

I must thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and our ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), for their unwavering commitment to helping to increase this funding and actually doubling the funding for this Global Fund twice as much as what the initial bill provided for. But, Mr. Chairman, I think we must go further in providing the resources.

We have a battle before us to get this devastating and deadly pandemic under control. And why the fund? This fund is the best way to get the money out into the hands of the NGOs immediately. It is a multilateral approach. For example, $1 billion could leverage up to $9 billion to $10 billion from the private sector, from additional donor countries, and from foundations. We are the wealthiest country in the world. We should be leading the charge. This Global Fund is the best vehicle to show that type of cooperation to provide for the quick release of this money.

I met with too many people, Mr. Chairman, who are living and dying with this disease. For example, I participated in one meeting with women leaders. There were maybe 50 to 75 women in the room. Over half of them were living with the virus. One woman happened to share a story with us, and she indicated that she had recently gotten married. She did not know that her husband was HIV infected. Four months later, after her marriage, lo and behold she has the virus.

I could go on and on with stories about orphans and vulnerable children; stories about women who cannot negotiate abstention; stories about women who are subjected to violence; stories about women and children that need help in terms of antiretroviral treatment. The quickest way for us to address this pandemic is to get the money out, and to get it out quickly.

The fund is headed by Secretary Tommy Thompson. It is directed by Dr. Feachem, based in Geneva, Switzerland. They know what they are doing in terms of establishing the criteria, and they know how to get the money out quickly. I would say the bureaucracy is not as stringent as it is through the bilateral programs. So, quite naturally, the money can get to where the people are more quickly and in a way that is more effective.

So I would just ask for consideration of this very modest amendment. It is only $800 million more, and it will save millions and millions of lives.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), ranking member on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs. I want to acknowledge her very stellar work and her commitment to addressing this pandemic in a very real way.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) who has been sounding the alarm about this pandemic for many, many years. I thank him for his leadership.

Offered By: Ms. Lee

Amendment No. 22: In title II, at the end of the item

relating to ``child survival and health programs fund'',

insert the following:

In addition to the amount provided in the preceding

paragraph for a United States contribution to the Global Fund

to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, $800,000,000 for

such purpose, to remain available until September 30, 2006:

Provided, That such amount is designated as an emergency

requirement pursuant to section 402 of S. Con. Res. 95 (108th

Congress), as made applicable to the House of Representatives

by H. Res. 649 (108th Congress).

Mr. Speaker I rise today to talk about an urgent need in regards to our Global HIV/AIDS Initiative--the need to address the disproportionately growing effect of HIV/AIDS upon women and girls.

Today there are an estimated 40 million people infected with HIV/AIDS throughout the world.

For a number of reasons, women and girls are biologically, socially, and economically more vulnerable to HIV infection than men, and today they represent more than half of all individuals who are infected with HIV worldwide.

In sub-Saharan Africa the story is even worse, as women and girls make up 60 percent of those infected with HIV/AIDS.

Today we are undoubtedly facing a dramatic feminization of the global pandemic.

Why are women more vulnerable?

In many cases, women still have inadequate information about how HIV is transmitted, how it can be prevented, and how it can be treated.

Cultural and social norms in many developing countries, and in some cases even here in the United States, prevent frank and open discussion about sex and HIV/AIDS.

But perhaps worst of all, women are most vulnerable because of the continuing legal, social, and economic inequalities that contribute to, and are the result of persistent and culturally ingrained gender discrimination throughout the world.

This gender discrimination is responsible for devaluing the rights of women to attend school, earn an independent living, control their own bodies and choose their own sexual partners, retain control over their own property, and speak their minds.

And with the loss of each such right, women become more vulnerable to HIV infection.

Studies show that without an education, women are at a much higher risk of acquiring HIV/AIDS.

Without an independent source of income, women are forced to rely on men for food, clothing, shelter, etc., thus perpetuating an unequal power balance in their relationships.

Without being able to control their own bodies and choose their sexual partners, women are frequently treated as commodities to be bought or sold, without rights under the law.

This perpetuates a culture that accepts rape and violence against women as something that is commonplace, and without punishment.

And women who have no right to refuse the sexual advances of men cannot control the circumstances of their sexual encounters and are unable to insist on abstinence, faithfulness on behalf of their partners, or the use of condoms.

Without the ability to own or inherit property, women are in constant danger of being kicked out of their own homes, and losing control of their families most basic productive resources.

Ultimately, women who fear the consequences of speaking openly are powerless to advocate for any of these rights and are consigned to accept a second class status in their societies.

In the context of our moral tradition and our common humanity, that is just plain wrong.

But when it comes to combating HIV/AIDS, for women it can be deadly.

Working jointly with my colleagues in Congress and the Administration, last year we established the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief to treat 2 million people, prevent 7 million new infections, and care for 10 million individuals.

But Mr. Speaker, I believe that if we do not aggressively target the needs of women, and work to eliminate the factors that contribute to the increased vulnerability of women to HIV, we will never reach our targets.

That is why today, along with 54 of my colleagues, I am introducing a bill entitled the New United States Global HIV Prevention Strategy to Address Women and Girls Act of 2004.

By recognizing the inadequacy of our current HIV Prevention efforts, which focus on the ``ABC'' approach of Abstinence, Being faithful, or using a Condom, my bill would seek to revise our current HIV Prevention strategy to place an emphasis on the needs of women and girls.

In doing so, my bill would require the President to develop a comprehensive, integrated, and culturally appropriate HIV prevention strategy for each of the countries receiving assistance to combat HIV/ AIDS that includes:

Increasing access to female condoms--including training to ensure effective and consistent use. Accelerating the de-stigmatization of HIV/AIDS--as women are generally at a disadvantage in combating stigma. Empowering women and girls to avoid cross-generational sex and reduce the incidence of child-marriage. Reducing violence against women. Supporting the development of micro-enterprise programs and other such efforts to assist women in developing and retaining independent economic means. Promoting positive male behavior toward women and girls. Supporting expanded educational opportunities for women and girls. Protecting the property and inheritance rights of women. Coordinating HIV prevention services with existing health care services--including mother to child transmission programs--and family planning and reproductive health services. Promoting gender equality by supporting the development of civil society organizations focused on the needs of women, and by encouraging the creation and effective enforcement of legal frameworks that guarantee women equal rights and equal protection under the law.

At the same time, my bill would also seek to balance funding for our HIV prevention initiatives by stripping out misguided language in last year's Global AIDS bill that guaranteed that 33% of our prevention funds would go towards abstinence only programs.

Instituting a blanket requirement for abstinence spending in our global prevention programs sends the message that religious ideology coming out of Washington DC is driving our global HIV/AIDS programs rather than sound science and the reality of the situation on the ground.

Our policy should be to provide flexibility in our global HIV prevention strategies to support a variety of culturally appropriate prevention initiatives based on need and the specific HIV infection trends and gaps of each country.

In the best interests of improving the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and achieving our goal of preventing 7 million new infections, I believe that we must make this change.

And we must also make this change because we owe it to all the women who are left vulnerable and powerless because of social, political, legal, and economic inequalities that allow HIV to fester and spread.

If we do not address these underlying issues in a comprehensive manner, then I fear that our efforts to prevent the disease from spreading will only be in vain.

I invite all my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation, and I urge the International Relations Committee to move swiftly to take it up.

Mr. Chairman, let me just rise today in strong support of this amendment and thank the sponsors, especially the gentleman from Vermont for his leadership on this issue. Last year the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) came to my district where hundreds came to express opposition to this provision of the very onerous legislation that we are talking about before us today. Under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, the FBI has the power to search for any tangible things, including books, records, papers, documents, and other items, in any location after showing minimal justification. This punishes all Americans and really has nothing to do with tracking down terrorists.

This amendment would allow the FBI to follow the procedures already in current law to obtain warrants to retrieve records for terrorist- related or criminal investigations. But come on. Families should not be afraid to check out children's books for fear that they may be investigated for collaborating with terrorists.

This amendment would restore and protect the privacy which is afforded to us by our first amendment, the rights of library and book store patrons which were in place before the USA PATRIOT Act. Those that did not know this was written in in the dark of the night, this was written in, we now know. Today we have a chance to get back the rights guaranteed by our Founding Fathers.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlemen from Missouri, Mr. Akin.

Not only is this amendment redundant and unnecessary, because the existing language is already contained in last year's Global HIV/AIDS bill, but this amendment is also an extension of a bad piece of public health policy.

Mr. Chairman, of course we don't support the legalization of either of these practices, and we would never allow the taxpayers money to be used to advocate or support for their legalization.

But to deny funding to an organization, any organization mind you, because it doesn't have a specific policy that is opposed to either of these practices is counterprodutive to achieving our long term goals of reducing the spread of the disease, and treating those already infected.

How can an organization that is seeking to mitigate the risk of infection for sex workers reach out to these women when we require them to have an affirmative policy in place that would turn these very women away from receiving education and treatment for HIV/AIDS?

It's not like the women who get involved in the sex trade are doing it as a matter of choice. They are doing it to survive. They are forced to sell their bodies to put food on the table for themselves and their families. For them, it is survival sex.

Last year I traveled to Zambia on a Congressional Delegation, where I had the opportunity to meet some of these women at Chirundu, one of the border crossings into Zimbabwe.

I can tell you, the women who live in the surrounding community at Chirundu are economically destitute with no employment opportunities, they are forced into the commercial sex industry to survive.

What incentive will such a woman have to learn about how to protect herself from contracting HIV, or how to avoid spreading it, if every organization she turns to rejects the very basis of her situation, of her existence? How can she trust an organization that believes that prostitution is a choice for her?

Just take a look at the case of Thailand. On Sunday the 15th International AIDS Conference will take place there, and I think we should take a look at how Thailand confronted its own HIV epidemic among its sex workers.

The government wasn't saying one thing and doing another by proclaiming its opposition to the commercial sex industry.

It was actively trying to reach out to sex workers and to make it easy for them to come into a health clinic, get information about HIV/ AIDS, get access to condoms, and mitigate their risk of getting, or further spreading the disease.

Like the case in Thailand, we should be reaching out to these women, not turning them away. We should also be helping them to get an education, start a business, and hold down a job.

The amendment we passed last year was a flawed piece of public policy, and by extending this policy, this amendment we are considering today is equally flawed.

I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership in sponsoring this very common-sense amendment.

The point is very simple and clear. Not one dime, not one penny of U.S. tax dollars should be spent to regulate how much soap and toothpaste Cuban Americans can send to their loved ones. Very basic.

I know that many want to topple the Castro government. Regime change, of course, has been central to United States foreign policy under the Bush administration. I happen to believe, however, that we should end the embargo, allow Americans the right to travel, which is their right, and also allow families to embrace each other. Forty-five years of an embargo against an Afro-Hispanic country 90 miles from our shores is fundamentally wrong and immoral.

The United States has normal relations with China. Even the Cuban dissidents believe that ending the embargo makes sense for that cause. This amendment does not even do that. All it does is allow soap and toothpaste and gift boxes to be sent to Cuban people. We should support this modest amendment and stop punishing ordinary people because of a backwards foreign policy.

Mr. Speaker, as always, I remain steadfastly committed to the security of Israel, the safety of its citizens and its right to exist. I am unable to support this resolution, however, because I believe it will contribute to further instability in the region. Further, it will not successfully resolve the underlying conflict. I strongly believe in Israel's right to exist and I have been and remain committed to the two state solution set forth in the Roadmap for peace; as former Prime Minister Rabin said: You must make peace with your enemies, not your friends. One cannot impose peace through unilateral actions.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us deviates from that Road Map. It does so in a manner that is not calculated to end the violence against Israelis. It does nothing to promote meaningful negotiations, and further undermines the role of the United States as an honest broker--our most important role. It is not for Congress--or for the Administration--to prejudge or predetermine the question of Israeli settlements or the final boarders envisioned by a final status agreement; that issue should be negotiated by the Israelis and Palestinians. For these reasons, I am unable to support this resolution. I fear that the policies it reflects will lead to greater harm and not to a resolution of the conflict--nor safety for civilians--that its sponsors may believe.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill. National defense is important to all of us. This bill, however, will neither ensure our defense nor promote the general welfare, two of the central obligations of this government.

It is truly mind-boggling, Mr. Chairman, that with just one short hour of debate, this House will pass a bill to spend $392 billion for the Pentagon's regular budget in FY 2005.

Amazingly, that sum does not include, $25 billion for the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we all know that the Administration will be back for more, much more. They are misleading the American public about the price tag of the unnecessary war in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, the $392 billion this bill expends is a 7 percent increase over last year's bloated defense budget and comes at a time when federal deficit and large tax cuts have left us with scarce resources. I have to ask: will our education, health care and housing budget receive a 7 percent increase? The answer is NO.

This is an absurd and tragic case of misplaced priorities. And our entire country pays the price. It simply makes no sense to spend our nation's scarce resources on Cold War era weapons systems. It makes no sense to spend another $9 billion on missile defense, a 17-percent increase over last year. This represents another heavy installment on what may be a bottomless pit of spending.

This spending comes at real costs. To put this in perspective, last year, according to the National Priorities Project, the people of California paid $859 million in tax dollars that were spent on missile defense.

That money could have paid to allow another 106,000 children to enroll in Head Start. It could have extended healthcare coverage to nearly half a million children. It could have created over 12,000 new units of affordable housing. Or it could have hired nearly 15,000 elementary school teachers. And this year we are spending 17 percent more. That's a misplaced priority. And it is not the ticket to national security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the historic achievements of California Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally, on the occasion of the thirty-year anniversary of his election as the first African American Lieutenant Governor in California and the United States.

Assemblyman Dymally's distinguished political career began in 1962 when he was elected to the California State Assembly. After serving for four years, in 1966 he became the first African American to be elected to the California State Senate. Following his service as a State Legislator, Dymally again made history by becoming the first elected African American Lieutenant Governor in 1974.

In 1980 Dymally ran for Congress representing South Los Angeles County, and became the first foreign-born black to serve in the United States Congress. While serving in the 97th through 101st Congresses, he was Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and of the Subcommittee on Africa within the Committee of Foreign Affairs. After retiring from Congress in 1992, he has served in numerous academic positions and remained an active participant in international affairs. In 2002 Assemblyman Dymally returned to the California State legislature, where he currently represents the fifty-second district.

On June 24th, the Oakland Black Caucus honored the anniversary of Assemblyman Dymally's historic election to the California Lieutenant Governorship. I would like to mark this occasion by commending the exceptional political achievements of Assemblyman Dymally, and by recognizing the broader social and historic implications of his extraordinary career.

By remaining committed to public service and education throughout his life, Assemblyman Dymally has contributed enormously not only to the State of California, but also to the global community. I want to express my deep appreciation and respect for Assemblyman Dymally and his relentless pursuit of equality and social justice for African Americans and all people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution.

First, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, for introducing House Resolution 676, which recognizes and honors the 40th anniversary of congressional passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and for her work in getting this bill on the House floor today.

H. Res. 676 recognizes the advancements we have made in the 40 years since the Civil Rights Act was passed, and reaffirms the work we need to do, not only to retain what progress has been made, but also to continue to move toward greater social existence and inclusion.

But I want to take a step back for a moment and trace some of the history that led up to the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

Many of us can remember what it was like in America back in the tumultuous era of the 1960's. It was a time of social unrest marked by riots and protests across the country.

Growing up in this era, we were all galvanized by the passion and commitment of our civil rights leaders who worked to end America's immoral practice of discrimination.

The 1960's and the decades preceding were marked by unprecedented resistance to racial segregation and discrimination captured by the `freedom rides' throughout the south, the Lunch counter sit-ins, forced school integration in segregated schools, Supreme Court cases challenging Jim Crow practices and the individual stances that our parents took at their jobs and in their neighborhoods.

Here in Washington, A. Phillip Randolph and Bayard Rustin, along with a young activist from Georgia by the name of John Lewis, coordinated and organized a non-violent march on Washington on August 28, 1963 bringing more than 200,000 people to the Nation's Capital to hear Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and other speakers and to demand the dignity, justice, and jobs that were promised by the government, and to have their economic and political concerns heard.

To be Black in America at the time meant you had no voice in the government, could not attend good schools, could not get good jobs, and in short, could not live a free life.

For over 100 years after slavery was abolished, Blacks and other minority groups were relegated to second class citizenship.

And because of all these facts, the March on Washington was nothing short of revolutionary in the precedent it set as the culmination of a national social movement.

But the real test of the movement was whether it could accomplish change.

As Bayard Rustin wrote of the March in his magazine, Liberation in 1963:

``What counted most at the Lincoln Memorial was not the

speeches, eloquent as they were, but the pledge of a quarter

million Americans, black and white, to carry the civil rights

revolution into the streets. Our task is now to fulfill this

pledge through nonviolent uprisings in hundreds of cities.''

It was on February 10, 1964 that Congress finally passed an unprecedented and highly contentious bill to support and protect the civil liberties and rights of all people.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 in many ways turned a new page on the history of our nation, and all people, regardless of race, class or gender, were acknowledged as equal citizens of our nation.

Signed into law on July 2, 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed segregation in businesses such as theaters, restaurants, and hotels.

It banned discriminatory practices in employment and ended segregation in public places such as swimming pools, libraries, and other public facilities.

And while it is often misconceived that the Civil Rights Act only affected the lives of Black Americans in the 1960s, this landmark legislation also protected the rights of women for the first time in history.

But as we all know, by itself the legislation could not transform the hearts and minds of those who truly believed in segregation. Only time could truly do that.

Yet the injustices that Blacks and other minorities faced with the tacit approval of the government were finally over.

But today our March, our struggle, and our cause are not over.

Today we are still attempting to understand and counteract the ramifications of the physical and mental enslavement which our ancestors were subjected to.

Profound inequalities remain imbedded in American society.

For example, black women are less likely to have breast cancer, but are more likely to die from this terrible disease because of the discrepancies in our health care system.

And according to the AFL-CIO, the average 25-year-old working woman will lose more than $523,000 due to unequal pay during her working life.

Facts such as these indicate that our work is far from complete.

Our Nation's capital, the icon of our collective American legacy pays sparse tribute to the African forefathers of this country and our Civil Rights leaders.

Despite the fact that this country was built on the backs of slaves, there are few commemorative statues or paintings that demonstrate as much.

Perhaps most glaringly, there is still no national memorial dedicated to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on our National Mall.

And in this day and age, it is even more important that we continue to fight for our civil right and civil liberties, especially in light of the Patriot Act.

The resolution we are discussing today not only recognizes how far our country has come along, but it also praises the sweat and blood that was sacrificed to make sure that we got here.

This commemorative resolution is a testament to the shift in this country toward the spirit of inclusion and equality.

It also reminds us of how much we have left to do.

Our great society is highly regarded around the globe because of our laws, which ensure the integrity of our constitution and perpetuate the belief that all men and women are created equal.

The legacies of those who marched, protested, and died for our cause capture the true sentiment of our nation. By passing this resolution we continue to commemorate their struggle, our struggle.

It is the ultimate sacrifice of individuals like Dr. Martin Luther Ling Jr., from which we all benefit.

We must honor their memory by continuing to work to realize their vision.

And today we will honor their memory by passing this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.

I would first like to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr. Hobson, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Visclosky for their work in putting together Energy and Water Appropriations Bill.

I also want to thank both of them for including $35 million in the bill to continue funding the Port of Oakland's 50-foot dredging project in my district in California.

As the fourth largest container port in the country, the Port of Oakland serves as one of our premier international trade gateways to Asia and the Pacific Ocean.

The 50 foot dredging project serves to underpin an $800 million expansion project funded by the Port that will improve the infrastructure at Oakland by expanding capacity and increasing efficiencies throughout the distribution chain.

Current projections indicated that at the conclusion of the project an additional 8,800 jobs will be added, business revenue will increase by $1.9 billion, local tax revenues will go up by $55.5 million, and 100% of the dredging materials will be reused for wetlands restoration, habit enhancement, and upland use within the San Francisco Bay Area.

I'm glad that the Subcommittee understands the importance of this project, and I look forward to continuing to work with the Chairman and Ranking Member to complete it.

Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle); the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner); my colleague, our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller); and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) for making sure that this is a bipartisan bill and for incorporating many of our new policies and ideas into this bill, and ensuring that one provision is included in the bill that I introduced actually back in September of 2003, the Right to Know School Nutrition Act.

Basically, today over 27 million low-income children throughout the nation have come to rely on the national school lunch program and the national breakfast program for a healthy and nutritious meal. Oftentimes this is the only source of nutrition that these kids will receive all day, so it is incredibly important that we provide healthy, nutritious meals to these students and we make sure we notify their parents about what they are eating.

But, believe it or not, when it comes to the issue of irradiated food, food that is bombarded with gamma rays or electrons, there is no requirement in law that schools must notify their parents or their children about what they are eating, or even that the irradiated food was being served in school. This provision of the bill basically notifies parents and children about irradiated food, while providing a possible alternative, if the schools can so provide for that.

So I am very delighted that both the House and the other body have seen fit to include a large part of my bill in this bill. I think it is very important for the health and safety of our children. It is very important that parents and children know that their food is irradiated and have some alternatives for their health. That is basically what it is about.

I just want to thank the chairman of the full committee, the chairman of the subcommittee, our ranking member and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), our ranking subcommittee member, for all of their assistance in this. I fully support the bill, and hope we have a bipartisan vote.