Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, two years ago, we all watched in horror as television cameras brought us the terrible scenes from New York, as we could see the smoke rising from the Pentagon, and as we learned of acts of terrorism and heroism over the skies of Pennsylvania.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends who lost loved ones that day.

September 11th will remain forever seared into our memories. Today, we pause to remember all those who were lost and all those who rushed into burning buildings to try and save those trapped inside.

So may losses, so many funerals, so many families denied even that small consolation.

The losses are so great, it's hard even to comprehend them. One of those lost was Wanda Green, who was a flight attendant on United Flight 93 and a cousin of my chief of staff, Sandre Swanson. I remember Wanda tonight as I remember all those killed that terrible, terrible day.

Most Americans believe that we will face more acts of terrorism. Sadly, I believe they are right.

We have to do all we can to try an ensure our security here at home.

We need to do everything possible to safeguard the world's known stockpiles of chemicals, biological, and, God forbid, nuclear weapons and materials. We need to protect our own plants, bridges, and ports.

And we need to make sure that our first responders have the tools, the equipment, and the training to do their jobs. We ask them to risk their lives for us. The least we can do is to give them the means to do it.

I leave you with the words of Tom Paxton describing both the awful loss and the awesome courage at the World Trade Center and elsewhere that day:

``Now every time I try to sleep I'm haunted by the sound, of firemen pounding up the stairs while we were coming down.''

When we ask men and women to pound up the stairs into the face of death and danger, we must give them every bit of support that might help.

In the memory of all those we lost two years ago today, let us renew our commitment to safeguarding our communities.

My thoughts and prayers to out to the parents and children; husbands, wives, and partners; and family and friends of all those who lost loved ones in those awful events.

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, first let me just say I do rise in strong support of the Waters amendment to protect Californians', Californians' mind you, financial privacy laws and identity theft provisions. I applaud my colleague from California for her leadership on this issue, for identifying a mistake that was made, and really for just trying to correct it in a very rational way. That is what this amendment does. It corrects a mistake that was made. This bill is a bipartisan bill. We all wanted to support it; but coming from California, the gentlewoman has figured out a way that we should support this, and it would be a win-win for all of us.

The FTC, Mr. Chairman, reported on September 3 that 27.3 million Americans have been victims of identity theft in the last 5 years, including 9.91 million people, or 4.6 percent of the population in the last year alone. Now, these are epidemic levels, and we must do everything we can do to prevent identity theft and to help the victims of this horrendous crime. That is why this amendment is so important. It would preserve very important California laws on identity theft. These are California laws.

Let us be clear. If we do not adopt the Waters amendment today, Californians will lose vital identity theft provisions currently provided in California law. Victims of identity theft will lose the right to a free monthly credit report. Victims of identity theft will lose the protection of California's law providing the right to correct a credit report with a police report. Victims of identity theft will lose the protections of California's law requiring credit bureaus to place a fraud alert within 5 business days of receipt of a request from the consumer. And the list continues. In total, seven existing California laws would be wiped out by this bill and another four will probably be

eliminated. It really simply defies logic to kill these existing California protections for the victims of identity theft when we are facing a growing identity theft crisis in our State.

Again, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership. I thank her for offering this fix to this very important bill, and I hope that we all can support this correction of a major error that was made.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, first, let me thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for their diligent work to really make this a bipartisan bill. Of course, I cannot support it as long as it preempts California and that is what it does.

I offer this amendment today on behalf of all Californians and all Americans, really, who deserve and want to take back control of their private financial information. And I want to thank my California colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and all of those who have been working on this very, very important issue and this important amendment.

Mr. Chairman, our amendment would make a major step towards reclaiming consumers' financial privacy by doing the following: First, it protects California's recently enacted landmark Privacy Act; and, secondly, it allows every State to enact financial privacy laws giving consumers in those States similar protections to Californians, which, of course, is the strongest in the Nation, if they so choose, only if they so choose. For those of you who are not fortunate enough to hail from the great State of California and may not be familiar with California's new law, let me just provide a little bit of background.

What does the new privacy law do? It gives consumers the right to stop the sharing of information by financial institutions, unless they meet very stringent criteria. The law requires financial institutions to obtain a consumer's affirmative consent before sharing information with most third parties. It also provides standards for consumers to receive clear notice of their rights.

Now, how did this groundbreaking law come about? Well, it was the result of a long hard fight and it is a major effort by California State Senators, Jackie Speier and John Burton. And I really want to thank them for their tireless effort in working with the financial institutions in California to come up with this arrangement, this compromise, this law which really did result in resounding bipartisan support for the bill SB1, which passed the California Senate by a vote of 31 to 6 and passed the assembly by a vote of 76 to 1.

Yes, I also want to thank Governor Davis for really standing up for California consumers by signing this bill. But it is very important, I believe, to recognize the critical role California consumers played in the fight for new and strong financial protections because in the end it was this broad support and the very hard work of California consumers that pushed the bill forward.

In fact, I want to cite a January California opinion poll to demonstrate the overwhelming popularity for a strong financial protection. Now, the poll found that 91 percent of individuals supported a ballot initiative that will require a bank, credit card company, insurance company or other financial institutions to notify a consumer and to receive a customer's permission before selling any financial information to any separate financial or nonfinancial company. The support was strong regardless of party affiliation: 96 percent of Democrats, 88 percent of Republicans, 90 percent of Independents. Clearly, financial privacy is not a partisan issue.

Now these groundbreaking, popular, hard-won protections which were negotiated with our financial institutions in California are threatened because of this bill before us today. Let us be clear, this bill does preempt California law. And what does that mean? That means that important California protections will just basically be wiped out. In fact, it means that Californians will never see parts of the law that was signed by the governor. And it means that the will of an overwhelming majority of Californians will be overturned by what we are doing today.

We cannot allow that to happen. We have an obligation to stop that and this amendment would do exactly that. And just like we have an obligation to stand up for all of our consumers today, we are standing up for our California consumers. We have an obligation to stand up for consumers, as I said, all across the country so that they have the opportunity to protect and to control their intimate financial details.

Consumers in California are no different than consumers everywhere when it comes to their financial privacy. Strong protections are what they seek and what they deserve.

I want to take a moment to address some of the inflated and really irrational concerns that have been raised about our amendment. It will not bring commerce to a grinding halt. It will not mean an end to affordable mortgages, and it will not leave more minorities without access to credit. It will not put an end to ATM machines, and it will not ruin the credit system as we know it.

It will merely require banks and insurance companies and other financial institutions to ask California consumers before they share and sell their private information. It will merely allow consumers and other States to benefit from similar protections in the future if they determine that it makes sense for them.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from southern California (Mr. Sherman), cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Monterey, California (Mr. Farr), a real advocate for consumers, a great leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a real leader in this Congress in the fight for privacy rights.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), whose diligence on this bill has identified many errors we are trying to correct today.

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

When the Committee rises and we are in the full House, I intend to submit for the Record a letter signed by 55 Democrats and Republicans from California discussing the fact that this law, if passed, would preempt California law, SB1.

Finally, let me just say I want to support this bill, but why would any Representative from California support a bill that wipes out the protections for California consumers that they have worked so hard for, for so many years?

Mr. Chairman, I will include for the Record the list of financial institutions in California that negotiated with our consumers and remained neutral as this bill was signed into law by Governor Gray Davis. I think it is very important that we protect California law, and if other States want to support stronger measures, allow States to do that. As the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) said, this is a States' rights issue. I think this amendment would allow States to enact consumer protections that they deem necessary for their consumers.

American Electronics Association

California Bankers Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Financial Services Association

California Mortgage Bankers Association

Capital One

Citigroup

Countrywide Financial

Farmers Insurance

Fidelity Investments

Financial Services Privacy Coalition

Household International, Inc.

JP Morgan Chase

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me just thank the gentleman from Vermont for his leadership on the committee and for bringing this amendment today to the floor. But I must say that this is a very moderate amendment, it is a very conservative amendment, and I was, quite frankly, surprised he would go for it. But in the spirit of compromise, he did. So, very seldom do I believe that something is better than nothing, but I believe that this is such a fundamental injustice as it relates to our consumers that I had to support this very modest measure.

Quite frankly, a creditor should not be allowed to increase interest rates if consumers are paying the debt according to the agreed upon terms. They should not be allowed to raise interest rates based on payment histories of another debt. That is just fundamentally wrong. When individuals agree to a contract, when a consumer believes that they are doing the right thing and paying their monthly payments, how in the world can they get set up to fail? That is what this does.

An interest rate that jumps from 7 percent to 29 percent, bankruptcy, certainly, will follow if, in fact, this does not fit within the consumer's financial scheme. And generally, the consumer has a financial plan that they have to stick to in terms of payment schedules of debts. And so a huge payment like this is wrong. It would make more sense if the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) had offered an amendment to say what I just said earlier, that a creditor should never be allowed to increase an interest rate on a debt if, in fact, the consumer is paying that debt based upon the agreed-upon agreement. But I understand how this place works, and I really thought that he had enough support on the other side to at least get this very basic kind of amendment passed, I would say to the gentleman. So I want him to know that I support it. I thank him for bringing it to the floor. But just know I think that sooner or later, we have to correct this injustice.

Offered By: Ms. Lee

Amendment No. 15: Page 7, after line 24, insert the

following new section:

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Flake Amendment to end the unnecessary and counterproductive ban on travel to Cuba, and I want to recognize and applaud both Mr. Flake and Mr. Delahunt for their outstanding leadership on this issue and the agenda of the House Cuba Working Group. In fact, I am a proud sponsor of H.R. 2071, the Working Group's Export Freedom to Cuba Act, which would accomplish the same objective as this amendment, and would allow travel between the United States and Cuba. I have long supported normalizing relations with Cuba and frankly, Mr. Chairman, find it embarrassing that our policy has remained unchanged and stagnant in the 26 years since I first got involved in efforts to normalize relations. I wonder when the Administration will realize that November 9, 2003 marks 14 years since the end of the Cold War.

Americans do not need a license to travel half-way around the world to North Korea, Iraq and Iran, but the ``dangerous'' island nation of Cuba 90 miles off the coast of Florida requires stricter regulation. This policy seems particularly absurd when there is bi-partisan, bi- cameral support to end the embargo; most Americans oppose the trade and travel ban. Even Cuban Americans are divided on the issue.

In 2000, a Florida International University poll showed that 63 percent of Americans nationally and 75 percent of Americans of other than Cuban descent in Miami-Dade favor unrestricted travel to Cuba. We constantly seem to be moving backwards in our foreign policy, when our constituents are saying the opposite. Where is the logic in punishing Americans? A significant number of Representatives from both sides of the aisle actually agree on ending the travel ban. However, we are still unable to normalize travel and trade. In 1999 we granted permanent normalized trade relations

to China, but are still unable to travel and trade with Cuba freely. Whether or not other nations agree with the practices of the Cuban regime, they believe that our policy is ridiculous and outdated.

Mr. Speaker, the obsession with Cuba is two-fold: Those who support the travel ban are driven by 44-year-old memories of the revolution. Americans, who are eager to travel, are drawn to the rich, vibrant Cuban culture. Along with most of my constituents, I belong to the latter group which believes that we have much to learn from each other.

The Oakland City Council in 1998 passed a resolution to eliminate the trade sanctions against Cuba and the Bay Area has numerous sister-city relations with Cubans; these exchanges benefit students, arts initiatives, encourage humanitarian projects and research sharing for important diseases like HIV/AIDS, kidney failure and high blood pressure.

Farmers across the country are eager to engage in trade with Cuba as the U.S. economy continues to plummet.

The recent elimination of the people-to-people category, within the OFAC regulations, proves again how the administration is more concerned with maintaining a grudge than reinstating the American right to travel.

Mr. Chairman, not only does the travel and trade embargo undermine and contradict the values upon which our great country is based, but they are also very costly and logistically difficult to administer between the Departments of State, Treasury, and Commerce. We should not be persecuting Americans who are guilty of nothing more than a sense of curiosity and eagerness to learn and explore our island neighbor, Cuba.

Vote ``yes'' to promote democracy, vote for Americans freedom to travel, vote for the Flake amendment.

Offered By: Ms. Lee

Amendment No. 2: Page 7, strike line 15 and all that

follows through line 24 and insert the following:

Section 624(d)(2) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15

Offered By: Ms. Lee

Amendment No. 15: Page 7, strike line 15 and all that

follows through line 24 and insert the following:

Section 624(d)(2) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15

Mr. Speaker, on August 19, 2003, Kofi Annan, the Secretary- General of the United Nations, lost a trusted envoy and the world lost a skilled peacemaker. Sergio Vieira de Mello was killed in the bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad. Among his dying words was a plea that the United Nations mission there go on.

Sergio Vieira de Mello was a native of Brazil but a citizen of the world. From Bangladesh to Sudan to Cyprus, from Mozambique to Lebanon to Bosnia and Kosovo, to East Timor, and finally to Iraq, Mr. de Mello's resume reads like an atlas of some of the world's most troubled and dangerous places. It is also a list of accomplishment and achievement.

As the Secretary-General's special envoy to Iraq, on leave from his position as U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr. de Mello saw his role as helping to return the governing of Iraq to the hands of its people.

At his funeral, Secretary-General Annan bade Mr. de Mello a fitting tribute as he said goodbye: ``Sergio, my friend, you have entered the pantheon of fallen heroes that the United Nations wishes it did not have. You will shine forever among our brightest stars. May you rest in peace.''

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the voucher provisions that poison this D.C. Appropriations bill and to support the Norton amendment. If we pass this bill without the Norton amendment, we will be approving vouchers at the Federal level. We will be paving the way for the demise of our public education system, and we will be hampering our students' ability to succeed.

In short, we will undermine what is really one of the fundamental pillars of American democracy, a top-quality free public education that is a fundamental right for all American children. Privatizing public education is not the American way and you know it. It is wrong to be redistributing Federal money to private schools when public schools are facing teacher shortages, record-high student enrollments and dealing with subpar facilities and infrastructure. And yes, we must help rebuild schools in Iraq, but we must also invest in our own public schools in our own country.

This bill will also compromise the civil rights of our students. Even though vouchers would provide public money, private schools are not bound by civil rights provisions that govern our schools. Private schools can discriminate in admissions and employment on the basis of religion. Moreover, if we do give this money away, we lose the ability to account for the spending of that money. If voucher schools do not adopt academic standards, provide highly qualified teachers, or administer the assessments required of public schools, we have no recourse under this proposal.

Perhaps this explains why there has been so little success with voucher programs. Every serious study of voucher programs has found that vouchers do not improve student achievement. Objective studies funded by the Wisconsin and Ohio legislatures have found that voucher students perform no better than comparable students in other public schools.

The bottom line is that for every dollar we put into vouchers, we will be draining, draining, our public schools of the very life blood that makes it possible for us to have schools at the highest possible level, schools that educate all young Americans. And we will be putting lots of dollars, $10 million for the District, and that is just a start. If we ever went to a national voucher program, of course, which this sets the stage for, one estimate claims that it could cost about $73 billion. And that is just wrong. Instead of diverting money to private and religious schools, we must demonstrate a stronger commitment to safer schools, smaller classrooms, higher standards, technology and more accountability of all. That will benefit the public school system and it will not bankrupt it. We must put resources into our low-achieving schools so that they become high-performing schools. So I urge the Members to vote for the Norton amendment, and I thank her for her leadership. And I urge the Members to vote against the bill if it retains, however, the voucher provision which jeopardizes the future of public education.

This bill, with the voucher provision, really could be the beginning of the end of public education not only in the District of Columbia but in our entire country.

Again, I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for bringing this forward, and I urge support of her amendment.

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

(Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) to restore guaranteed funding for the transportation enhancements program. With over 15,000 projects receiving funding nationwide, it is very clear that the benefits of this program have not been confined to any one district, State, or region. These projects are very critical in establishing and in maintaining livable communities.

In my district alone the transportation enhancements program has funded nearly 30 projects over the last 12 years at a cost of about $22.5 million, and these projects have provided a very big improvement to the quality of life for many of my constituents and the residents of the Bay Area as a whole, not to mention the thousands of tourists who come through our region every month. The program has funded projects ranging for something as simple as a bike locker at local BART stations to pedestrian and streetscape improvements throughout Berkeley, Oakland, San Leandro, and Fruitvale, to construction of the Oakland section of the very ambitious 400-mile San Francisco Bay Trail project that links 47 cities and nine Bay Area counties together.

Other projects include the acquisition of scenic shoreline in Oakland for beautification and recreational purposes, the berthing and preservation of several historic ships, the construction and upgrade of the Berkeley train stop, the construction of bicycle underpasses along the very busy I-80 freeway, as

well as a number of other landscaping and beautification projects throughout my district.

Mr. Chairman, our constituents really value each and every one of these projects, not only in my district but throughout our country, as I mentioned earlier, which the transportation enhancement program has really helped to pay for. And let me tell the Members that ever since word got out that this House was considering removing the dedicated funding for this program, I do not think that a day has gone by where I have not received a phone call, e-mail, fax, or letter from constituents which criticize this move. So we must make this bill right. We must pass this amendment so that we can continue to fund the construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, Rail to Trail conversions, the acquisition and preservation of historic land, and a host of other projects that have all contributed to the quality of life in our neighborhoods and really for the increased safety which people so deserve.

Once again, as I said earlier, these projects are so critical in establishing livable communities.

Mr. Speaker, Ms. Eshoo, Ms. Pelosi, Ms. Tausher, Ms. Woolsey and myself honor Roots of Peace, a humanitarian organization dedicated to fostering prosperity in the spirit that turns swords into plowshares.

Since its founding in 1997 by Ms. Heidi Kuhn, Roots of Peace has worked towards the global eradication of landmines, sowing seeds of goodwill by transforming "mines into vines." In communities throughout the world, Roots of Peace restores hope and prosperity by replacing toxic minefields that maim and kill with blossoming vineyards and fields of grain.

Understanding that landmines impact not only individual victims and their families, but hold entire communities hostage emotionally, environmentally, and economically, Roots of Peace implements comprehensive and lasting solutions. The organization has waged its campaign against landmines on four fronts: awareness, removal, treatment, and restoration.

Landmines maim or kill approximately 26,000 people each year, 10,000 of them children. Lurking patiently beneath the earth's surface, mines can wait almost indefinitely for their victims. Today, an estimated 70 million mines in over 70 nations are waiting for a mere eight pounds of pressure to detonate. These indiscriminate weapons of terror neither know nor care if that pressure is applied by the boot of a marching soldier or the bare foot of a playing child.

The successful removal of these gruesomely destructive weapons is both dangerous and costly. In contrast to the three dollars required to manufacture and plant a landmine, its removal can cost up to 1,000 dollars. Since its inception, Roots of Peace has worked tirelessly garnering the resources necessary to rid vast expanses of land of the mines that keep them lying fallow and transform them into thriving farmland.

This summer alone, Roots of Peace is planting rice in Cambodia, orchards in Croatia, and grapes in Afghanistan. Also, in a particularly poignant expression of hope for a lasting peace, Roots of Peace will be planting wheat in Iraq, bringing the dream of neighbors in this war- torn country breaking bread together closer to fruition.

We ask all of our colleagues to join us in commending Roots of Peace for their outstanding work which saves lives and restores livelihoods in communities around the world.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Edwin Hawkins on his 60th birthday for his achievements as a gospel music pioneer and community activist. He has been a composer, producer, songwriter and vital force in gospel music for four decades.

The album ``Let Us Go into the House of the Lord'' was the first to bring acclaim to Mr. Hawkins. Among its highlights was the track ``Oh Happy Day,'' which unexpectedly found a home on underground FM playlists across San Francisco. The single quickly began earning airplay on mainstream R&B and pop outlets across the country, and in the spring of 1969 it reached the U.S. Top Five on its way to selling an astounding seven million copies and taking home a Grammy award for Best Gospel/Soul Performance of 1969. At this time the choir was rechristened the Edwin Hawkins Singers, although the featured voice on ``Oh Happy Day'' belonged to singer Dorothy Combs Morrison, who soon exited in pursuit of a solo career.

In 1970 the group made a return appearance on the pop charts supporting the artist Melanie on her hit ``Lay Down (Candle in the Wind).'' Edwin Hawkins remained a critical favorite, and in 1972, the Singers won a second Grammy for ``Every Man Wants to Be Free.'' Recording prolifically throughout the remainder of the decade, in 1980 they won a third Grammy for ``Wonderful''; a fourth award, for ``If You Love Me,'' followed three years later.

In 1982, Edwin founded the Edwin Hawkins Music and Arts Seminar, an annual week-long convention that offers workshops exploring all facets of the gospel industry and culminating each year with a live performance by the assembled mass choir. The 2002 Love Fellowship Mass Choir included hundreds of representatives from the United States, Europe, and Japan.

Gospel musicians and vocalists from around the world will meet to celebrate this great composer, musician, and vocalist on his 60th birthday. On a personal note, I would like to thank Edwin for his long- standing friendship and encouragement. He is a true believer, and has been steadfast in his honesty and support. I take great pride in joining his friends, colleagues, and family to salute the extraordinary Edwin Hawkins.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Paradise Baptist Church of Oakland, and its pastor, Reverend Leon McDaniels, Sr. Today marks the dedication celebration of the new Paradise Baptist Church Worship Center.

Paradise Baptist Church had its beginning in February 1960. Rev. C. William Johnson was the assistant pastor at the First Baptist Parchester Church of Richmond, California when he was called to begin a church in the Columbian Gardens area of Oakland. He set out with four volunteers and went door to door sharing their vision for a new community of the spirit. In May 1960, a meeting was called and the Paradise Baptist Mission was organized. In August of that year, Paradise was officially founded and established as the Paradise Baptist Church with Rev. C. William Johnson as pastor.

Paradise Baptist Church has had many homes over the years. Early on, Pastor Johnson purchased a home with his Veterans Administration certificate and converted it into a house of worship. In November 1963, a house on Empire Road was purchased, and the church moved to this location.

By 1968, a larger facility was needed. A church was constructed adjacent to the house where the congregation had been worshipping, but by 1970 even that building was too small. Many of the faithful financed the building project by taking out second mortgages and borrowing funds which they donated unconditionally. On the third Sunday of August 1972, the new sanctuary was complete.

Over the next 10 years, Paradise experienced substantial growth, and in 1988, Pastor Johnson brought in Rev. Leon McDaniels, Sr. as the full-time evangelism coordinator. Rev. McDaniels' spark and enthusiasm spread throughout the entire church body.

On September 17, 1993, Pastor Johnson's time on earth came to an end, leaving the Paradise family filled with grief. Following a period of mourning, Rev. Leon McDaniels, Sr. took office as the new pastor and vowed to make a significant difference in the Columbian Gardens community, and in all of Oakland.

There has been great growth during the tenure of Pastor McDaniels. Today, numerous ministries are available to the congregation, including the Prayer Ministry, Soul-Winning Ministry, Christian Education Training, Alpha Omega Youth Ministry, Pastoral Care, Wistar Redemption and Recovery, Inc., Financial Management, Real Estate Ministry (the HUD Home Buyers Program), Married Couples Ministry, Singles Ministry, Camp Ministry and Political Liaison Ministry.

Pastor McDaniels realized a larger facility was sorely needed. By faith, the groundbreaking ceremony was held in August 17, 1997. Once again, the membership stepped in and made contributions and personal sacrifices in their commitment to further the ministry.

The congregation has been blessed with the New Paradise Baptist Church Worship Center located at 9704 Empire Road in Oakland, California.

The Paradise Baptist Church family has come a long way since its humble beginning in 1960. Rev. C. William Johnson knew 43 years ago that Paradise would make a difference in the city of Oakland. This vision has come to fruition under the leadership of Pastor Leon McDaniels, Sr. with a congregation of more than 400 members and numerous ministries that reach out to the community.

I take great pride in joining friends, family, and the congregation to salute Paradise Baptist Church and its leader, the extraordinary Pastor Leon McDaniels, Sr. on this auspicious dedication.

Mr. Speaker, we rise today to honor the 50th wedding anniversary of James Wilson Jackson and Harry Belle Fullmore, better known as Honey.

James, a lieutenant in the United States Army was stationed at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas where he met Honey. And, like her name, Honey was the belle of Texas and James was swept off his feet. After numerous Sunday dinners prepared by Jesse Cook, Honey's mother and James' future mother-in-law, James proposed to Honey and the two married on August 14, 1953.

They had four children: James Wilson Jackson, Jr., Suzan Elizabeth Jackson, Barbara Ann Jackson and Michelle Jackson.

Having chosen a military career, James and Honey traveled throughout the world including the Orient, Europe and from coast to coast in the United States. Everywhere they settled, they developed a host of friends.

Upon retiring from the military, James and Honey chose Cleveland, Ohio as their new home. Since moving to Cleveland in 1970, they have dedicated themselves to contributing to their community and society at large. James chose the civic route, volunteering to serve on various Boards and Commissions. Honey chose to make her contributions more economic in nature, supporting upscale and specialty boutiques from coast to coast.

During the 50 years of their marriage, James and Honey have been faced with many obstacles and hurdles, but working together, they have persevered. We are honored to commend James and Honey Jackson on their Golden Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in the Hellenic Caucus in remembering the 29th anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, which took place on July 20, 1974.

On that day, in clear violation of international law, Turkish forces invaded northern Cyprus expelling 200,000 Greek-Cypriots from their homes. Many of these Greek-Cypriots literally had to flee for their lives, taking what little belongings they could as paratroopers dropped from the sky.

Over 5,000 Cypriots were killed in the conflict, and to date 1,400 Greek-Cypriots are still missing. Today, Turkey occupies 37 percent of Cyprus, an island smaller than the State of Connecticut, with a force of 40,000 troops in a country of just under 1 million people.

Despite numerous United Nations General Assembly Resolutions urging Turkey to withdraw its forces, and the stationing of U.N. forces on the island, Turkey--in a further violation and disregard for international law--unilaterally declared the independence of the occupied territory of northern Cyprus in 1983. Aside from Turkey, no other country in the world has recognized the so-called ``Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.''

But in spite of the island's artificial division, Cyprus has managed to make considerable progress over the last three decades even as it continues to seek a peaceful resolution with Turkey. And now with a vibrant democracy and a robust economy, Cyprus is also poised to officially join the European Union next year and to bring the benefits of membership to all Cypriots.

Yet Turkey's intransigence continues. In November of 2002 U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan presented both Greek and Turkish Cypriot sides with a comprehensive new plan aimed at reunifying Cyprus in advance of the island's accession to the EU. Though by no means perfect, this plan was a good faith attempt to create a workable solution that was fair to both sides. Initially, negotiations based on the U.N. plan provided hope to many that the Cyprus problem could finally be resolved after 30 years, due to the personal commitment of the Secretary General.

However, it soon became clear that the leader of the Turkish-Cypriot side, Mr. Rauf Denktash, and the Turkish government were not fully invested in the negotiating process.

In a last ditch effort to salvage the negotiations prior to the signing of the EU accession treaty, Secretary General Annan requested both Mr. Denktash and the Cypriot President, Tassos Papadopoulos, to join him at the Hague last March to discuss placing the U.N. plan before the Cypriot people in a separate, simultaneous referendum. Although President Papadopoulos was ready and willing to do so, Mr. Denktash, with support from Turkey, rejected that proposal.

The international response to the rejection of a referendum by the Turkish side was clear and unanimous in its characterization of Mr. Denktash as the principal impediment to negotiating a solution that all Cypriots very much want.

The current relaxation of longstanding travel prohibitions by the Turkish-Cypriots does not make up for a strong commitment to a negotiated settlement. In many cases this has only helped to underscore the depth of feeling of many Greek and Turkish Cypriots who long for the chance to return to their homes and villages.

I hope that this will one day be possible, and I fully expect that once a settlement is concluded and Cyprus is finally re-unified, that both Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots will live together side-by- side in harmony.

But, today we stand in remembrance of those who were killed and those who were never found as a result of the illegal Turkish invasion. I hope that if Turkey is truly serious about joining Cyprus and Greece in the European Union that it immediately and unconditionally withdraws its forces and demonstrates a true commitment to a negotiated settlement.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion offered by my colleague from California, and I want to thank her for her extraordinary leadership. The Republicans are holding this measure hostage because they really want to avoid doing what is right. They knowingly left out millions of families in their tax bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is shameful and that is why we have been protesting their failure to provide this vital relief for working families. When the child tax credit was created in 1975, it was for the purpose of helping families, not hurting them.

President Bush said that all Americans would receive tax relief, but that was not the case. Initially, it seemed that the President's $400 per child increase in the child tax credit was meant to help all families, but what we did not know was that the Republicans really did not mean ``all families.'' Their idea of helping families did not extend to low-income working families, the same people who were already left out of the President's tax cut on dividends which President Bush offered the wealthiest Americans.

When Republican negotiators went behind closed doors, suddenly these families of 12 million children were excluded from the child tax credit. Nationwide, that means one out of every six American children were excluded. These children come from families where the parents work hard and play by the rules. They deserve the same tax credit that other parents will receive, but they really need it more. Their families do not have the advantages that others have.

In the jobs depression this administration has put us in, the loss of the $400 tax credit is like rubbing salt really in their wounds. Now let us be clear about some of the people who will be hurt by this huge inequity in the Republican tax plan, because the victims will be disproportionately African American and Latino and other people of color. 8.1 million taxpayers will receive no relief under the Republican tax cuts; 1.6 million of them are Hispanic.

Mr. Speaker, 8.1 million represents 44 times the number of taxpayers who have incomes exceeding $1 million, yet the President and the Republicans have gone out of their way to help the wealthy. In fact, those people with incomes over $1 million will receive an average tax cut of $93,000 in 2003.

In terms of the child tax credit, one-half of all African American families will not get the full tax credit, while one-quarter will receive no tax credit.

And how can we abandon military families who are making tremendous sacrifices? One million children of military families were excluded from this tax package. So let us be for real in supporting our troops.

Mr. Speaker, the situation is outrageous, and it really does show the Republican leadership's complete, complete lack of compassion in their very conservative agenda.