Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Sanchez amendment and want to commend and thank the gentlewoman for her tireless fight for the rights of all women, including women serving in our military.

It is absurd that we must come to the floor annually to fight to repeal this unfair and discriminatory policy of denying servicewomen and female military dependents from using their own money for abortions at overseas military hospitals. At a time when many servicewomen are overseas serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, this policy is extremely cruel.

We support our troops, yet we deny women serving in our Armed Forces access to vital reproductive health services. How patriotic is this? Military women should be able to depend on their base hospitals for all of their health care services. A repeal of the current law ban on privately funded abortions would allow women access to the same range and quality of medical care available in our own country. That is why I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Sanchez amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

I rise in strong support of the Tauscher-Markey amendment. I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership. This Nation does not need to be leading the world in the development of new forms of nuclear weapons. We just do not need to do that. We need to be leading the way in nonproliferation. Nuclear weapons are not simply one more tool at the President's disposal. They are the foremost most fearsome and most destructive force ever invented, and the proliferation of these weapons of incredible mass destruction make us less secure each and every day.

How do we support the elimination of weapons of mass destruction in foreign countries such as Iraq, yet continue to develop them in our own country? Something is really wrong with this picture. We all believe in national security. We all believe in a strong and effective national defense. But building nuclear weapons is not the answer. I urge the Members to support the Tauscher-Markey amendment.

Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) and our Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus for his kind and humbling remarks, and for his leadership on each and every issue that we are faced with here in our great country. I just want to thank him again for his consistent leadership and also for ensuring that we have an opportunity to talk to America every now and then on the issues that are burning, and actually what the realities are of what we are doing here and what we are not doing. I thank the gentleman for allowing our caucus and other Members of Congress to really speak truth to power.

Mr. Speaker, first, let me just say how grave my concerns are about this Bush administration's economic policy and how it will truly devastate American families. We see a strategy at work in the Bush budget and in the tax cuts for the wealthy that are really at its center. And, yes, to me it looks like class warfare. That is what it looks like.

At the end of this month, we are going to see the devastating effects of the Bush economic strategy with the expiration of the unemployment insurance program. On the last day of this month, the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Program will expire. It is going to expire, even though we Democrats have pushed for an extension of this program, and for an additional 13 weeks of benefits, for a total of 26 weeks of Federal extended unemployment benefits both to workers who have already exhausted their benefits and to workers who will be laid off in the coming months.

Without this extension, an estimated 80,000 unemployed workers nationwide each week, that is 80,000 each week, will lose their benefits. That is hard to imagine. The number is so high because we are at a record level of unemployment; and we are, to be quite frank, in a jobs depression. In the last 3 months, the economy has lost 500,000 jobs. Since the beginning of President Bush's Presidency, the economy has lost 2.5 million private sector jobs. That is quite an accomplishment.

In fact, unless President Bush somehow adds 2.5 million jobs in the next few months, he will be, I believe, the first President since they started actually keeping labor records who has failed to net a single job. In an economy that has historically been the strongest in the world, the President has not been able to net one job. That is pretty pitiful.

In my congressional district, we have over 75,000 unemployed workers. Beginning June 1, an estimated 1,400 workers will lose unemployment benefits each week. That is just in my congressional district, the 9th Congressional District of California. That number will be on top of the 10,000 workers in the region who have already lost their benefits. These are horrible numbers. Yet in spite of the fact that families are struggling to pay rent and buy food, the President and the Republicans have done nothing, and I mean nothing, to help these workers.

They claim to have an economic stimulus package, but for them, economic stimulus means tax cuts. If you have lots of capital gains, then of course you will like the Bush tax cuts. If you are one of the wealthiest Americans, then of course, yes, you, too, will like the Bush tax cuts.

Members cannot tell me that in a tax package of almost $550 billion there is not enough money to extend unemployment benefits to people who do not have dividends or capital gains, but are just trying to basically pay their rents, buy groceries, and take care of their families.

For the life of me, I am trying to figure out how does a tax cut benefit someone who is not working. Democrats tried to extend unemployment benefits to help American workers, but the Republican leadership explicitly rejected it. They needed to save money for their wealthy friends. They needed to save money for their friends who run corporations.

In a pool of $550 billion, they did not have the money for the people who are looking for work each and every day in a job market where three people on the average are applying for one single job vacancy, three people.

They did not have money for the real people of America. That is going to mean tens of thousands of workers across America are going to find it even more difficult just to survive. Do we not care about the economic security of those who are not rich?

In my district, 27,000 workers will lose unemployment benefits in the coming months. The Republicans do not even realize that unemployment insurance may actually be an economic stimulus. One study estimate that 13 additional weeks of benefits would provide an estimated $150 million of stimulus to the regional economy.

Stimulating the economy really, though, has not been a hallmark for Republicans except when it comes to adding to the wealth of those Americans who are already wealthy. The wealthy people of America do not need dividend cuts. But the unemployed of America desperately need some help, just a little help to ensure that they and their families can survive an economy that they really, quite frankly, are not responsible for.

Now what happens when people are desperate because they do not have a job, nor unemployment benefits? Children go hungry, foreclosures increase, more people become homeless, emergency rooms in our already stressed public hospitals systems become more taxed, domestic violence increases and, of course, as we are witnessing in California, there is an increase in the crime rate.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me call your attention to the unemployment rates as of this last April. The white population had an unemployment rate of about 6 percent. The Latino unemployment rate was about 7.5 percent. And the African-American unemployment rate is about 10.9, close to 11 percent. Now when you look at the massive budget cuts coupled with these high rates of unemployment and no job creation efforts on the horizon and no extension of unemployment benefits, what is the message, quite frankly, what is the message that you are sending to people of color? Do they matter? Or is it only the wealthy who are the ones that this administration is looking out for?

The facts speak for themselves, Mr. Speaker. So let us extend unemployment benefits for American workers and let us do it now. We must pass H.R. 1652, and I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for yielding and for allowing us this opportunity to wake up, America.

I thank the gentleman for raising that. Because here in our country we have approximately 44 million uninsured, and that number is rising as a result of the 2.5, 2.7 million unemployed. Universal health care has got to be our goal in terms of any health care reform. But, in the meantime, what do we do to help those who are just struggling from day to day, who have no jobs, who have no unemployment insurance?

Once again, we go back to our public hospital system and see individuals, families sitting in waiting rooms for health care when, in fact, they have no place to go; and this is unconscionable in the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world.

Let me just finally say our country, rightfully so, is helping to develop a universal health care system for Iraq. What about a universal health care system for the people of America, Mr. Speaker?

I think that perhaps again during this crisis maybe those who have not supported universal health care will now understand that working men and women, middle-class individuals need universal health care as a result of this unfortunate situation which our government and this administration has placed them in.

The gentleman raised a very good point. I think if you look around your country now and you look at the crime rates, and I, unfortunately, have to site California. The increase has been 28 percent, I think. There is a direct correlation between the unemployment rate and the escalation in the crime rate. Desperate people do desperate things.

As a professional psychiatric social worker, I have seen what depression and what the lack of self-worth and the lack of self-esteem prompt people to do, oftentimes unconsciously. Again, desperate people do desperate things.

Look at our young people. You just look at, first of all, low-income individuals who now as a result of not having any unemployment insurance, coupled with the cuts that are taking place in the school districts with afterschool programs, what is going to happen to these young kids who need afterschool programs as a result of having nowhere to go after school because their parents are out trying to find a job, trying to survive?

You layer all of these cuts on top of no money and on top of not having a job and little hope because there are very few job opportunities because we have not created the investment in our infrastructure and we have not created an investment in housing construction. We have not created an investment to increase job opportunities. So, once again, on top of all of these very dismal circumstances and reactions, then you have no hope. And what happens when people have no hope?

It is very hard for me and for many of us here. I know for those of us who are Democrats and those of us on the Congressional Black Caucus, it pushes us against the wall in terms of what do we do next.

How do we be a real advocate to create these jobs that people need because their life, their world is based around their self-esteem and their sense of dignity which involves a job, a good-paying job with benefits as central to their existence?

For the life of me, I do not quite understand why the Republicans do not see the connection between having money in one's pocket, whether it is through a job or the unemployment insurance, how that does not effect an economic stimulus thrust. When you spend money, you stimulate the economy. Some of us may not believe in consumerism, but this is America and people buy stuff. I mean, they buy stuff all the time. If you do not have any money, you cannot buy anything; and buying stuff, whatever it is, leads to economic recovery.

So extending unemployment benefits allows people to have money in their pockets to not only buy food and take care of their families but also buy what they need to survive which, of course, in the private sector helps increase, well, it may not be a profit margin right now but just may keep businesses from going out of business, especially in our neighborhoods which really are dependent on that type of commerce.

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize our national security needs in our country and rise to the occasion and appropriate money for all kinds of efforts to ensure national security. Well, I believe that the economic security of every man, woman and child is very critical to our overall national security. We must have a stable, healthy population in our country. Otherwise, our country becomes vulnerable from within. People become restless, people have no hope, as I said earlier, and it is very important that we provide just this minimal extension of unemployment insurance benefits just to let them know we care during these very volatile times.

Here we passed, well, not with my vote, but passed an $80 billion supplemental. Again, $80 billion is a lot of money. I think we should find $80 billion to help those who are unemployed. We found it a couple of months ago. I think we can find it now. I think it is very important to show the American

people that we care about their security here.

We must also remember these young women who, because of the Welfare to Work initiative and welfare reform which some of us agree with, some of us do not agree with, bottom line is time limits are running out. They are hopefully still working, but many are not because of the economy. Many were working two jobs and three jobs with no benefits.

Now their unemployment compensation is running out. Well, under the very awful welfare reform law, they run up against 5 years and they cannot even go back and apply for public assistance. So what do they do? What does a young woman do with two or three kids? They cannot even go back to try to get a safety net provided for a couple of months.

So this lack of attention to the American people, to our people, to women, to children, to average everyday working men and women, this lack of attention, I think, is very wrong and it is immoral. I believe that our country is beginning to see the real hypocrisy in many of our policies and how the Republicans can continue to look out for those who are privileged, yet for those who are struggling, cannot seem to really figure out what to do or will not do the right thing, when in fact Democrats consistently have put forward proposals to help lift everyone up.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his very eloquent and very passionate statement, because I believe that Americans are beginning to see the hypocrisy and the discrepancy and the disparities in all of the Republican policies, and especially as it relates to tax policy.

The gentleman raised the fact that working people should have a right to some of the benefits in our country because they contribute immensely to the workings of government and to the society; yet they are the ones who never see those benefits. And if we are true to our country, true to our flag, true to our Constitution, then we need to work each and every day to ensure that liberty and justice for all prevails, because certainly, right now, there are millions of Americans out there who are wondering why they have been left out of this great American Dream.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman; and once again I urge my colleagues tonight, if they happened to have seen this discussion, to support H.R. 1652. And if no one from the House is listening, let us hope that America is listening; and I am urging our country to wake up, get in touch with the United States Congress and say, let us pass H.R. 1652 on behalf of those very noble working men and women who deserve an extension of their unemployment insurance benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for H.R. 1904 which endangers our national forests and our civil rights.

This bill contains provisions whose impact may stretch well beyond national forests and into our courtroom struggles for civil rights, disability access, and labor protections, but this rule does not give us the opportunity to amend that language.

In the West, we recognize the dangers of fires and the need to protect our communities, but the so-called ``Healthy Forest Restoration Act'' is not the answer.

This bill ignores common sense ways to reduce the risk of fires to communities, while opening up our national heritage to the timber companies.

In addition to the potential damage to our national forests this bill also has the potential to wreck havoc on our judicial system, and our civil rights.

The far-reaching implications of H.R. 1904's judicial review provisions have sparked opposition to this bill from a diverse coalition, which includes national environmental, civil rights, disability, women's, and labor organizations, including the NAACP and the National Organization of Women.

This bill would place forest projects ahead of any other civil or criminal case before the courts, and it creates inequality in the courts by requiring judges to give deference to Federal bureaucrats.

This would tip the scales of justice in favor of proponents of logging and set a dangerous precedent for favoring agencies when courts consider the public interest that could affect disability, civil rights, and labor law, among other areas.

Rather than protecting national forests and communities, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act threatens our judicial system and our ecosystem with far-reaching consequences.

There are better solutions to preventing wildfires, than increasing rampant logging and interfering with the judicial process. I urge you to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on H.R. 1904.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Reverend Doctor Frank Pinkard, Jr. and the marvelous First Lady Mrs. Kathi Martin-Pinkard of Evergreen Missionary Baptist Church for their lifetime of ministry and community service. They have served as champions of faith and love for their congregation at Evergreen Missionary Baptist Church in Oakland, California for 18 years.

Pastor Pinkard began his higher education at Bishop College in Dallas, Texas, where he received his B.A. A self-reliant over-achiever, he then completed a three-year seminary program in just two years at the San Francisco Theological Seminary in San Anselmo, California, earning his Master's of Divinity. He then went on to receive a Doctrine of Divinity from the Urban Black Study Center in Affiliation with the Graduate Theological Union at Berkeley. Kathi Martin-Pinkard is also a source of joy and endless compassion. Together they have changed the lives of many people for the better.

Pastor Pinkard has demonstrated leadership skills which have established his reputation in national and international religious circles, as well as the political realm. Among his other roles, Pastor Pinkard has served as President of the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance of the East Bay, President of the Baptist Ministers Union of Oakland and surrounding vicinity, Moderator of the Oakland Council Churches, First Vice President of the United California Baptist State Convention, President of the Board of Directors for the African- American Church Health and Economic Services (ACHES), President of the St. Luke's Society, Moderator of the Mt. Zion District Association, and Executive Secretary of the Publishing Board of the National Baptist Convention of America, Inc. His service to the community is just as impressive: Administrative Assistant to the late Assemblyman John J. Miller, Commissioner for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency in Alameda, and Member of the Alameda County Grand Jury. Between January 1993 and April 1996, Pastor Pinkard three times received a special invitation to the White House by President William J. Clinton. In 1996, he served as a member of the National Committee of the Re-Election of the President.

Reverend Pinkard is first and foremost a Pastor. For thirteen years he was Pastor of the Faith United Presbyterian Church of Oakland, where he oversaw the construction of a new worship facility. He then went on to become the Association Executive of the Presbytery of San Francisco. On Tuesday, April 9, 1985, he was called by the Evergreen Missionary Baptist Church to become their Pastor, succeeding his late Pastor and Organizer, Dr. J.L. Richard. For the past eighteen years Pastor Pinkard and First Lady Kathi Martin-

Pinkard have provided devout and dedicated leadership to the Evergreen family. He has also been blessed to direct and oversee the construction of Evergreen's new worship facility, which was dedicated during a month-long celebration in July 2000. Presently, they are overseeing construction of Evergreen's Children's Center, which will include a ``Maya Angelou Reading Room.''

Finally as we honor Reverend Doctor and First Lady Pinkard today, I want to thank them on behalf of the entire 9th Congressional District for being great religious and community leaders. Reverend Pinkard and Mrs. Kathi Martin-Pinkard have shared their wisdom and provided me tremendous support. Most of all, I thank them for their friendship and for their prayers.

I take great pride in joining their friends, colleagues, and members of the congregation to salute the extraordinary Pastor Frank Pinkard, Jr. and the magnificent First Lady Kathi Martin-Pinkard.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership of the Asian Pacific American Caucus and our tri-caucus, actually, because it is really a privilege to belong to the tri-caucus, the Asian Pacific American Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus, and the Congressional Black Caucus. We join the gentleman today in celebrating Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. In my district, the Ninth Congressional District of California, the east bay of Northern California, Asian Pacific Americans have long played a very crucial role in the life and in the history of the east bay and the region's identity has been deeply shaped by its place on the Pacific Rim. I am proud again to join him tonight in celebrating Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. The contributions to our country by Asian Pacific Americans are numerous, and we are a much better country as a result. However, today Asian Americans confront a wide variety of challenges, including access to educational opportunities, language access issues, and health problems and disparities.

Specifically, I would just like to talk this evening about health care issues, immigration and civil liberties issues and about the work being done in my own district by the Asian Health Services organization and the Asian Law Caucus. Asian Health Services is a comprehensive community health center based in Oakland, California. It provides medical care, health education, insurance counseling, and client advocacy. They reach out into the underserved Asian and Pacific Islander population in Alameda County. Its staff members offer its services in nine languages. They provide almost 60,000 medical visits to some 14,000 patients each year. And they are doing this on minimal resources. In the process, they are helping to tear down language and economic barriers that separate far too many Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders from quality health care.

As we all know, there are vast health disparities in this country. Asian and Pacific Americans are disproportionately affected by cancer and other serious diseases. Asian and Pacific Americans have a tuberculosis rate that is 15 times higher than that of whites. They have cervical and liver cancer rates that are five times the national average. These disparities we must erase, and we must commit ourselves to do that tonight as we celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

Recent immigrants also face many challenges from language barriers to medical bureaucracy. Organizations like Asian Health Services are helping their clients conquer their challenges through community outreach, education, and patient care. In recent years, AHS has also opened a very badly needed dental clinic. As part of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, I want to salute the contributions tonight of the Asian Health Services. In this age of State and Federal budget deficits and Federal tax cuts, their commitment is needed now more than ever. Immigrants are especially at risk during these perilous times.

As part of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, I believe that it is very important to call to the attention of the country a hero for many of us who I am privileged to say lives in my district and is a constituent, Mr. Fred Korematsu. During World War II when thousands of Japanese Americans were unjustly interned in camps, Fred Korematsu refused to go and took his case all the way to the Supreme Court. Mr. Korematsu stood up not only for his own rights but for civil liberties for all of us. Racial profiling really was not a word or a concept in 1942, but it was practiced with vengeance. The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II represents one of the darkest chapters in our Nation's history. Tens of thousands of people were imprisoned not because of disloyalty, but because of ethnicity; and the President, the Congress, and the Supreme Court all conspired in this act of fear and prejudice.

When Fred Korematsu took his case to the Supreme Court in 1944, the Court ruled in favor of the government and thus in favor of racism and oppression. But by exposing the truth, Fred Korematsu exposed for all of the world to see the utter hypocrisy of fighting for democracy abroad while rationing it here at home. And although it took many, many decades, Fred Korematsu finally won when President Reagan apologized for the internment and Congress finally offered compensation.

I am very proud to say that the Asian Law Caucus fought for Fred Korematsu as it has fought for many Asian Americans. For 31 years, the Asian Law Caucus has advanced the legal and civil rights of the Asian and Pacific Islander communities. Now those communities and our society unfortunately as a whole need that advocacy even more. As attorneys and as legal professionals, we need the skills and the energy and the commitment of lawyers associated with the Asian Law Caucus. Educational opportunities and legal support services are both shrinking under this current administration.

The representation provided to hundreds of low-income clients and the advocacy of the caucus is really making an impact in both high-profile litigation and in the lives of families and individuals each and every day. By fighting for housing, fairness in employment, and the rights of seniors; by stopping unlawful evictions and helping immigrants navigate, and really they have to navigate, the citizenship process, the Asian Law Caucus is strengthening democracy and carrying out the legacies of the civil rights movement of the last century.

So as a proud member of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I am proud to join with the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) tonight to make sure that our entire country understands why we are celebrating Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. Let

us make sure that we represent Asian Pacific Americans every month, each and every day as we develop our policies and our legislation that ensure liberty and justice for all.

Mr Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution calling on the President to encourage members of the G-8 and representatives of the European Union to pledge and contribute a substantial amount of money to the fight against global AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, in order to complement the recent commitment of the United States to spend $15 billion in the next five years.

The resolution clearly lays out the history of the G-8's involvement in the global HIV/AIDS fight, beginning in 1987 at the summit meeting in Venice, where the G-8 first recognized AIDS as one of the biggest potential health problems in the world. It was at this meeting that member states first agreed to expand international cooperation and intensify national efforts to educate the public and prevent AIDS from spreading even further.

Today, 15 years later, HIV/AIDS has become an even greater threat to humanity than we would have ever envisioned back in 1987. AIDS has already devastated the continent of Africa, where over 30 million people are currently living with AIDS, and where hundreds of millions more are still in danger of getting infected. And now AIDS is poised to wreak havoc in India and China, as each country's large population has the potential to mask rising trends of infection and understate the true reach of the pandemic.

As the leading killer of HIV/AIDS infected individuals, tuberculosis is on the rise, and in virtually every country surveyed by the World Health Organization, drug resistant strains of tuberculosis have already been found. Malaria

is also experiencing a resurgence, as AIDS makes it easier for the parasite to survive once it enters the body. Together these diseases represent an incredible challenge to public health systems worldwide, but particularly in developing nations that lack the infrastructure or resources to adequately deal with these three epidemics.

Back in 1998 when I was first elected to Congress, we already knew that AIDS in combination with tuberculosis was creating a humanitarian disaster in many parts of Africa. Together with my good friend and colleague, former Congressman Ron Dellums, and with strong support and help from Congressman Jim Leach, we helped create the first truly global response to this pandemic through passage of the Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000--which established the framework for what would become the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria.

At the same time, the G-8 had also reached a watershed moment in its response to AIDS and other infectious diseases at the Okinawa summit meeting in 2000. Recognizing the link between HIV/AIDS and poverty, the G-8 produced an ambitious plan to combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. And yet, overall global funding for these diseases was slow in rising.

The UN Secretary General's formal call for the establishment of the Global Fund in the summer of 2001 did produce a total of $1.3 billion in pledges of support from members of the G-8. Although this was a noteworthy development, it represented only about a tenth of the total estimated need. Coming from the world's richest nations, this was a paltry commitment of resources.

At the same time, here in the House of Representatives we were working on legislation that would authorize about $1.4 billion for global AIDS programs, while the Senate was seeking to provide around $5.5 billion over two years. Both efforts recognized the importance of international institutions like the Global Fund, and committed between $750 million to $1 billion for the Fund in FY'03. Ultimately we were unable to reconcile these two bills. Tragically, another opportunity was lost.

In 2002, at the summit meeting in Kananaskis, Canada, the G-8 drafted and endorsed in partnership with a variety of African countries, the G- 8 Africa Action Plan. This plan laid out a specific set of strategies to help empower Africans in combating the AIDS pandemic. Despite pledging their whole-hearted support for the initiative, little new actual funding materialized from the G-8 in the months following the meeting.

This year, AIDS has become an even more urgent issue for us to deal with. The President's pledge to provide $15 billion to combat AIDS stimulated our negotiations on this year's authorization bill, and finally provided the extra push to dramatically increase our level of funding.

House passage of H.R. 1298, The United States Leadership Against HIV/ AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, on May l, 2003, and the pending action on the bill in the Senate provides us with an even greater incentive to encourage the rest of the international community, particularly the G-8, to match our commitment to defeating these three pandemics.

My resolution follows on the recent passage of H.R. 1298, and would accomplish this objective. I encourage all members to support this resolution, and I hope that it will be considered on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, we rise today to honor a great religious, spiritual, and civic leader, Reverend Phil Lawson, for his magnificent ministry. In June 2003, Rev. Lawson will retire as Pastor of Easter Hill United Methodist Church in Richmond, California. Today we honor and celebrate this giant of a human being.

The Rev. Phil Lawson came to Easter Hill in June 1992, from First United Methodist Church in Vallejo, California, where he served as pastor for six years following a six-year pastorate at El Cerrito United Methodist Church. Before coming to California, Rev. Lawson was pastor and Executive Director of the Methodist Inner City Parish in Kansas City, Missouri.

Along with his pastoral duties, he has worked with the Vallejo School District, Vallejo City government, Vallejo ministers and congregations to develop a community feeding program. Phil received special commendations from the Vallejo School Board and City Council, for his creativity and energy in serving the community.

Rev. Phil Lawson is the son of a Methodist minister, and the brother of Rev. J.M. Lawson, former pastor of Holman United Methodist Church in Los Angeles. He is a graduate of Butler University, Indianapolis, Indiana, and the Methodist Theological School in Ohio, where he received a Master of Divinity degree in 1968. From 1971 to 1973, Phil was selected as a Martin Luther King Fellow in Black Church studies, by Colgate-Rochester Divinity School. As a MLK Fellow, he studied in Nigeria, Ghana, and Atlanta, Georgia.

From an early age, Rev. Lawson has had a passion for justice and peace, nurtured in high school in Massillon, Ohio, when several drug stores were desegregated through nonviolent direct action in 1950. At the age of 16, following high school graduation, Rev. Lawson joined the Fellowship of Reconciliation, and met with youth from across America in Washington, DC, where they experimented in non-violent direct action to integrate movies, swimming pools and drug stores in the Nation's capital.

Rev. Lawson's Ministry for Justice reached nationwide attention in the United Methodist Church in the 60's and 70's when his ministry led him into close relationship with the Kansas City, Missouri, Black Panther Party. Additionally, his passion for peace led him to travel to the former Soviet Union and North Viet Nam in 1970. Consequently, the Internal Security Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives began its investigation of the Black Panthers by subpoenaing Rev. Lawson in 1970, and the Missouri West Annual Conference convened a special session to ``deal with Phil Lawson,'' also in 1970. Both events generated national support for Rev. Lawson and his ministries. He has consistently spoken ``truth to power.''

Rev. Lawson is very active in ecumenical activities as President for the Northern California Inter-Religious Conference and its Peace with Justice Commission, and the Inter-Faith Witness for Peace. In the California-Nevada Annual Conference, he has served for 8 years as Chairperson of the Board of Church and Society, and on the conference Council of Ministries. The world has benefited from his spirit-filled leadership.

Finally, as we honor Reverend Lawson today, we want to thank him for being an exemplary role model, pastor, and preacher. He has been a friend who has shared his wisdom and has given us tremendous support. Most of all, we thank Pastor Lawson for his indomitable spirit and for his prayers.

We take great pride in joining Reverend Lawson's wife JoAnn, daughters Kelly and JoyceRenee, grandson Kelle, friends and colleagues to salute the extraordinary Phillip C. Lawson as he retires as Pastor of Easter Hill United Methodist Church.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit a resolution paying tribute to Walter Sisulu, a mentor, friend, and critical leader in the movement to free South Africa from apartheid.

The People's `servant,' Walter Sisulu helped free both Black and White people from the bondage of segregation while driving home the concept of equality for all. He, along with Nelson Mandela, was imprisoned at Robin Island for 26 years for his role in seeking true democratic representation.

In 1910, the Union of South Africa established a whites only government that limited voting rights and implemented South Africa's segregation policy. In 1948, the National Party won an all-white general election on a campaign promise to introduce a system of ``apartheid'' to totally separate the races. Opposition to the apartheid system by the black majority was ruthlessly suppressed, and a system based on white supremacy remained until 1994.

Sisulu fought tirelessly against the policy of apartheid, sacrificing his life to free black South Africans and to demonstrate the power of representative democracy. In the words of Nelson Mandela, ``He was blessed with that quality that always saw the good in others, and therefore he was able to bring out the goodness. He had an inexhaustible capacity to listen to others, and therefore he was able to encourage others to explore ideas.''

After the victory over apartheid, Mr. Sisulu worked to advance the quality of life for the average man and woman that the former government had so long ignored and oppressed.

In closing, Walter's vision of a united and representative government that serves the needs of all its people remains a model for us all. For that he commands and deserves our respect.

Walter Sisulu, will be sorely missed. Please join me in honoring and remembering his dedication to true democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great educator and community leader, Dr. Gail Uilkema, for her 16 years of service to the community. In May of 2003, Dr. Uilkema will retire as Superintendent of the Piedmont Unified School District in California.

In 2002, Gail Uilkema was selected as the National Superintendent of the Year. Previously, she was superintendent in the Orinda Union School District, Assistant Superintendent in the Reed Union School District, and principal/teacher in California, Alabama, and England. Dr. Uilkema is President of Suburban School Superintendents.

Dr. Uilkema has inspired her East Bay community to contribute financial support for the

children of Piedmont. In 2001, under her leadership, a parcel tax raising $4.2 million annually for Piedmont's schools passed with a 78.78 percent yes vote. Previously a bond for $30 million was passed for school renovation, new construction and technology.

Dr. Uilkema has a strong interest in international education. She has served on the Board of Directors of AAIE (Association for the Advancement of International Education), and also has made presentations in Africa, Australia, Asia, and North America. She has raised funds for projects in Rwanda, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Kenya.

Dr. Uilkema is actively involved with the University of California. She served as a Regent of the University of California where she chaired the Educational Policy Committee. She received the outstanding service award from the University of California at Santa Barbara in 1999. Dr. Uilkema continues to participate in professional committees including California Assessment Policy, National Association of School Executives (chair), Executive Leadership Center Advisory, Mills College Department of Education Advisory, Association of California School Administrators Superintendents, California State Department of Education Elementary Task Forces, and the Association of California School Administrators Symposium (chair).

Dr. Uilkema has received the Outstanding Administrator of the Year Award for her region. In 1996 she was selected as one of 100 women in the United States to participate in Leadership America. Additionally, she received a National Endowment for the Humanities fellowship to study at Stanford, and a National Geographic Society/Smithsonian Institution scholarship to study in Africa.

Finally, as we honor Dr. Uilkema today, I want to thank her for being an exemplary role model, administrator, and teacher. I take great pride in joining Dr. Uilkema's family, friends and colleagues to recognize and salute the accomplishments and contributions of Gail G. Uilkema.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert the following article entitled ``Why the Crackdown in Cuba,'' by Wayne S. Smith into the Record.

Why the Crackdown in Cuba?

(By Wayne S. Smith)

Various newspaper articles reporting the deplorable

crackdown on dissidents in Cuba have correctly noted that the

situation there earlier had seemed to be inching toward

somewhat greater tolerance. During his trip to Cuba in May of

last year, for example, President Carter met with Cuban

dissidents and in his televised speech to the nation spoke of

the Varela Project, an initiative of theirs calling for

greater political freedoms. And both before and after

Carter's visit, many other Americans, myself included,

regularly and openly met with the dissidents as part of a

broad effort to expand dialogue and improve relations between

our two countries.

Oswaldo Paya, the principal architect of the Varela

Project, was even recently allowed to come to the United

States to receive the W. Averell Harriman award from the

National Democratic Institute in Washington, and from there

he went on to Europe. The Cuban government may not have liked

what he had to say while abroad, but he wasn't punished for

it when he returned home. It did indeed seem that things

might slowly be moving toward somewhat greater tolerance of

dissent on the island.

Why then the recent arrest of dissidents? Is it, as some in

the United States quickly posited, that Castro was simply

hoping the rest of the world was so distracted by the war in

Iraq, that no one would notice or react to the detention of a

few dissidents in Cuba?

No, that explanation simply doesn't hold up. First of all,

no one in his right mind (and whatever else he is, Castro is

that) would have expected the arrest of over 80 dissidents,

many of them well-known international figures, to go

unremarked. The Cubans expected a firestorm, and they got it.

Second, the timing could hardly be worse from Castro's

standpoint. The UN Human Rights Commission has just begun its

annual deliberations to decide, among other things, whether

to condemn Cuba for violations of human fights. Given the

greater tolerance discussed above, there had seemed a good

chance that Cuba would not be condemned this year. The

cralckdown, coming just now, makes that far less likely.

Given all that, why the crackdown and why now? To answer

those questions, we must first note that the greater leeway

for dissent noted above came in response to the overtures of

groups in the American Congress and the American public, not

to any easing of the hard line on the part of the Bush

Administration. Quite the contrary, its policies and rhetoric

remained as hostile and as threatening as ever. It ignored

all Cuban offers to begin a dialogue and instead held to an

objective of regime change. As Mr. James Cason, the Chief of

the U.S. Interests Section has stated publicly, one of his

tasks was to promote ``transition to a participatory form of

government.''

Now, we would all like to see a more open society in Cuba;

that indeed, is what we are all working toward. But it is not

up to the United States to orchestrate it. In fact, it is not

up to the United States to decide what form of government

Cuba should have. Cuba is, after all, a sovereign country. To

the Cubans, for the chief U.S. diplomat in Cuba to seem to be

telling them what kind of government they should have seemed

a return to the days of the Platt Amendment.

The Bush Administration was uncomfortable with signs of

greater tolerance on Castro's part, for that simply

encouraged those in the United States who wanted to

ease travel controls and begin dismantling the embargo.

New initiatives along those lines were expected in the

Congress this spring. What to do to head them off?

What the Administration did is clear enough. It ordered the

Chief of the U.S. Interests Section in Havana to begin a

series of high-profile and provocative meetings with

dissidents, even holding seminars in his own residence and

passing out equipment of various kinds to them. He even held

press conferences after some of the meetings. The

Administration knew that such ``bull-in-the-china-shop''

tactics would provoke a Cuban reaction--hopefully an

overreaction. And given that the purpose was ``regime

change'', the Cubans came to see them as ``subversive'' in

nature and as increasingly provocative. Those arrested were

not charged with expressing themselves against the state, but

with ``plotting with American diplomats.''

The circumstances are different, but to understand Cuban

sensitivities in this case, let us imagine the reaction of

the U.S. Government if Cuban diplomats here were meeting with

members of the Puerto Rican Independence Party to help them

promote Puerto Rico's transition from commonwealth to

independence. Perhaps the Attorney General would not arrest

everyone involved, but I wouldn't take any bets on it.

And the beginning of the war in Iraq did play a role in the

crackdown. The Cubans saw it as a signal that the United

States was determined to throw its weight around and to blow

away anyone it doesn't like through the unilateral use of

force. As one Cuban official put it to me recently: ``This

new preemptive-strike policy of yours puts us in a new ball

game, and in that new game, we must make it clear that we

can't be pushed around.''

It was this kind of mind set that led to the crackdown and

that turned the latter into a massive overreaction. The

Cubans did exactly what the Bush Administration had hoped

they would do. Virtually the whole active dissident community

has now not only been arrested but put on trial (or notified

that they soon will be) and given extremely heavy sentences.

Tragic. This is a blot that will not be easily erased and

that will impede any significant progress in U.S.-Cuban

relations until there is some amelioration of conditions in

Cuba. The Bush Administration meanwhile will certainly

continue the pressures, and the provocations, so as to

prevent any such amelioration.

It has been argued that Castro simply saw this as a

propitious moment to halt dissent in Cuba, and there are

doubtless some elements of truth to that argument. Castro has

never liked to be criticized. Still over the past few years,

he had tolerated criticism of the system. All things being

equal he might have continued to do so. But the situation has

changed, not just between the U.S. and Cuba, but

internationally, in ways that the U.S. public is just

beginning to understand.

In the dark days that lie ahead, people of good will in the

United States who want to see a more normal relationship

between our two countries, and to see a more open society in

Cuba, should hold to the demonstrable truth that the best way

to bring about both is through the reduction of tensions, the

beginning of a meaningful dialogue and increased contacts. As

Elizardo Sanchez, Cuba's leading human rights activist, has

often put it, ``the more American citizens in the streets of

Cuban cities, the better for the cause of a more open

society; so why do you maintain travel controls?'' The

policies followed by one administration after another over

the past 44 years have accomplish nothing positive. True to

form, the policy followed by the Bush Administration, and the

clumsy tactics of the U.S. Interests Section, have produced

only a crackdown. Exactly what we should not want!

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my Democratic colleagues in expressing my outrage with the Bush administration and the Republican majority who are truly waging economic warfare against the American people, most notably our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, the tax package the Republicans undemocratically and very brutally rammed through here today represent dropping a big bomb on American families. It is un-American to devastate the lives of American families who happen not to be rich. This budget, this tax cut will leave a huge crater in the economy and the Federal budget that will take decades to repair.

What is most troubling about this irresponsible, unfair, and ill- advised plan for economic disaster? What does it mean for our children, especially our most vulnerable children? You simply cannot be for leaving no child behind when you are handing out massive tax cuts for millionaires at the expense of our children. What do we tell the parents of these children when they ask what is our government going to do to create jobs? What is our government doing to help kids? What is our government doing to expand health care to help senior citizens or to improve education or to ease inequality?

I guess we tell them that we have a President and a Republican majority in Congress who care more about eliminating taxes on stock dividends than eliminating poverty. We tell them we have a President who is slashing Head Start funds, cutting job training programs and after school programs and spending the entire Social Security surplus. We tell them that this may be the first President in over half a century who may serve an entire term in office without creating one single job. And we tell them we have an administration that is seeking to wipe out affirmative action because it is apparently blind to the enormous inequalities in our country. And we let them know that this mean-spirited tax cut will disproportionately affect African American and Latino children. We tell them that we have a President who is, yes, waging war at home, a war on our future, a war on opportunities for our children, a war on equality and war on our economy. There are 9 million people unemployed in this country, including 2 million unemployed African Americans and almost 1.5 million Latinos. That is a disgrace and there is no help for them in this Bush plan.

We are in a jobs depression. What our economy needs and what Americans need are more job opportunities. How do you benefit from a tax cut when you do not even have a job? Where is the compassion in this?

We need increased technical training for young people and transition assistance for displaced workers, many of whom are victims of our trade policy. Just look at NAFTA. Under NAFTA we have seen a quarter of a million actual and potential jobs disappear. Now the administration is looking to expand NAFTA to virtually every single country in the Western Hemisphere. How many jobs will we lose then?

As Marian Wright Edelman, President of the Children's Defense Fund, said, It is awfully hard to be a poor child in this country. It is awfully hard to be a parent. It is hard to be one of the millions of Americans desperately searching for jobs and not finding them while their unemployment benefits are expiring.

It is hard for tens of millions of people in Bush's mark. We could be turning the tide on this jobs depression. We should be investing in our future, but on the eve of Mother's Day, rather than saying Happy Mother's Day, the Republicans are shattering the lives of millions of mothers by cutting taxes for the rich, sacrificing the poor and neglecting the middle class.

Mr. Speaker, the President waged an immoral war in Iraq and now he is doing it right here at home. Wake up, America, and fight this very unpatriotic assault on American families and children. You must fight back.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from California George Miller, a tireless advocate for working families in the Bay Area of California and all across this nation, for yield me time today.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this bill which will only exacerbate the jobs crisis in American and would repeal precious civil rights protections.

Mr. Chairman, we are in the midst of a jobs crisis--an unemployment crisis. Nine million men and women are out of work--a third of these men and women lost their livelihood since President Bush took office.

What's the Republican response to this crisis? First, denial, then waging war while ignoring the declining economy; now they offer us a one-two combination jobs loss program: first this so called Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act today, followed by the irresponsible tax cut bill scheduled for consideration tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman, we need a jobs creation program, we need to extend unemployment benefits. This bill does nothing to create American jobs, does nothing to help in the short-term.

In fact, it does exactly the opposite: it ensures that workers will continue to struggle to find jobs in the long term because this bill sacrifices so many of our tired-and-true training resources. It collapses adult and dislocated training programs into one funding stream and cuts then by over $600 million from FY 02 levels. It eliminates substantial amounts for youth training programs, which is something desperately needed in my 9th Congressional District of California. And it does not go far enough to help veterans find jobs.

An unemployment crisis requires a real solution--the Republicans have offered us a jobs loss program instead. On those grounds alone I oppose this bill. But, Mr. Chairman, there is yet another reason to oppose this bill--yet another fatal flaw: it removes civil-rights protections that ban employment discrimination based on religious affiliation. It is wrong and unconstitutional for taxpayer funding to go to organizations that can hire and fire based solely on someone's religious beliefs and for this reason too, that I urge my colleagues to vote no on the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I offer the Public Housing Drug Elimination Act of 2003 on behalf of myself and 71 original co- sponsors.

We have been fighting to reauthorize this HUD program as well as appropriate money to the program for a long time. As a matter of fact, on July 10, 2002, I offered an amendment to the Housing Affordability Act for America, authorizing the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program (PHDEP) through 2005.

Despite the drug elimination program's widespread success and the bipartisan support, President Bush eliminated funding for the program in the Fiscal Year 2003 budget and has again zeroed out funding for the program in his Fiscal Year 2004 (FY04) budget. We must understand that programs like drug elimination ease the strain on public housing's capital improvement and maintenance funds. Programs like drug elimination protect the elderly, who compose one-third of all residents who live in public housing, working families and children. I believe there is more we can do to ensure decent living conditions for all Americans, and I'm sure all of my colleagues would agree.

The Public Housing Drug Elimination Program funded employment of security personnel, reimbursement of local law enforcement agencies for additional security, drug education and prevention; physical improvements designed to enhance security, and youth programs. In my own district, the Oakland Housing Authority funneled their money into five different areas. They created three Boys & Girls club programs on- site; the local Museum of Art which ran an after-school performing and visual arts program--serving forty at risk youth daily; the City of Oakland's Discover Center operated a program with PHDEP dollars called, ``Science in the Hood,'' which taught hands-on general science, physics, and chemistry; and the Asian Community Mental Health center provided health, educational, and employment assistance and cultural services for Asian residents, filling a gap in community service.

The Public Housing Drug Elimination is a real tool to combat real bad actors from public housing, all while protecting youth and tenants. This program, unlike the one-strike policy (upheld in U.S. HUD v. Rucker), puts the power to change the community in the hands of the community, it's leadership, and public housing officials. Hand and hand, the drug elimination program and a modified eviction policy could help end the criminal activity that takes place in public housing.

Mr. Speaker, one-third of all residents who live in public housing are elderly. If we fail to at least authorize this program we will in fact allow thousands of elderly people to live in fear and potentially unsafe environments. We are the richest country in the world. Housing is a basic human right. We can do more to ensure decent living conditions for all Americans and we can do more to make public housing safe.

Today I offer the Public Housing Drug Elimination Act of 2003 to authorize this program and allow appropriators to commit such sums as they deem necessary. I ask that my colleagues join me in support of this important program and this bill.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, for yielding me this time and for his leadership and his assistance and guidance throughout this entire process.

Since I have been here in Congress and since 1998, we began to introduce and bring forward to this Congress the notion, really, of an AIDS Marshall Plan, which former Congressman Ron Dellums, my predecessor, conceived, brought to us, and indicated why the Congress should begin to go on record to take the lead in the world to fight this global pandemic.

I would like to thank our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for their leadership and for making sure that this continues to be a bipartisan effort. This is not really a political issue. Both gentlemen have made sure that throughout this overall process that the people and their needs and the issues with regard to this pandemic stayed foremost in our mind and would not allow us to break down into our partisan squabbles that oftentimes we break down into. So I thank them both for their leadership.

I would like to now talk just a little bit about the Uganda model of success, which is, of course, the model the President has cited as the model he is looking to to address this pandemic in this bill, and also why I believe the 33 percent set-aside offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) is an amendment that goes counter to what the President's intentions and stated reasons for moving forward in the Uganda fashion.

First of all, each country, each village, each organization knows what strategies work best in terms of how they address this pandemic. This pandemic is killing so many people, there are so many orphans, there is so much disaster on the continent of Africa, that we have to marshal each and every effective way to stop it. So we should not in any way constrain this bill to a 33 percent set-aside that places for the most part abstinence as a priority.

Again, this flies in the face of what our agreement was in committee, and that is the ABC approach, which is the Uganda approach: abstinence, be faithful, use a condom. The three-pronged approach should be balanced, is balanced, and should be the approach we use in this bill. I do not know why this requirement now, after our committee debate and committee discussion, would be put into the bill when we know the President has called for all three approaches. In fact, the Washington Times today indicated its support for the three-pronged approach and not for us prioritizing one versus the others.

And let me just read what the Uganda model really is. I do not think we should be misled or misinformed about what Uganda is doing. Sophia Monico, who was the director of TASO, which is Uganda's premier HIV/ AIDS group, said, and this is quoted in The New York Times article, she said: ``It is so unfair to pull out one element of a bigger picture, a very small percentage of the whole picture, and say `this is what works.' '' She goes on to say that ``Uganda is indeed a model for nations fighting AIDS, but it is not quite the model the religious right would like to believe. Ugandans are responding to a campaign known as ABC, which says: Abstain. If you can't abstain, be faithful. If you can't be faithful, use a condom. Contrary to the assertions,'' the article goes on to say, ``of Mr. Pitts and others, there is really nothing unusual about this slogan.''

The WHO has sanctioned this. This is the standard public health approach to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. And so, Mr. Speaker, today, as we debate this bill, I hope Members of Congress will understand that setting aside 33 percent for abstinence only flies in the face of ABC. It flies in the face of the Uganda model. It does us a disservice as we put forward this very good bill to now take a step backwards and put a requirement on our organizations that makes no sense, that will not work, and, quite frankly, that was defeated in committee.

So I want to see this move forward in a way I know the President wants to see it move forward, and that is the ABC approach, the standard multifaceted approach that gives all three approaches equal weight.

Mr. Chairman. Let me first thank our ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for those very kind and generous remarks, and let me thank the gentleman for his leadership in helping to ensure that our Democrats really saw the goal and understood our mission and helped to work to make sure that this was a bipartisan bill.

I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for his leadership, and for, again, I think, setting an example that on issues of common concern and where the survival of the human family is at stake, we all can come together and agree that we should work together.

I also want to thank our staffs, especially Christos on my staff, and Pearl Alice, Peter and the entire committee staff, for their very diligent, competent and dedicated work.

Mr. Chairman, today we really do stand at the crossroads in this global battle gains HIV/AIDS. With an estimated 42 million individuals infected worldwide, the disease has already devastated the African continent, where 30 million people, 30 million, are currently living with AIDS and over 11 million children have been orphaned by this pandemic.

Throughout Africa, AIDS has had a devastating impact, not only on health, but on education, agriculture, the economy, the military, on governments, as people at all levels of society have struggled to cope with this disease.

Even now, the ongoing famine in Sub-Saharan Africa has been aggravated by the AIDS crisis. Food Insecurity and malnutrition have contributed to the spread of the virus, and both have sped up the onset of AIDS in HIV-infected individuals.

The Caribbean, which is ranked as the second most affected region behind Africa, is also facing a devastating situation because of AIDS. In Haiti, where over 90 percent of all AIDS cases in the Caribbean are, Haiti has the unfortunate distinction of being the only country outside of Africa with an adult prevalence rate of over 6.5 percent.

Despite the devastation that HIV and AIDS has caused within Africa and the Caribbean, the disease is truly a global killer. Even here at home, in my own district in Alameda County, we have been forced to declare a state of emergency to deal with the AIDS crisis. Now the disease is poised to run rampant through India, China and Russia, where a lack of information is contributing to the spread of the disease among poor and rural populations.

So without a truly global effort to halt the spread of this disease, to provide care and treatment to those who are infected and affected by HIV and AIDS, we will all face a humanitarian disaster, the likes of which the world has never seen before.

But there is hope. We have the know-how to stop the spread of HIV, and we have the drugs to prolong the lives of those infected with AIDS. The challenge is how we translate this know-how and these resources to people living in the developing world.

Yet even in a country as poor as Haiti, there are already programs on the ground that are making a difference with minimal resources, like the Zanmi Lasante Clinic, run by Dr. Paul Farmer and the dedicated people at Partners in Health.

And we also know from the indication of Uganda that when a country unites in the battle against AIDS, through the leadership, through its president, members of the government and civil society, and when everyone really engages in open dialogue about sex and AIDS, the need for abstinence, faithfulness and safe sex through the use of condoms, the HIV/AIDS rate can be reversed. In this case, it came down from 15 percent in 1991 to 5 percent 10 years later. But it took all three strategies. No preference is given to one over the other.

This bill we have before us today really recognizes these possibilities. But, more importantly, it sends a message to the world that the United States will not sit idly by and allow AIDS to wreak havoc on the human family.

By committing $3 billion a year to fighting global HIV/AIDS and the two largest opportunistic infections that feed off of AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, we will virtually double our global AIDS budget in the next year.

Several years ago when we won a $40 million increase in global AIDS spending in 2000 under the leadership of our distinguished minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), we felt that that was a major victory and a major accomplishment. This legislation now puts those living with

AIDS and those at greatest risk of getting infected ahead of ideological and political differences, and that is why the Pitts amendment does such a disservice to the bill and to those who desperately need our help. This bill attempts to create a comprehensive strategy to deal with the AIDS pandemic. Comprehensive.

Finally, let me just say how important it is that this be new money. The President said that this was new money. We must make sure that this is new money. We face many challenges as this bill moves forward, but we hope that the President will receive the bill on his desk intact and sign it before Memorial Day, as he said he wanted to do.

Mr. Chairman I want to thank again the chairman of our committee and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for their leadership, and once again hope that we can pass this bill intact, as it moved out of committee.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for yielding me this time and for his leadership. Also I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for this amendment, and with the cautions which our ranking member laid out, I rise in support of this amendment.

I would like to just briefly mention the history and our debate here in Congress with regard to the background of this Global Fund. The idea for the Global Fund really started back somewhere around 1998 and 1999, when my friend and former colleague, Congressman Ron Dellums, had the vision and the foresight for an AIDS Marshall Plan in Africa. Refined under the leadership of our good friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), who was then Chair of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, we introduced the World Bank AIDS Trust Fund, and this fund became the basis for the Global Fund. This fund was signed into law in, I believe it was August of 2000, under the Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000, signed by President Bill Clinton.

I cite this history because I think it is important for us to remember how important this fund is and that we fully debated this fund, and on a bipartisan basis voted it out and it was signed into law. So I think this amendment really strengthens the fund and its accountability.

The United Nations, in I believe it was June 2001, picked up the idea of the fund, and Secretary General Kofi Annan made an impassioned plea for the creation of a Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB, and malaria, which again moved forward the World Bank AIDS Trust Fund, in terms of the foundation, the parameters and the guidelines. So this fund was established in 2002 and really has made significant strides in over just a year of operation. Not only has it created a novel approach to grant-making and approval-processing, but it has also made really a very determined commitment to maintain as lean an operation as possible in order to focus its activities on getting money out to those in need.

The current system that the fund has set up provides several layers of accountability. On a country level, the

proposals are gathered and voted upon by an advisory body that represent government, civil society, the private sector, faith-based groups, and nongovernmental organizations. Proposals that are submitted to the Global Fund then undergo a technical review from an independent body composed of leading global health experts. And now our own Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson is leading this effort.

So I believe this amendment will help further strengthen the Global Fund system of accountability, and I encourage Members to vote for its inclusion. And also, with regard to the comments of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), I hope we can move forward, as he has so eloquently outlined, and fix what he thinks needs to be fixed in it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for yielding me this time, and

thank the gentleman for this amendment. It is very important to this bill. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for accepting the amendment.

The empowerment of women is critical in developing an AIDS strategy that is effective. In many parts of the developing world, women are still treated as second-class citizens. They lack basic protections of civil rights laws in their own country, and oftentimes are left at a disadvantage when it comes to accessing resources, owning land and in their general relationships to men.

The Crowley amendment would fix this by encouraging men to develop a healthy relationship that treats women with respect. That is so important as we address this pandemic. In addition, it supports the development of specific strategies to increase women's access to employment, land and financial resources like microfinance programs that, in many instances, have encouraged women to set up their own small businesses and avoid having to turn to a life of prostitution in order to make ends meet.

I urge Members to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for his wisdom in moving forward with this amendment. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for accepting this very important amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for this amendment. I think it strengthens the bill. It strengthens the fund.

One point I would like to make about the Global Fund which has been mentioned is the leveraging ability of the fund. $1 billion could leverage up to $4 to $5 billion. It has been estimated that $9 to $10 billion is needed just to begin to scratch the surface on this pandemic. The importance of the fund cannot be overstated, and I thank the gentlewoman for this amendment. Now

that Secretary Tommy Thompson is chair of the executive board, both sides should feel confident that he will move forward. And once we insist that our side put $1 billion in, at least we know that should lead to $4 to $5 billion immediately. I offer my support of the amendment.