Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend the predominantly Black clergy, intellectual and informed laypersons of the community-serving Church of God in Christ for their letter to President Bush regarding a possible preemptive attack on Iraq. I sincerely hope that ever Member of the House and every American will give serious thought to the points raised in this moving and thoughtful letter.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I wish to insert the letter into the Record.

Church Of God In Christ, Inc.,

Memphis, TN, January 23, 2003.

Hon. George W. Bush,

President, The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear President Bush: We write to you as predominantly Black

clergy, intellectuals and informed laypersons of community-

serving churches of the Church Of God In Christ, to address

matters of the deepest gravity, namely, that of war and

peace, as presented by your statements and those of Vice

President Richard B. Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald

H. Rumsfeld concerning a pre-emptive attack upon Iraq.

We are mindful that war, should it come to pass, will

directly affect the safety and well-being of tens of

thousands of our fellow citizens in the Armed Forces, of whom

significant numbers are ethnic minorities in the enlisted as

well as officers and non-commissioned ranks.

Our thoughts also extend to the safety and well-being of

Iraqi civilians who have not lifted a hand against the United

States. We are deeply concerned that critical moral

reflection on the prospects of war has been overlooked by

some in your Administration. We do not advocate a weak

America; unable to defend the innocent from rapacious tyranny

of attack, but a strong America must examine itself before

setting off to war.

Moreover, Mr. President, we must confess that we fail to

see the rush to war as a rational expression of the

compassionate conservatism that you promised the country at

the beginning of your Administration.

Sovereigns in antiquity and national leaders today,

especially those who identify with the Christian heritage,

are expected to examine their war aims, strategy and tactics

in light of these moral principles to determine if war should

be pursued, and if so, to determine how these can be pursued

in as humane a manner as possible towards all parties to a

conflict. Failure to satisfy these criteria renders the war

aims, strategies and tactics, at a minimum, morally suspect

and perhaps morally unacceptable in the eyes of the Church

universal and under the gaze of a just and Holy God.

We note the rising voices from all parts of America

pleading for restraint, reflection and prudence in

considering war against Iraq. Notable conservatives from your

own party with significant prior foreign policy experiences,

such as Brent Scowcroft and Lawrence S. Eagleburger, have

counseled against this war. This is especially true in the

absence of an actual attack, or evidence of preparation for

it against the United States that could be put forth for

public review.

We also note the similar wise counsel against the rush to

war from your own Secretary of State, General Colin L.

Powell, a soldier's soldier himself. Noteworthy also is the

recent letter from CIA Director George Tenet to the House and

Senate Intelligence Committees warning of the grave dangers

to the United States of domestic terrorism if war is waged

against Iraq.

We would agree that Iraq's President, Saddam Hussein, has

demonstrated aggression against his neighbors in the past,

some of which was unopposed by the United States government.

We would also agree that if Iraq possessed weapons of mass

destruction this would be a matter of grave concern. In this

regard, we believe that the United States' interests are best

served by using the existing mechanisms of international law,

collaboration and consultation with our allies and the use of

existing United Nations resolutions to support the work of

weapons inspectors so they may detect and destroy any weapons

of mass destruction found in Iraq.

However, we do not find any moral justification for a pre-

emptive strike in the absence of an attack, or real threat of

an attack, upon the United States. A military strike of this

nature puts the United States in the posture of aggressive

warfare, not defense, which is precisely the behavior that

we, and your Administration, deplore in the Iraqi regime.

We recall the moral witness of the Reverend Dr. Martin

Luther King, Jr., forty years ago when the United States

launched its military excursion into Southeast Asia without

significant prior public debate. In retrospect, had the

American people been able to engage in a free public debate

on the military aims and process, tens of thousands of lives

on all sides of the conflict might have been spared.

As Church leaders, we painfully remember that while Blacks

were struggling to secure full civil rights in the American

South, our youth were sent off to fight and die in an

undeclared war whose military and political objectives were

unclear. We do not wish to see more young Americans die in a

new war whose goals are ill-defined.

Money spent on war to destroy lives could instead be used

to save lives by financing the alleviation of the impending

famines in southern Africa, or to provide clean

drinking water to enhance the health of hundreds of

thousands of poor, defenseless men, women and children

throughout that continent.

These resources could also be productively directed toward

providing treatment and prevention services for those

afflicted by the HIV/AIDS holocaust in Africa, the United

States and other countries around the world. Not to forget

the blight and ravages of economic depression in Appalachia

and the inner cities of America.

As those who are representative of the many churches that

serve the spiritual and social needs of millions of Blacks

and other ethnicities in America, we humbly ask your

Administration to stay the hands of war and vengeance and

instead yield to the rule of law and the inherent disposition

toward peace that is central to America's Christian heritage.

We call upon your decision makers to reflect upon the

inspired Biblical witness of the Apostle James:

``What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they

come from your desires that battle within you? You want

something but you don't get it. You kill and covet, but you

cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not

have because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not

receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may

spend what you get on your pleasures.'' (Saint James 4:1-3)

Surely our nation and its leaders can examine their own

intentions in light of Holy Scripture before setting their

feet upon the blood-soaked path of war, whose ultimate

outcome is known with certainty only by the Maker of us all.

We pledge to pray for you and your Administration, that you

might encounter the Divine Wisdom in this matter.

In Christ,

G.E. Patterson,

Presiding Bishop.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and commend the leaders of the community-serving Church of God in Christ on their poignant and powerful letter to President Bush regarding Affirmative Action. I encourage my colleagues here in the House and all Americans to read this important letter.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I wish to insert the letter into the Record.

Church Of God In Christ, Inc.,

Memphis, TN, January 23, 2003.

Hon. George W. Bush, President,

The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear President Bush: We write to you as the leaders of the

community-serving Church Of God In Christ on the matter of

Affirmative Action and the recent actions of your

Administration toward millions of Blacks in America seeking

equal opportunity and participation in the economic, cultural

and political life of the nation.

We are deeply disappointed in the actions of your

Administration regarding the legal briefs that your Justice

Department submitted to the Supreme Court opposing equal

opportunity for Blacks in the form of Affirmative Action as

practiced by the University of Michigan.

We note that the Republican Party has in recent years

failed to speak with a unified voice in favor of redressing

the grave effects of the historic wrongs committed against

African-Americans in this country, which continue to reduce

and constrain the life opportunities of their descendants.

Despite the past strong leadership of Republicans such as

President Richard M. Nixon, who implemented robust and

vigorous measures in employment, minority contracting and

university admissions to wipe away the effects of past anti-

Black discrimination, we now observe that since the 1980's,

your party has rapidly retreated from the historic Republican

ideals of equal opportunity and racial justice.

We see that your Secretary of State, General Colin Powell,

made a strong statement supporting intensive ongoing

implementation of Affirmative Action. This seems to put him

at odds with others in your Administration and party, as well

as many of your proposed judicial nominees, on the best way

to redress the continuing exclusion of Blacks from the

economic benefits of American Society. We support Secretary

Powell's position and think that other Republicans would

do well to follow his lead in standing for strong support of

Affirmative Action.

The reason Affirmative Action is needed is due to the

historic experience of Blacks in America. The experience of

Blacks in this country is without analogue and is unique due

to the nature of American enslavement of millions of Blacks

during the founding of the republic and thereafter. The

political, social, cultural and economic effect of racial

exclusion because of slavery, which continued in the form of

Jim Crow laws and currently operate through more subtle forms

of racial prejudice, result in Black Americans having a

special and unique set of claims for redress by the body

politic.

This month you celebrated the legacy of the Reverend Dr.

Martin Luther King, Jr., and pledged yourself to renewed

efforts toward equal opportunity. The way to turn your words

into something beyond empty rhetoric is to support concrete

action towards equal opportunity in the form of Affirmative

Action. Even Dr. King called for ``compensatory measures'' to

help Blacks approach parity in employment opportunities,

income wealth, entrepreneurship and other indicators of well

being in this country. While we believe that race should not

be the only factor in Affirmative Action efforts, we do

believe that it is valid to take account of race as a factor

when opportunities are distributed among people in society

today.

With greater effort expended by your Administration and

others yet to come, we look forward to the day when

Affirmative Action will no longer be necessary. That will be

when America has finally attained the level of equal

opportunity, inclusion and sense of beloved community for all

citizens.

The Black community seeks the opportunity to be

strengthened so that eventually it can stand upon its own

feet, having the effects of past racial exclusion and

discrimination erased and able to enter into the fullness of

the blessings of America. Your Administration's active

support of the Black community in this matter could be among

the greatest legacies of the party of Lincoln.

We pledge to pray for you and your administration that you

might encounter the Divine Wisdom in this matter.

In Christ,

G. E. Patterson,

Presiding Bishop.

The General Board: C. E. Blake; C. D. Owens; L. E. Willis;

J. N. Haynes; P. A. Brooks; G. D. McKinney; W. W. Hamilton;

L. R. Anderson; N. W. Wells, R. L. H. Winbush; S. L. Green,

Jr.

Mr. Speaker, for a nation that boasts about being the wealthiest in the world, claiming liberty and justice for all, the fact that there are over 40 million people without health insurance is a contradiction and a shame. And instead of addressing this crisis head on, this Administration and House Republican leadership continues to talk about health care and do nothing.

The bulk of the uninsured are low-income and minorities. These are the Americans who too often are ignored. The uninsured have lived a campaign of survival, and deserve a voice today and every day on this floor.

As I stand before you on this floor, I would like to introduce you to these voiceless constituents. They are the men and women who have jobs in our stagnant economy. Most Americans receive health insurance through their employers, but millions lack coverage because their employers do not offer insurance or simply cannot afford to pay for it.

Many of these working Americans qualify for Medicaid. Medicaid covers 40 million low-income people and their families, but millions more do not meet its limiting income and eligibility requirements because of savage welfare reform restrictions crafted by the Republicans, leaving the most vulnerable uninsured.

The numbers speak volumes. Fifty-six percent of the uninsured population are low-income and nearly one in five of the uninsured are low-income children. Although minorities comprise only 34 percent of the population, over half of the nation's uninsured are minorities. Twenty percent of these uninsured are African American and 34 percent are Hispanic.

Minorities and the underserved bear a disproportionate burden of mortality and morbidity across a wide range of health conditions. Mortality is a crude indicator of health status and demonstrates how critical these disparities are for minorities. For African Americans and Latinos, these disparities begin early in life and persist. African American infant mortality rates are more than double those of whites, 14 percent vs 16 percent, and the rate for Latinos is 9 percent compared to 6 percent for whites. The death rate for African Americans is 55 percent higher than for whites, with AIDS being the 6th leading cause of death for African American males. I could go on with a multitude of statistics that clearly illustrate the stark disparities in health care that exist for minorities. Yet the point remains that these disparities are a result of lack of insurance and lack of access to health care.

Health insurance is important because it impacts health outcomes. Nearly 40 percent of the uninsured have no regular source of health care and use emergency care more due to avoiding high cost regular visits. This situation creates an ongoing cycle of adults and children skipping routine check-ups for common conditions, recommended tests, and treatments because of the financial burden, resulting in serious illnesses that are more costly. The uninsured are more likely than those with insurance to be hospitalized for conditions that could have been avoided.

The message we must send is that universal health care that provides high quality health care should be provided without discrimination. That is why today I am introducing H.R. 3000, the U.S. Universal Health Service Act (U.S. UHSA). This proposal challenges us as Americans to take another look at the fundamental role government will have to play if we are ever to achieve an equitable and rational health care system.

Universal health care is the only way we can provide equal access and fairness to our health care system. The uninsured are suffering; if we don't acknowledge health care as a basic human right soon, it will be too late for some, and our society's most vulnerable will continue to suffer. Our nation is the only industrialized nation that does not have a health insurance program for everyone, and our health care system is failing. Make health care accessible! Make health care affordable! Make health care a guarantee! I encourage all of my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 3000 and support health care for all.

Mr. Speaker, Walter Jefferson Lewis passed away on February 22, 2003. On that day, his family and friends lost a loving son, brother, and companion and the world lost a passionate lover of art, food, travel, and life itself.

Walter Lewis was born and raised in Schenectady, New York. He went on to study at Syracuse University and Schenectady County Community College, graduating with distinction in the Culinary Arts and Hotel and Business Management.

Walter served his country, spending eleven years in the United States Air Force. During that period, he was stationed in Alaska, California, New Mexico, and Germany. The time spent in those distant posts just whetted his appetite for travel; his journeys took him across much of the globe, and he made lifelong friends wherever he went.

That same passion and zest for life fueled both his occupation and avocation of baking. Walter worked for a number of years managing the bakery department of the Golub Corporation, and he shared his culinary skills with those around him: for him, food, family, and food, were all joyously intertwined.

Walter Lewis will be deeply missed by those of us who knew and loved him. He made a

special imprint through his faith, his gifts, and his joy of life. While we mourn his passing, we also celebrate his memory. May he rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5. This bill claims to protect patients' rights but, in fact, it strips away the rights of patients, especially women, seniors, children, and lower income families.

It does protect someone, however. It protects HMOs, the insurance industry, and the pharmaceutical companies.

Medical malpractice is a serious issue, but so is medical error. Thousands of Americans die every year due to medical mistakes and thousands more are injured and placed at risk. The wrong limbs have been amputated. Improper transplants have been performed. These are real people, real examples, and real injuries and deaths, not frivolous lawsuits.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 would restrict the rights of such legitimately and seriously injured patients.

The Conyers-Dingell alternative offers meaningful reform without putting Americans at risk. Conyers-Dingell would eliminate frivolous lawsuits, increase competition, and reduce costs. It would address the crisis situation faced in some geographic areas, but not by sacrificing crucial protections.

I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 5 and to protect patients' rights by supporting Conyers-Dingell.

Mr. Speaker, tonight's Congressional Black Caucus special order on the global HIV/AIDS pandemic is particularly timely given our current discussions on an authorization bill by the House Committee on International Relations. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for his leadership in the Congressional Black Caucus for organizing this very important discussion tonight.

Three weeks ago, during the Congressional Black Caucus' special order celebrating Black History Month, I laid out the history of our caucus' work in the Congress on the global AIDS pandemic. I described how our involvement evolved in 1998 with a proposal put forth by my friend, colleague and a distinguished founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressman Ron Dellums, calling for an AIDS Marshall Plan. Since that time, support for these proposals has broadened beyond the Congressional Black Caucus to encompass a majority of Members of this Chamber on both sides of the aisle. I am especially proud of the progress that we have made over the years.

For example, under the leadership now of our new leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), $42 million was amended to the fiscal year 2001 foreign operations bill to provide the first real increase in spending for our international AIDS programs. We passed the Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton and which established the framework for the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria.

And last year we came very close to reaching a compromise on H.R. 2069, the Global Access to HIV/AIDS Prevention, Awareness, Education and Treatment Act which is a comprehensive global AIDS bill that passed the House in December of 2001 and which the Senate modified and passed in July of 2002. Yet there is still a tremendous amount of work for us to do, particularly now that the President has finally decided to support a significant boost in spending for our international AIDS programs.

But what has the President really proposed and how does this proposal translate into action within the fiscal year 2004 budget which we received early last month? The President has said that the goal of his initiative is to prevent 7 million new infections per year and to provide treatment to over 2 million people who are infected with HIV, and to provide care for 10 million HIV-infected individuals and AIDS orphans. But where is the money for this proposal? Certainly it is not contained within the President's recent budget request to the Congress. In fact, the President only requested $450 million for his initiative in this coming year and a total of $1.8 billion for the entire international HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria portfolio. This is barely an increase of $400 million over the fiscal year 2003 budget of $1.4 billion and is far below the figure of $2.6 billion that the Congress was targeting for fiscal year 2004. Yet at the State of the Union address, the President described an immediate need for treatment for 4 million individuals infected with AIDS, individuals who, as the President described, have been told by their local hospitals, ``You've got AIDS. We can't help you. Go home and die.''

What does the President say to these same people within his budget request? Additionally, the limited focus of the President's plan to just 25 percent of the 48 sub-Saharan countries is really very shortsighted. This kind of policy would neglect millions of individuals who are equally in need of assistance. But the most disconcerting portion of the President's proposal is his level of commitment to the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria. Under the President's proposal, the global fund would receive only $200 million per year for the next 5 years. Yet at this moment, the fund is nearly bankrupt and has projected that it will require an additional $6.2 billion through 2004 to meet the increasing number of grant requests that the fund is expecting.

As a point of comparison, we recently approved $350 million in the fiscal year 2003 budget for the global fund. The AIDS authorization bills that we were working on last year would have provided between $750 million to $1 billion in fiscal year 2003. Clearly the congressional commitment to the fund exists. This was a bipartisan effort. It is especially critical that we provide funding now, given the recent election of Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson as chair of the executive board of the fund, in effect, making him the chief fund-raiser for the global fund.

Despite these issues, I believe there is ample hope that the United States will make a substantive commitment to fighting the global AIDS pandemic. The groundwork that we laid in the last Congress among the original cosponsors of the House and the Senate

AIDS authorization bills provides us with a real opportunity to jump start our work here in this House.

So far, I have been very encouraged by the efforts of my colleagues on the House Committee on International Relations who are seeking to act quickly on a bipartisan AIDS authorization bill in this Congress. Chairman Hyde, Ranking Member Lantos and Congressman Leach, who also was my partner really in the Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act, have all displayed a commitment to working on a bill that builds upon our previous efforts in the last Congress.

Currently, we are looking at an authorization of $15 billion over 5 years, $3 billion per year, that matches the President's request at the State of the Union. The underlying structure of the bill is very similar to a compromise that we were working on at the end of the 107th Congress. I am very optimistic about our progress on this bill and I look forward to our continued dialogue with our colleagues in hopes that we will have a bill for markup in committee very soon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the chair of our Congressional Black Caucus who has been a great leader on this issue, and so many other issues not only in Maryland but in the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) for that very eloquent and comprehensive statement and also once again for organizing the Special Order tonight.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), who serves on the Committee on Appropriations and has been a real advocate for those who have no voice in the funding mechanisms of our United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Michigan for that very profound statement, for really highlighting the global dimensions of this pandemic and for continuing to be our eyes and ears on the Committee on Appropriations and ensuring that our resources are prioritized in a way that they are effective in addressing this pandemic.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), a former ambassador, an individual who has chaired a senate health committee for many, many years in California, and one who serves now on the Committee on International Relations and has taken the lead on many HIV/AIDS initiatives, not just since she came to Congress, but throughout her career.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for her participation and for that very eloquent and very clear statement. I thank her for her commitment to health care issues in general.

Mr. Speaker, I would like now to yield to the gentleman on the other side of the aisle, my colleague from California (Mr. Cunningham). I mentioned earlier that this has been a bipartisan effort in establishing the global AIDS fund. We passed on a bipartisan basis the Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000 with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), and I think we see progress when we work together. So I am delighted my colleague would like to speak this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for that very poignant statement and also for putting a face on what we are talking about today. Yes, it is hope that we all need, but it is resources also that provide that hope.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to ask the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) to come forward. She is a medical doctor, and with the Congressional Black Caucus in terms of her leadership on the Health Brain Trust, has been working on a variety of health care issues as they relate to the disparities we see within the African American communities,

and one of those is prostate cancer. I am sure the gentlewoman, as I yield to her, would like to comment on that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) for her very comprehensive statement. I would like to commend her for her leadership with the Congressional Black Caucus in terms of sharing in our health brain trust. Just today we held a health brain trust with regard to the country of Haiti, and I am delighted that the gentlewoman raised Haiti in her presentation.

Haiti is the most impoverished country in the Western Hemisphere. Ninety percent of all HIV and AIDS infections in the Caribbean are in Haiti. Over 300,000 people are infected and have been identified, and deaths from HIV and AIDS have left over 163,000 children orphans, so it is so important that we encourage the administration to release the funds that the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) mentioned in terms of the International Development Bank.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), my colleague and a real leader on behalf of our children and on behalf of the Caribbean, on behalf of those suffering and living with HIV and AIDS. I thank the gentleman for his participation this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) for his participation and for reminding us that really Africa is just the tip of the iceberg, and this is a global pandemic.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for her statement and for her leadership and for her patience on this special order.

Let me yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and I want to thank her also for her participation and her leadership this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for her participation and for her leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order.

Mr. Speaker, Walter Jefferson Lee passed away on February 22, 2003. On that day, his family and friends a loving son, brother, and companion and the world lost a passionate lover of art, food, travel, and life itself.

Walter Lewis was born and raised in Schenectady, New York. He went on to study at Syracuse University and Schenectady County Community College, graduating with distinction in the Culinary Arts and Hotel and Business Management.

Walter served his country, spending eleven years in the United States Air Force. During that period, he was stationed in Alaska, California, New Mexico, and Germany. The time spent in those distant posts just whetted his appetite for travel; his journeys took him across much of the globe, and he made lifelong friends wherever he went.

That same passion and zest for life fueled both his occupation and avocation of baking. Walter worked for a number of years managing the bakery department of the Golub Corporation, and he shared his culinary skills with those around him: for him, food, family, and friends were all joyously intertwined.

Walter Lewis will be deeply missed by those of us who knew and loved him. He made a special imprint through his faith, his gifts, and his joy for life. While we mourn his passing, we also celebrate his memory. May he rest in peace!

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this day, during Black History Month, to pay tribute to a trail blazing civic leader, Ms. Esther Jones Lee. I take pride in honoring Ms. Jones Lee for her lifetime of dedication to organizing and empowering the African American community, particularly African American women, in their struggle to secure the purportedly unalienable rights promised to the people of this nation at its founding.

Born in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1885, the daughter of Ms. Mary Wanzer Jones and the Reverend J.W. Jones, Ms. Jones Lee inherited her family's unyielding commitment to serving God and her community. The monumental integrity and deep compassion that came to characterize Ms. Jones Lee's legacy were deeply rooted in the lessons she learned growing up in her father's ministries. After graduating from high school in Chillicothe, Missouri, Ms. Jones Lee was trained in pedagogy and taught high school in Macon, Missouri. In 1904, Reverend Jones and his family relocated to the San Francisco Bay Area, where he was charged by the American Baptist Association with establishing the McGee Avenue Baptist Church, still a vibrant spiritual community to this day. Married in 1908 to Mr. George E. Lee, Ms. Jones Lee had three children, of whom only one, Ms. Esther Lee Higgs, survived infancy.

In the Bay Area, Ms. Jones Lee provided skillful and passionate leadership to a plethora of organizations and clubs, especially the National Association of Colored Women (NACW), which she served for three terms as president of the state chapter. In 1918, Ms. Jones Lee was appointed by the President of the NACW, Ms. Mary Burnett Talbert, to lead California's efforts in the Anti-Lynching Campaign, working closely with State Senator William Knowland to introduce the successful legislation that outlawed this heinous practice. Ms. Jones Lee also served as: Vice President of Child Welfare for the Civic Center of San Francisco, the predecessor of the Big Sister Movement; President of the Women's Work Baptist Association of the State of California; a founding member of the Fannie Wall Children's Home, the area's first home to care for African American orphans; a founder of the Linden Branch YWCA, the area's first YWCA open to all girls, regardless of race; and head of the Women's Division of Northern California for the 1928 Herbert Hoover Campaign.

During her lifetime, the promises of equality, and justice for all made by our nation's framers were not extended to Ms. Esther Jones Lee. Born into a world in which she could neither vote nor hold public office, she found power by raising her voice and taking action where her conscience deemed it necessary. Inspiring and empowering those whose lives she touched, she rose to positions of leadership from which she challenged the status quo, contributed to policy reform, and advocated for equality. While partaking in the club activities expected of women of their social stature, Ms. Jones Lee and her fellow organizers became fierce, courageous, and compassionate political forces, needing no one's permission but their own. I take great pride in joining Ms. Esther Jones Lee's family and the people of California's 9th Congressional District in honoring her memory and celebrating her legacy.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to include in the Record the following articles regarding Ms. Esther Jones Lee.

[From the Oakland Tribune, May 30, 1926]

Activities Among Negroes

(by Delilah L. Beasley)

Welcoming Speeches

Mrs. Esther Jones Lee, as president of the northern section

of California, will have the honor of welcoming the

distinguished group of women to Oakland and Mrs. Corrine Bush

Hicks, of Pasadena, state president of the California

Federation of Colored Women's clubs, will welcome them to

California on the night given over to state. Notwithstanding,

the great task there are citizens in the east who have

visited Oakland, notably Miss Hallie Q. Brown, who have faith

in the citizens rally to the assistance of these brave women

and helping them in this great effort which will mean much as

an educational development of the race.

The following are appointments given to California women by

the national president, Mrs. Mary McCloud [McCleod] Bethune:

Regional chairmen for northern section-Temperance, Miss

Masterson of Stockton; kindergarten--Mrs.-L.-J.-Williams,

Vallejo, headquarters for the national in Washington, D. C.,

Mrs. H. B. Tllghman; physical education, Esther Jones Lee,

Oakland; state chairmen-Peace and foreign relations, Mrs.

Irene Bell Ruggles, San Francisco; citizenship, Mrs. Frank

Henry, Oakland; temperance, Mrs. Lillian Smith, Oakland;

hygiene, Mrs. L.J. Williams Vallejo; arts and crafts, Mrs.

Melba Stafford, Oakland; social work and recreation, Esther

Jones Lee, Oakland. She is also is local chairman of

arrangements for the national.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 534. This bill's title claims that it is designed to prohibit human cloning. The reality is it will do much more: it will stifle crucial medical research that might someday cure diseases such as Parkinson's, diabetes, or Alzheimer's. None of us support human cloning. We all see such a step as ethically reckless and medically unsound. The cloning and creation of human beings should be banned. But this bill goes much further. It bans the practice of somatic cell nuclear, which creates cells, not human beings. Somatic cell nuclear transfer, or therapeutic cloning as it is also called, represents one of our most promising avenues of medical research.

That is why I support the bipartisan Greenwood/Deutsch/Degette amendment that would outlaw human cloning for reproduction without outlawing medical advancements. This bipartisan alternative provides severe penalties, including $10 million fines, for violations of the human cloning ban but allows cell transfer technology to proceed. Through the creation of stem cells, we may be able to conquer spinal paralysis, heal burn victims, and cure a wide range of diseases. For everyone who has helplessly watched a parent succumb to the terrible cruelty of Alzheimer's or seen a child struggle with diabetes, somatic cell nuclear transfer holds out the promise of a potential cure.

But this bill would cut off that research and criminalize those medical advancements. The National Academies of Science examined this issue and urged lawmakers to forbid human cloning but not to outlaw nuclear transplantation which could hold the key to treating life- threatening diseases and injuries. As they complete their medical training and begin their careers as physicians, we ask our doctors to take Hippocratic Oath, which involves, the principle, ``first do no harm.'' As legislators, we should adopt a similar principle: as we wrestle with these complex scientific questions, let us first do no harm.

This bill applies a sledge hammer when a scalpel is needed. We can and should outlaw human cloning without wiping out the promise of a cure for millions of Americans. I urge you to oppose this bill and to support the bipartisan Greenwood/Deutsch/Degette alternative. Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to first wish former President Reagan and his wife well on his birthday and my thoughts and prayers are with them as he deals with the terrible disease of Alzheimer's. While I support those provisions in H.J. Res. 19, the bill went well beyond a simple birthday wish. I could not in good faith cast a vote for a bill that stated that the Reagan Administration ensured renewed economic prosperity when millions of Americans were hurt by its economic policies.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for his leadership and for his sponsorship and cosponsorship of this amendment.

First, Mr. Chairman, let me just say today we are offering this Mink substitute amendment not only as a tribute to our dear friend and former colleague, Congresswoman Patsy Mink, but also as the real comprehensive reauthorization alternative to the underlying Republican bill before us today.

I want to first send a special hello and a thank you to Patsy Mink's daughter Wendy who really helped craft the legislation; and I am delighted, as I know Patsy would be, that so many of her colleagues, I believe we have, what, close to a hundred, 105 colleagues have cosponsored this amendment today and are here to support it.

Mr. Chairman, Patsy Mink recognized that the real way we measure the success of welfare reform is to look at the quality of a family's life after they have left welfare. Patsy would ask, Are the families earning sufficient funds to really take their families out of poverty? Are they becoming self-sufficient? Today, the answer to that question is no, but we have the chance with this amendment to change the answer to that question by adopting the Mink substitute. In doing so, we would provide people on welfare the chance to get the education and the training they need, the child care that they need, and the time that they need to pull their families out of poverty.

Mr. Chairman, the Mink substitute provides strong poverty-alleviation provisions that would also take the country, our country, in the right direction in eliminating the racial and economic disparities that plague the current system.

A recent study conducted by the National Association of Social Workers found that black applicants were more likely than white applicants to be subjected to preemployment tests, that 55 percent of African American applicants were interviewed for 5 minutes or less while white applicants had interviews of 10 minutes or longer. Former white recipients earned significantly higher wages than African Americans and Hispanics. So this bill puts us in the right direction to end those outrageous economic and racial disparities.

Mr. Chairman, I have some personal experience with what we are talking about. I know education must be counted toward the work requirement, as this bill does. Had I been forced to drop out of college while on public assistance, I probably would not be here today. So I feel very responsible for protecting that same chance for other people who are striving toward the same goal.

That is why I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. The vital changes to the law that it contains have, really, the very awesome power to lift many out of poverty so that they can succeed at whatever careers they choose, even the United States Congress.

Specifically, this amendment adjusts the current block grant amount for inflation for future years and increases the child care development block grant by $20 billion over the next 5 years. It retains the current work requirement at 30 hours a week while removing the 12-month time limit for education, which is so important.

Also, the Mink amendment includes legal, mind you legal, immigrants who currently go off and fight for our country but cannot receive these vital benefits. That is wrong. That is wrong. We must correct that, Mr. Chairman.

Patsy Mink said it has always been the high principle of Congress to say families count first, the responsibilities of families to nurture their own children. She said, We want to put them at the top, as the emphasis of this new authorization should be, caring for children, allowing parents to stay home to care for their small children and giving them support to build their families' economic future through education. Patsy said that education must count and be equivalent to work.

I want to close by remembering our beloved Congresswoman Patsy Mink. She had a vision and we must remember her vision today. She had a real vision that is detailed in this legislation. This amendment does provide a voice for the voiceless, empowerment and self-sufficiency for the poor, and a chance at education, building strong families and a better life. It is truly about family values, Mr. Chairman.

So I urge a ``yes'' on the Mink substitute, which is the Kucinich- Lee-McGovern and Lantos amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), a great leader on many issues, our ranking member on the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), a great educator and Mr. Education, as we call him.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern.)

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and a great leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson), who is an expert on this subject, former director of welfare.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

(Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), who is an expert in TANF reauthorization, former Chair of the Health and Human Services Committee in California.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that very humbling introduction and for his leadership in putting together this very important Black History Month Special Order, also for his really steady and magnificent leadership of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, today we do stand at the crossroads in our battle against the global AIDS pandemic. Now because this is Black History Month, I would like to take a minute and set forth the historical record with regard to this issue and the role of the Congressional Black Caucus in bringing the African and the Caribbean AIDS pandemic to the attention of the United States Congress, the Clinton administration and the Bush administration.

After years of hard work on the part primarily of the Congressional Black Caucus and our friends in the activist and the NGO community, we are finally seeing the issue of AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean in the national spotlight. Now, several years ago my friend, a former colleague we all know and respected, Congressman Ron Dellums, and several American and South African activists developed a very comprehensive plan to combat AIDS in Africa.

Now, we envisioned creating an AIDS Marshall Plan in Africa that would mirror the original Marshall plan that helped our friends and allies in Europe rebuild from the aftermath of World War II. So I have introduced the AIDS Marshall Plan as legislation. Let me just say that each and every member of the Congressional Black Caucus signed on as co-sponsor. I think that is a historical fact that needs to be recorded.

As my colleagues on the Congressional Black Caucus, especially the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), as the CBC took up the cause in Congress and Ron Dellums forged ahead outside of Congress, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) helped us fashion the AIDS Marshall Plan into the legislative framework for a global trust fund to be housed at the World Bank. Finally in 2000, we began to see some progress as our pushing and prodding gained support for the issue in this House.

In July of 2000, we were successful in adding $42 million to the FY 2001 foreign ops bill for global AIDS spending, which was really a small amount compared to the actual need; but it took a monumental effort on the part of the Congressional Black Caucus, the activist community, and our minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Soon after, thanks to our consistent consultations with President Clinton and other administration officials, we won passage of the Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act, which was signed into law in the summer of 2000 and which formally committed the United States to seeking the establishment of the global trust fund to fight HIV and AIDS. This was in August of 2000.

The passage of this bill was a major achievement and really I must say a vindication of the very hard work that went into the initial AIDS Marshall Plan put forth by Congressman Ron Dellums.

Now in the last Congress, we made great strides towards the passage of other comprehensive global AIDS bills, and we really managed to engaged this administration and our colleagues in the House and the Senate on this issue. Most importantly, we witnessed the international community, led by Secretary General Kofi Annan embrace the newly established global AIDS fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, again, an achievement which the Congressional Black Caucus is very proud of.

Now, in many ways the result and the leadership of primarily the Congressional Black Caucus' work over the last 5 years was evident at the State of the Union address 2 weeks ago when President Bush announced an emergency plan for AIDS relief in Africa and the Caribbean that would devote 15 billion over 5 years to treating those who were infected and those who are not. But our work on this issue does not end here, and we still have a long way to go before we can truly claim victory over this horrendous disease.

There are still an estimated 29.4 million Africans and 440,000 Caribbeans living with HIV and AIDS. Over a third of the populations of many sub-Saharan African countries are infected with AIDS, and in the Caribbean nearly 90 percent of all the AIDS cases are in Haiti.

In Africa and in the Caribbean, however, we are not just fighting against AIDS, but we are fighting tuberculosis, malaria and other diseases, high rates of infant mortality, the lack of access to health care, underfunded education systems, underdeveloped agricultural capacity, poor infrastructure and excessively high debt burdens. All of these developmental issues are tied to HIV and AIDS, and all of them contribute to its spreads in one way or another. That is why the fight for us continues.

The President's initiative represents a major step in a marathon, and we intend to make sure that the United States and the international community finishes the race. We cannot compromise on the substance of what our response to the pandemic should be, and in particular we will continue to push for your funding for the global fund because multilateral institutions do work and they deserve our support.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that during this Black History Month I hope that we all, members of the Black Caucus, this entire body, rededicate ourselves to the ideals that so many sung and unsung African American heroes and sheroes have lived and died for, and that is for liberty and justice for all.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to place in the Record this important article from the January 28, 2003 Washington Post. This article provides an excellent description of the importance of independent living for people with disabilities and the challenges they face in securing the independence they seek. Too often people with disabilities, like Mr. Schneider who is featured in the article, find independence an uphill battle--not because of their disabilities, but because of government policies that promote dependence and institutionalization.

I was particularly pleased to see that one of my constituents who passed away in 1995, is featured in this article. Ed Roberts was the original barrier buster! Living in an iron lung, Ed enrolled at the University of California at Berkeley in the 1960's and went on to become the state director of vocation rehabilitation for the State of California. Ed helped found the Berkeley Center for Independent Living--a center that served as the model for centers across the country that are now funded by the federal government to support the independence of people with disabilities.

Berkeley is the heart and soul of the disability rights movement as evidenced by Ed's legacy and the many vibrant disability organizations that continue to operate there today. In honor of Ed and his legacy, nine of these organizations have come together to create the Ed Roberts Campus. This important facility will be built at the BART Ashby stop. It will serve as a transit-friendly center in which people with disabilities can meet their own needs for advocacy, training, and independence and can actively participate in a movement that promotes their full integration into society.

The Ed Roberts Campus will serve as a national and international model of independence for people with disabilities. The nine organizations that make up the Ed Roberts Campus are the Bay Area Outreach and Recreation Program, the Center for Accessible Technology, the Center for Independent Living, Computer Technologies Program, Disability Rights Advocates, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Through the Looking Glass, Whirlwind Wheelchair International and the World Institute on Disability.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the creation of this important campus that celebrates the independence of people with disabilities and honors the legacy of a great man who led the way for so many of us--Ed Roberts.

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 28, 2003]

Independent Living's Real Costs

(By Susan DeFord)

Going to bed is one of Richard Schneider's daily

accomplishments.

With the movement he retains in his right arm and fingers,

Schneider each evening turns the radio to softly playing jazz

and guides his motorized wheelchair next to his bed. Morita,

his black cat, looks on.

Schneider reaches up for a black remote control hanging by

a cord from a motor that rides on a ceiling-mounted metal

track. A metal clasp dangles from the device, and he hooks

this onto the catch of a lightweight fabric sling he wears

like a vest. With the remote control he operates the motor to

lift himself in the sling out of his wheelchair and onto his

bed. The maneuver ends as Schneider pulls up the bed covers

up with a clawlike wooden stick. The whole process takes

about half an hour.

Schneider, a 58-year-old retired research scientist, sums

up his achievement simply: ``I can go to bed when I want to

go to bed.''

Schneider lives on his own despite the effects of multiple

sclerosis, an incurable, degenerative disease of the nervous

system that over three decades has robbed him of movement in

his legs, torso and left arm. He has never lived in a nursing

facility, and now makes his home in the remodeled basement

of a ranch house he purchased in 2001 in a semi-rural stretch

of southern Howard County.

``Having other people do things I can do myself is not the

way I want to live,'' said Schneider.

An array of social and technological improvements has

sustained Schneider as his MS has advanced. Increasingly,

people with severe disabilities are pursuing ways to avoid

institutional care or the constant presence of a human

caretaker.

That strategy ``is eminently feasible,'' said Michael

Dalto, administrator of Maryland's assistive technology

program, which in four years has made 197 loans for equipment

such as hospital beds, special computer keyboards and

accessible vans, ``It's beginning to happen more and more.''

Independence advocates argue that federal and state

governments should put more money into getting the disabled

out of institutions, where an estimated 2.1 million reside,

according to a five-year-old estimate from the San Francisco-

based Disability Statistics Center. (More recent figures are

hard to come by; the Bureau of the Census, for example,

doesn't report the number of disabled people living in

nursing homes or group homes.)

More than 80 percent of Medicaid money spent annually on

long-term care goes to institutions, with community and at-

home services getting the remaining 20 percent, according to

advocates. They want federal legislation to let people with

disabilities decide where they will receive government-funded

services, rather than having the government direct most of

its money for assistance to institutions.

``It's what most people want and what costs [government]

the least,'' said Gayle Hafner, a staff attorney with the

Maryland Disability Law Center.

But for Schneider, the struggle to stay independent is

ever-present, in his complicated physical needs, in his face-

offs with health care bureaucrats, in the simple frustration

of dropping a book and not being able to pick it up. And with

no spouse or family close by, independence sometimes feels

like isolation.

``I'm living close to the edge,'' Schneider said.

Born in the '60s

The notion that the disabled could live independently

emerged at the University of California in the political

ferment of the 1960s, and one of its principal proponents was

a student who spent most of his days in an iron lung. Ed

Roberts went on to become the director of a state agency in

California and founded a disability think tank before his

death in 1995. But he got his start organizing the Berkeley

Center for Independent Living. That was the precursor of 450

centers throughout the United States and its territories that

aim to make communities more accessible and give people with

disabilities the power to make their own decisions.

``People with disabilities have the right to live in their

own homes, achieving their independence just like everyone

else,'' said Jamey George, executive director of the Freedom

Center, a Frederick-based agency. Like other independent

living centers, the Freedom Center offers people with

disabilities peer support and referrals and prods government

agencies for more community-based services.

This approach was just getting its start in 1971 when

Schneider first noticed a needle-like tingling in his legs

and had an episode of blurred vision.

Schneider, a promising doctoral candidate at the University

of Pittsburgh, was distraught when he received his diagnosis

of MS, and bewildered family members asked if he would get

better.

``I knew what that meant for my life,'' said Schneider.

More than 30 years later, he's strapped into his wheelchair

to control involuntary muscle spasms, a plastic bag draped on

his lap to collect urine through a catheter, and his feet

swathed in foam padding to keep his skin from disintegrating

into bedsores. He takes seven medications daily, he wears a

24-hour emergency response necklace, and he's been

hospitalized 22 times.

Physical therapy after one hospitalization a few years back

got Schneider momentarily standing upright. It brought tears

of joy to his eyes.

There's no cure for MS, which causes the body's immune

system to erode the fatty sheath of myelin around nervous

system fibers, impairing the transmission of impulses to

muscles and other organs. Since Schneider's diagnosis, drugs

have emerged to slow the disease's interference with the

body's immune system.

Though neurologists initially offered Schneider little in

the way of treatment, they told him to get on with his life,

that it would be years before the disease's symptoms became

severe.

Schneider adjusted, finished his doctorate and launched a

research career in neurobiology at the University of Maryland

Medical School in Baltimore. A photograph of him from those

days shows him leaning slightly as he stands in a white lab

coat and bow tie, a solemn expression in his deep-set eyes.

He was intent on his investigation of the body's sensory

detection system, mindful that the clock was ticking. Over

the course of a decade, he went from occasional awkwardness

in walking to using a cane and crutches, then a motorized

scooter. He retired on disability in 1981, but continued his

research in the 1980s as a guest worker with the National

Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda and at universities in

Montreal. In late 1992, he developed a contracture in his

right leg, and it bent permanently as muscles locked into

place. With the contracture and growing loss of strength in

his upper body, it became increasingly difficult for

Schneider to move on and off the stair glide in his three-

story Columbia townhouse.

At this point, Schneider contemplated a move to a nursing

facility, and his top pick was Inglis House in Philadelphia,

a 125-year-old institution that cares for the severely

disabled and draws many younger residents to its self-

described ``wheelchair community,'' But administrators

acknowledged that Inglis House would be a bad fit for

Schneider, a man who invests online, who has his computer

speak to him in a sultry feminine German voice and who's

written a work of fiction about people with disabilities.

``Intellectually, it would be hell for me, and I do have an

intellectual life,'' said Schneider, who was told during a

visit that Inglis House couldn't accommodate his computer in

his room.

In 1995, Schneider teamed up with his Howard County friend

Maria Turley, who also had MS and wanted to stay out of a

nursing facility. Turley, who died last year, approached her

pastor and members of her church, the Orthodox Church of St.

Matthew. A group formed to build St. Matthew House, an

accessible home with suites for 15 disabled people that

opened in Columbia in 1999. But while Turley moved in,

Schneider couldn't, because his pension and Social Security

disability payments, then totaling about $22,000 annually,

put him just beyond income limits for the federally

subsidized facility. ``It was a disappointment,'' Schneider

said. ``I felt rejected.''

Independence Day

While he pursued different housing options, Schneider hired

personal care attendants and turned to assistive technology.

``The technological revolution is getting better every

day,'' said Brewster Thackeray, a spokesman for the National

Organization on Disability. For example, he said, his boss, a

quadriplegic, can use voice-activated devices to dial a

telephone, open files on his computer and compose memos.

``The tragedy is, the technology exists, but people with

disabilities may not have access to it,'' said Thackeray. He

referred to his organization's 2000 national survey, which

showed that only 32 percent of people with disabilities aged

18 to 64 are employed full or part time, and that 29 percent

of people with disabilities live in poverty, with a household

income of $15,000 or less.

Schneider considers his ceiling-mounted lift the most

important device he has to independently perform mundane

daily tasks such as using the toilet. But in 1995 he lost his

argument to have Medicare pay for the approximately $6,000

lift and used his own money. Medicare regards the device as a

``convenience item'' that doesn't fit its definition of

medical equipment, according to an e-mailed explanation from

a spokesperson with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid

Services.

Schneider faced more discouragement in 2000 and 2001, when

he tried to get government assistance to install an elevator

in his Columbia townhouse. Local government and social

service officials offered little hope, and one wrote

Schneider suggesting that he and his neighbors hold a bake

sale to raise the money. But independent living advocates

such as Jamey George insisted the state could help with low-

interest loans. Schneider decided to sell his townhouse and

buy a home that could be remodeled to accommodate several

friends with MS who lived in nursing facilities.

``I wanted to have a home for a group of people who are

disabled,'' Schneider said. He believed a new law in Maryland

would make it easier, since it required state agencies to get

more services to disabled adults in community settings,

rather than institutions. He still rankles at the reaction

of one state rehabilitation official, who told him he

wasn't competent to run such a home.

Schneider persevered, but it wasn't long before he was

struggling with misfiled loan applications, climbing

remodeling expenses and ballooning debt. That's when his

cyber community stepped into the fray. Schneider administers

an online forum and support group for MS patients called

MedSupport that draws participants from 12 countries and is

an example of how the Internet has forged new ties among

people with disabilities. One participant is Kimberly Hensel,

a woman with severe MS who lives in a small, isolated Arizona

town. Hensel's disease garbles her speech, but she can

communicate online by typing in a personalized shorthand with

one index finger: ``most folks ive come n contact w over the

internet hav the desire 2 keep adaptn 2 their changn needs 2

b as independent as we can,'' she e-mailed. ``often we need a

little help 2 enable us 2 do just that.'' MedSupport members

began sending hundreds of e-mails to the Maryland governor's

office asking for its intervention in Schneider's case.

The office of Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) also got

involved, arguing that state officials could choose between

loaning Schneider money or spending tens of thousands of

dollars annually--in Maryland the average annual cost is

$50,000--to keep him in a nursing home.

The bureaucrats relented, and last year Schneider got two

loans totaling $65,000 to

cover the cost of the $48,000 elevator and some of the

remodeling. His ranch home now has wide, sloping concrete

walks from his front and back doors that draw him outside

even on wintry days. His basement quarters feature a bathroom

with a roll-in shower, a toilet with double grab bars and

electronic sensing devices, kitchen cabinets that accommodate

his wheelchair, and appliances installed so that he can reach

into them from his wheelchair.

But he ran out of money to remodel the bathroom on the main

floor and widen the hallways. The new elevator sits little

used. The home for his MS friends hasn't happened, and

Schneider rents out the first floor to an able-bodied tenant.

His correspondence with the state Department of Health and

Mental Hygiene has convinced him that the state would try to

make him comply with elaborate licensure and certification

rules for what it calls his ``residential facility.''

``If the health care bureaucracy isn't attuned to working

with people with disabilities, it doesn't matter what the

words of the law are,'' he said.

Recently, Schneider hired two exercise therapists, who came

to his house for several weeks of half-hour sessions. They

had him do reps with four-pound weights on his good right

arm, and worked with his left arm and legs as well, under the

theory that repeated movement might invigorate his damaged

nervous system.

Schneider also has his longtime personal attendants help

him do stretching exercises with his left arm to keep the

muscles from permanently contracting. During one visit, he

grimaced as attendant Oretha Solee slowly pulled his extended

arm out and behind his back.

``That's good, that's enough,'' he whispered.

Someday, Schneider says, there may be a medical

breakthrough in MS, and he wants to remain as limber as he

can be. In the meantime, he receives calls from health care

bureaucrats who want to update their records and ask if he

still has MS. Yes, he tells them, and he recounts the

conversations with sardonic resignation. He has learned to

live with it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the East Bay Conversion and Reinversion Commission for its great contributions to Alameda County for the past 10 years.

In 1993, Congress authorized four pilot projects charged with seeking ways to improve the defense conversion process. Then-Congressman Ronald V. Dellums of California's Ninth District convened the EBCRC to manage one project in Alameda County, California. Members included elected officials, as well as representatives of public agencies, community groups, labor unions, educational institutions, business organizations, environmental advocacy groups and the military.

Since its inception, the EBCRC has had an impressive track record in assisting base closure communities locally and nationally. It has developed sound economic strategies to replace lost jobs and reuse dormant facilities. Under contract with the Department of Defense, the EBCRC has conducted two national studies examining the challenges and difficulties that accompany the base closure process and have published two internationally acclaimed reports, Defense Conversion: A Road Map for Communities, and The Upside of Base Closure: Tools for Reinvesting in Communities.

The East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission has helped bring over $50 million

of Federal support into Alameda County since 1993. These monies have gone to successfully close the bases and spur economic redevelopment on these former military facilities. In this vein, the EBCRC launched a small business development and assistance program to aid former base employees start their own businesses. The Workers to Business Owners National Demonstration Project has generated millions of dollars in economic activity and created hundreds of new jobs.

To further assist small businesses, The EBCRC established the Defense Conversion Revolving Loan Fund to provide access to capital to businesses unable to secure loans from traditional lenders. With $1 million currently in the fund and expected growth to $20 million, the fund targets financially disadvantaged businesses and provides pre- and post-loan technical assistance to help its customers. As a result of these efforts, the EBCRC has made loans to eight small businesses totaling $1,046,000. These eight companies will precipitate $24 million in business activity, create more than 75 new jobs, and support several hundred direct and indirect jobs.

To date, the EBCRC has introduced new economic activity and jobs to six former military bases in Alameda County. It has reached out to nearly 250 businesses and provided support to more than half of those. Reporting businesses indicated nearly $9 million in new contracts, millions in lease revenues for the cities of Alameda and Oakland, and nearly $7 million in Local, State/Federal taxes. Redevelopment at these bases is accelerating and more than 2700 units of new housing is being built, 25 percent of which will be affordable units. Soon, the EBCRC will begin making First Time Home Buyer Home Mortgages to low- and moderate-income-families.

I ask Congress to join me and the constituents of the 9th Congressional District in celebrating the 10th Anniversary of the East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission and wishing them many more years of success and affirmative developments.