Congresswoman Barbara Lee's One Voice: United for Progressive Change: News

President Barack Obama Takes Major Steps for People with HIV and AIDS

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Immigration Equality has confirmed that President Obama will announce the end of the HIV Travel and Immigration Ban later this morning, in conjunction with his renewal of the Ryan White Act. President Obama’s announcement will coincide with publication of a rule change in the federal register which, following a 60 day waiting period, will signal the official end of the ban.

The Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld also reported on the impending announcement today, writing on the magazine’s site that, “The new regulation eliminates any travel and immigration restrictions that are tied to a person’s HIV status. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) put the wheels of change in motion in late June by publishing the proposed regulation to the federal register, which triggered a 45-day public comment period. HHS has now sent the final change to the Office of Management and Budget for approval, but the source said HHS would not be able to fully implement the new regulation for another 60 days following the president’s announcement.”

“My understanding was that this would be announced the same day as the Ryan White Act was signed into law,” said a source, who spoke to The Advocate on the condition of anonymity. “The White House wanted to be out in front on this.”

“At long last, people living with HIV will no longer be pointlessly barred from this country,” Rachel Tiven, Immigration Equality’s executive director, said. “Every day, Immigration Equality hears from individuals and families who have been separated because of the ban, with no benefit to the public health. Now, those families can be reunited.”

Senator John Kerry (D-MA), who helped lead the charge for repeal in Congress, just provided Immigration Equality with this statement about today’s news: “Today a discriminatory travel and immigration ban has gone the way of the dinosaur and we’re glad it’s finally extinct. It sure took too long to get here. We’ve now removed one more hurdle in our fight against AIDS, and it’s long overdue for people living with HIV who battle against stigma and bigotry day in and day out.”

Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) who led the House effort to repeal the ban, just weighed in as well: “I believe that ending this policy is long overdue, and will lend greater credibility to U.S. foreign assistance efforts to fight the global HIV/AIDS epidemic,” the Congresswoman said. “Particularly, it will aid in combating the stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV, and further erode discriminatory travel and immigration policies in other countries.”

Lee Receives Award from Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

Sun, 25 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0700

The Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Alameda County named U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee as its Congressional Legislator of the Year for 2009 on Friday.

The award was given to Lee, D-Oakland, during the chamber's 30th Anniversary Gala at the Oakland Airport Hilton.

Lee was honored for her "pioneering leadership... on issues affecting America's consumers," and because she "exemplifies the highest ideals for all Americans, especially the poor," according to a statement by the chamber.

Lee said in a statement that she is "honored to be recognized by an organization that is so committed to the constituents in my district."

She said she has worked for many years with the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce to nurture and foster business growth in the Hispanic community and throughout her district.

"I look forward to continuing this collaboration in the future," she said.

Reps. Dana Rohrabacher and Barbara Lee -- a political odd couple

Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Reporting from Washington - Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, an Orange County conservative, and Rep. Barbara Lee, a Bay Area liberal, are about as far apart ideologically as anybody in Congress.

Yet both oppose a troop increase in Afghanistan.

As President Obama ponders a new war strategy and members of Congress stake out their positions, Rohrabacher and Lee have become the political odd couple.

"Sending in more U.S. combat troops is not the answer," Rohrabacher said in a speech on the House floor last week, breaking from his fellow Republicans, most of whom back a troop increase.

The Huntington Beach congressman, who once traveled with the Afghan mujahedin while they fought the Soviets, added: "Reaching out to the villages and tribal elders and establishing local militias, perhaps buying their goodwill if need be, these are the things that will work."

Lee of Oakland, who cast the lone congressional vote in 2001 against the use of force in Afghanistan, welcomed her surprise ally after hearing Rohrabacher speak.

"I listened to his opening statement. I could have given it," she said.

"The fact that both Lee and Rohrabacher oppose troop increases reflects how widespread doubt is about Afghanistan," said Loren Thompson, a defense policy analyst for the Lexington Institute. "Those two occupy opposite ends of the ideological continuum on most issues, so their shared misgivings on Afghanistan tell you that the unease is bipartisan."

The Ripley's-believe-it-or-not moment is politically uncomfortable for both lawmakers.

Lee's opposition to a troop increase turns up the heat from the left on a White House that has been under pressure to grant a request from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, for up to 40,000 more U.S. troops. There currently are 68,000 U.S. military members operating there.

And it could put Lee in the position of challenging a president she worked to elect.

"There is no military solution in Afghanistan," Lee said, warning that any additional troops would be perceived by the Afghans as occupiers.

As for Rohrabacher, most of his Republican colleagues are pressing Obama to approve McChrystal's request.

"Opposing our enemy by arming and financing local and village leaders was a strategy that worked against the Soviet Army, and it worked against the Taliban after 9/11, and it will work again," he said.

Though they hold similar views on the troop increase, Lee and Rohrabacher -- both the children of military officers -- are not working together, and they disagree on other issues related to the war.

Lee has introduced legislation to prevent funding for a troop increase, a measure Rohrabacher has said he would oppose. Rohrabacher has hinted he is open to more troops if used solely to train the Afghans "to defend themselves" -- an idea Lee has rejected.

They also came to their positions differently.

Rohrabacher has been interested in Afghanistan since his days as a speechwriter for President Reagan. He traveled there shortly after he was elected to the House in 1988, donning Afghan garb and traveling with a mujahedin unit fighting the Soviets.

The Republican has broken from his party before over the Afghan war, supporting an unsuccessful measure (co-sponsored by Lee) in the spring to require the Obama administration to prepare an exit strategy.

He also defied GOP leaders when he recently voted against a resolution to remove Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) as the House Ways and Means Committee chairman and was one of the few Republicans to vote to rebuke Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) for shouting "You lie!" at Obama during the president's healthcare speech to Congress.

Rohrabacher also has worked with liberal Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) on legislation to stop federal authorities from interfering in the distribution of medical marijuana where states allow it.

Lee's efforts on the troops issue, however, have been in keeping with her bona fides as one of the House's most liberal members. And she has downplayed any potential rift with Obama over Afghanistan, praising the president for conducting a review of the war's strategy.

Lee laughed when asked about being on the same side of an issue with Rohrabacher. "We try to work in a bipartisan way," she said.

Rohrabacher, when asked whether this was the beginning of a new alliance, snapped, "Not at all."

End the War

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0700

The 9th year of the war in Afghanistan begins today with fears that it could be even more deadly than the previous eight--despite public opinion polls showing a majority of Americans opposing the conflict.

Popular opposition to escalation is fueling a spate of national protests today and for the rest of this week calling for an exit plan and imploring President Obama and leaders in Congress to reject a request from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of troops in Afghanistan, for as many as 40,000 new troops to bolster the app. 68,000 US soldiers currently serving in the region.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee, joined by 21 lawmakers, presented an alternative direction with the recent introduction of H.R. 3699 in Congress -- a bill that prohibits funding for any increase in the number of members of the US Armed Forces in Afghanistan.

So far, the Democratic leadership and the White House have rebuffed the legislation with Senator Harry Reid even remarking that everyone present at President Obama's latest private forum on Afghanistan, Republican or Democrat, agreed to support whatever decision he made . The real issue, as John Nichols writes in his Nation blog, is that none of the "outspoken advocates for a rethink of the occupation…and an exit strategy" such as Senators Russell Feingold and Bernie Sanders were invited to this strategy session in a more-than-symbolic move.

Join The Nation in making sure that President Obama also hears what concerned progressives think about the future of US involvement in Afghanistan. If we're not invited behind closed doors, we can nevertheless make our voices heard by loudly urging Congress to consider the limits on troop increases proposed in H.R. 3699.

In Congresswoman Lee's words, "As we consider the possibility of further entrenching United States Armed Forces by sending significantly more brave men and women in uniform into harm's way, this legislation sends a clear message in opposition to this course of action."

House liberal float bill to bar troop 'surge'

Sun, 04 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Nearly two dozen House liberals have signed onto a bill introduced this past week that would prohibit an increase of troops in Afghanistan.

A bill introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) on Thursday would bar funding to increase the troop level in Afghanistan beyond its current level.

Lee and 21 lawmakers -- largely from the liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus -- introduced the bill, H.R. 3699 on Thursday.

The legislation comes as President Barack Obama and leaders in Congress weigh a request from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of troops in Afghanistan, for as many as 40,000 new troops to bolster the eight-year-long military engagement in the region.

“History tells us that there will not be a military-first solution to the situation in Afghanistan," Lee told the Redding News Review. “Open-ended military intervention in Afghanistan is not in our national security interest and will only continue to give resonance to insurgent recruiters painting pictures of foreign occupation to a new generation."

The Obama administration is expected to make a decision on McChrystal's request for more troops "in a matter of weeks," National Security Advisor James L. Jones said Sunday.

An while liberals in the Democratic Party have been somewhat wary of a larger troop commitment to Afghanistan, Jones vowed that the president's decision wouldn't be swayed by politics.

"I don't play politics, and I certainly don't play it with national security, neither does anyone else I know," Jones said on CNN. "I can assure you that the president of the United States is not playing to any political base."

Report on Afghanistan gives Obama tough choices

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0700

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan's call for more troops - "or else the mission will be a failure" - gives President Obama a stark set of options for the next step in Afghanistan.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal wrote that "resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it," according to a summary of his 66-page report that was reported Sunday by the Washington Post.

Obama said disrupting al Qaeda is his "core goal" and is reviewing options, aides said.

While some backers of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan are encouraging the president to beef up forces there, nobody is actively challenging him to go the other way - and pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, has said she didn't "think there's a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan" and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., wants to use existing U.S. troops there to train Afghan forces to hunt down al Qaeda.

But few politicians are publicly opposing the White House, whose position is evolving.

"By failing to speak out forcefully, Congress will serve as enablers on this war in Afghanistan," said Norman Solomon, a media critic, liberal activist and Obama supporter who spent five days around Kabul last month, touring refugee camps and talking with politicians and locals.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, one of the staunchest anti-war votes in Congress and a key Obama ally, told The Chronicle Monday that she's "not so sure" that Obama's supporters on the left are willing to push back against him.

Lee said an amendment to the Defense Department's reauthorization bill would have required the White House to provide an exit strategy for the Afghanistan war, but the bill failed by a 2-1 margin.

"I'm definitely talking about this, trying to create a debate," Lee said. "Whether it was Bush or this president, I think this was not the correct strategy to pursue to protect America's national security."

Lee said she thinks the Taliban is getting stronger regardless of the number of U.S. troops.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has been pushing for "soft power" in Afghanistan that would emphasize economic development, humanitarian aid, education and better governance. Now, 90 percent of U.S. resources in the country go toward the military, according to the Defense Department.

Capitol Hill Republicans urged Obama Monday to give the U.S. military leaders what they ask for. "Anything less would confirm al Qaeda's view that America lacks the strength and the resolve to endure a long war," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., declined to comment on McChrystal's report until she had read it. Last week, she told CNN that that she doesn't think the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is clear.

"I do not believe we can build a democratic state in Afghanistan," she said. "I believe it will remain a tribal entity.

By November, 68,000 U.S. troops will be in Afghanistan, in addition to 38,000 NATO troops.

Black Activism Examined During March on Washington Anniversary

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:00:00 -0700

This week marks the 46th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, Aug. 28, 1963. Nearly a half century since the march that drew more than 200,000 to Washington, D.C., Black activists contend that their commitment remains the same.

“I think that some leaders are now reluctant to engage in public struggle because President Barack [Obama] is in the White House. But, I would remind you that a public demonstration for justice would not be a march on the President,” said the Rev. Jesse Jackson, president and CEO of the Chicago-based Rainbow/PUSH Coalition.

Though public demonstrations by Black activists have been scaled back significantly since Obama’s election, the intense focus on issues is still the same, Jackson said.

“In 1963, we were marching for the right to vote. Now we’re marching to the polls by the millions all over the nation. Activism, now, is the election of city councils and state legislatures, Congress and President of the United States,” Jackson said.

“When you fight, you fight with the whole armor of God – litigation, legislation, registration, demonstration. All of those are forms of fighting. Even in 1963, we had won the ’54 Supreme Court decision, the ’55 Montgomery bus boycott, and students across the South marched on Selma. Even then, we used litigation, legislation, registration and demonstration. We’ve always used several forms of fighting.”

Jackson admits that the current lack of street activism, that had resurged during the eight years of the Bush Administration, may be necessary to make ultimate progress on issues through the first four years of the Obama Administration.

Street demonstrations are not only still needed to fight remaining inequities, but to counteract the uprising of White-led right wing activism around the nation in the wake of health care legislation, Jackson said.

“The evidence of hostility is shown clearly in the town hall meetings,” he said. “We are still fighting. But we’re winning. The reason why the right wing is acting so hostile is because they are feeling desperate. They lost the White House. We won.”

“Our agenda has not changed. It’s just that instead of having an adversary in the White House, we have an ally,” Jackson said.

The National Urban League’s Marc Morial agrees.

“We have to be fundamentally realistic. Our constituencies voted for this President … Black leadership’s role is to support the public policies that we believe will benefit our constituencies. I think we must realize that personality politics, in my opinion, are [unnecessary] when there’s an opportunity to work along with a president for the shaping of public policy that benefits our community,” Morial said.

“Having said that, I believe it’s important to recognize that Black leadership’s role is to hold every elected official accountable. And I sometimes wonder why people say we have to hold Obama accountable, when I don’t hear that kind of conversation from some people about the Congress of the United States, congressional leadership, about the governors and the mayors.”

Morial said it is much easier to work with a president who has been historically friendly toward civil rights and equality.

“Some of the fights and the pushing and the shoving takes place beyond the view of the media,” Morial said.

“It’s not just about what we say publicly. It’s about what the results of the policies and the programs are.”

Morial said he has been working with the Department of Labor on finding green jobs and green job-training in the Black community in order to lower the Black unemployment rate.

Political observers have watched the first 200 days of the Obama presidency.
Dr. Julia Hare, co-founder of the San Francisco-based Black Think Tank, said while Black leaders should not treat Obama any differently than the 43 White presidents who came before him, there does appear to be a need for more activism on economic equity.

But, Hare observes there has appeared to be a fear factor in Black leadership’s reluctance to criticize the first Black president on issues such as the need to get economic stimulus dollars to the poor faster instead of to banks and financial institutions that caused the crisis.

U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, which now has 17 subcommittee chairs and four full chairs in Congress, said the president is doing a remarkable job given all that is on his plate. She said it is a relief to not have to fight like they did with the Bush Administration.

Bay Area politicians praise Kennedy's legacy

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Bay Area politicians shared personal recollections and voiced admiration Wednesday for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, who serves as chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, worked closely with Kennedy on education policy — notably, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 — as well as a wide range of labor and health issues.

Collaborating with Kennedy "was a wild and fascinating time," Miller said Wednesday. "He had such ability and such vision; you knew you were playing in the major leagues, and it was very exciting and obviously satisfying because we were able to accomplish so much with his leadership in the Senate and nationally.

"He brought huge resources to these fights over education and education of the handicapped, and health care — it was just remarkable company to keep."

Miller recalled that upon the 2007 signing into law of a minimum-wage increase — for which Kennedy had fought for a decade, offering amendment after amendment year after year — Kennedy leaned over and told Miller that he soon would write a bill to raise the minimum wage again, as this increase was not enough.

"The ink wasn't dry on the new law, and away he went," Miller said. "It's that kind of energy, when you're working alongside of him, that's so encouraging to see."

With the health care reform battle now raging, "I would certainly hope the Democrats and the nation would reflect upon the vision and the values he had about what it meant to families to have health insurance, to have coverage for everyone in the family, the kind of security for families that he aspired for them to have. "... This is what he fought for 40 years."

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, agreed that Kennedy "would want us to continue to fight the good fight on behalf of the American people as it relates to health care reform, and it would be a fitting tribute to him."

Lee said she was an intern in the office of then-Rep. Ron Dellums, D-Oakland, in 1974 when she and the few other African-American interns on Capitol Hill sought a private meeting with Kennedy, whom they viewed as a civil rights icon. She tried to contact Kennedy staffer Ron Brown, who later would serve as secretary of Commerce for President Bill Clinton.

"Within an hour, Ron Brown called back and had the time arranged and said Sen. Kennedy was looking forward to meeting with us," Lee said. When they did meet, "we knew we were in the presence of greatness."

Lee noted that when Kennedy stumped for then-Sen. Barack Obama last year in Oakland, about 1,400 people packed Beebe Memorial Cathedral and hundreds more listened outside.

"I think the testament to his greatness was witnessing young people, a multiracial crowd, coming out to see and hear Sen. Kennedy," she said. "His legacy lives."

Dellums, now Oakland's mayor, issued a statement Wednesday calling Kennedy "one of the great liberal giants of the U.S. Senate" who at a young age had "planted his feet into public service and made a long-term commitment to make this world a better place."

"I believe he will be remembered for his ability to put politics aside and get things done on behalf of all Americans," Dellums said. "Regardless of whether or not you are a Republican or Democrat, everyone in Washington praised him for his work ethic, praised him for his confidence and praised him for his integrity. There can be only one Ted Kennedy, but his work, his life and his integrity will influence generations to come."

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, who serves as chairman of House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, said Wednesday that he is proud to have worked with Kennedy on several health care reform bills over the past few decades, though none of them passed. Stark said Kennedy's death is a personal loss to him and his family as well; his 8-year old twins just recently read "My Senator and Me," purportedly penned by Kennedy's Portuguese water dog, Splash.

"Their first question is, 'Who's going to take care of Splash?'"‰" Stark said. "But the book also talked about taking care of poor people, and they also wanted to know who would take care of poor people."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose wife, Maria Shriver, is Kennedy's niece, issued a statement saying that Kennedy was not only "known to the world as the lion of the Senate, a champion of social justice and a political icon," but more importantly "was the rock of our family: a loving husband, father, brother and uncle. He was a man of great faith and character."

"Teddy inspired our country through his dedication to health care reform, his commitment to social justice, and his devotion to a life of public service," Schwarzenegger said. "I have personally benefited and grown from his experience and advice, and I know countless others have as well. Teddy taught us all that public service isn't a hobby or even an occupation, but a way of life and his legacy will live on."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who served on the Senate Judiciary Committee with Kennedy for 17 years, issued a statement saying that she had witnessed "up close and personal his dedication to issues of civil rights, human rights and basic fairness to all. He is irreplaceable, and leaves shoes that are so big that it will be difficult for a mere mortal to fill them."

Obama aide says president still favors public health plan

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:00:00 -0700

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House sought to reassure jittery supporters Monday that President Obama is not abandoning the fight for a public health insurance option.

The assurance came amid a media firestorm ignited over the weekend by administration officials seeming to indicate a willingness to drop such an option in order to secure congressional approval of a health care reform bill.

The verbal maneuvering reflected the steep political challenge facing an administration trying to balance the competing priorities of the more conservative Senate and the more liberal House of Representatives.

"The president has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans, and it must increase choice and competition in the health insurance market," White House aide Linda Douglass said in a written statement.

"He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals."

The administration seemed to step back from its insistence on such an option over the weekend, when Obama said it is "not the entirety of health care reform."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president could be "satisfied" without it. And Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told CNN's "State of the Union" that a public insurance plan is "not the essential element." VideoWatch Sebelius, others talk about the issue »

The move seemed to be a concession to critics, particularly Republican lawmakers who have assailed the idea of the government playing that kind of role. Yet it also stirred up frustration from those on the left who believe such an option is critical.

"Recent comments by Obama administration officials regarding the public option and health reform are deeply troubling," Rep. Barbara Lee, D-California, said in a written statement.

Lee, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said that "any bill without a public health insurance plan like Medicare is not health reform."

Former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, a doctor and one-time presidential candidate, told NBC's "Today Show" on Monday that he believes a public option "is the entirety of health care reform; it's not the entirety of insurance reform."

A petition on his Web site StandWithDrDean.com reads, "A public option is the only way to guarantee health care for all Americans and its inclusion is non-negotiable."

Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona and co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, warned that a significant number of House liberals would oppose any bill that does not include a "robust public option."

"Our position has not, and will not, change," he said. "I will not support any bill that does not include a public option."

But making the issue negotiable might be a necessity for any legislation to pass through the Senate. Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, one of six Senate Finance Committee members who have been trying to hammer out the first bipartisan compromise bill, said Sunday a public option simply won't make it through Congress.

"The fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for a public option. There never have been," Conrad told "FOX News Sunday." VideoWatch bloggers give their opinions of the focus on the public option »

Instead of a public option, the negotiators are considering a plan proposed by Conrad to create nonprofit health insurance cooperatives that could negotiate coverage as a collective for their members.

Such cooperatives, which have already been established in cities such as Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Seattle, Washington, are designed to provide better coverage at a lower cost for their members in part by funneling profits back into the system.

They are also designed to help alter the larger health care landscape by forcing private competitors to lower their prices. Liberal critics note, however, that membership in a cooperative is not free of cost. Cooperatives can -- and often do -- reject prospective members, and are therefore less likely than other public alternatives to help reach the goal of universal health coverage. VideoWatch a senior medical correspondent talk about co-ops and the uninsured »

Some conservatives, on the other hand, have suggested that any government-supported insurance option will create an uneven playing field in the industry. Private insurers won't be able to compete, the conservative critics argue, eventually leading to a situation in which the government will control a great deal of the health care in America.

"We have the best health care system in the world," Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama told "FOX News Sunday." "We need to expand it. We do not need to destroy it."

Supporters of a public option say it will create a badly needed level of competition, ultimately benefiting the public. At a town hall event Saturday in Grand Junction, Colorado, Obama said, "I think that we can craft a system in which you've got a public option that has to operate independently, not subsidized by taxpayers -- it would be nonprofit ... they would have to go on the market and get a market price for capital."

He added, "I think there are ways that we can address those competitive issues."

But White House efforts to sway fiscally conservative Democrats -- the so-called Blue Dogs in the House of Representatives -- continued to run up against an apparent constituent backlash Monday.

Rep. Allen Boyd, a seven-term Blue Dog, told constituents at a town hall meeting in his northern Florida district that he could not support the current House bill because it does not do enough to control exploding health care costs. VideoWatch a report about the town hall meeting »

One constituent nevertheless castigated Boyd for not doing enough to stop the push for reform.

"If we let [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and people like that direct us, we are doomed," the constituent said to loud applause. "We want Allen to ... do a good job for us, like he used to do, but [he] can't do that with that bunch of scoundrels."

Pelosi later issued a statement saying that "there is strong support in the House for a public option. ... A public option will keep insurance companies honest and increase competition."

Speaking to reporters in his home state of Pennsylvania, Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter said Monday that Obama needs to clarify his preference for either cooperatives or a more traditional public option.

The president now "has to make the evaluation as a matter of leadership as to what the administration wants to do," he said.

Specter, who was a Republican before switching parties earlier this year, said he preferred a more traditional public option but might be willing to back the idea of cooperatives.

"I'm not willing to write off the public option, because there are some people who are discouraged about it," he said. "The [cooperatives] might have the same elements, where there is an operation which is not for profit. But let's write the bill, let's consider it, and let's try to do something positive."

Congressional Black Caucus pushes for hiring of more minority staffers

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0700

The Congressional Black Caucus is stepping up its pressure on fellow lawmakers and committees to hire more minorities, seeking hard data it can use to show that even after the election of a black president, the staff on Capitol Hill doesn’t reflect America.

The CBC is completing a survey of minority hiring by committees. And it recently got detailed diversity questions added to a compensation survey of all House offices done by the chief administrative officer (CAO) of the House, Dan Beard.

CBC Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) said the surveys will be used to ensure a more diverse workforce on Capitol Hill.

“The lack of African-American staffers, particularly in senior positions, on Capitol Hill is apparent and of deep concern,” Lee said. “As a result, the Congressional Black Caucus has made several inquiries about staff diversity.”

The surveys will provide the first data on minority hiring in the House since a 2004 Congressional Management Foundation study found only 9 percent of House staffers were black.

The compensation survey had tracked diversity in hiring for decades, but the diversity questions were deleted in 2006.

The CBC, along with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) and the Asian and Pacific Islander Caucus, pressed the CAO’s office to include questions about the race and gender of each staffer in this year’s compensation survey, and the CAO agreed. The surveys were due July 3.

The survey, generally completed by chiefs of staff, asks about the gender, age and race of each staffer, in addition to how much he or she is paid. It does not request the names of the employees, and the information will not be traceable to the offices of individual lawmakers.

Additionally, the survey asks whether it is a priority for the racial make-up of the staff to “reflect your constituents’ demographics.”

It also asks whether the lawmaker provides “any type of leave that covers cultural or ethnic events/holidays,” and “If not, why not?”

The survey comes as the CBC has shown it’s ready to flex its muscles. Democrats are in the majority, with a president who used to be a member of the CBC. Among the CBC’s 42 members are four committee chairmen and 17 subcommittee chairmen.

An aide to a CBC member said that there is a general sense that there is a paucity of minority staffers, but not enough hard data.

“People look around and see there isn’t a lot, but there isn’t an accounting,” the aide said.

Lee recently took on the Sunday political talk shows, saying that African-American lawmakers, particularly chairmen and subcommittee chairmen, should be invited more often to speak on their areas of expertise.

Separately, a group of frustrated members, lobbyists and aides are pressing congressional leaders to adopt a version of professional football’s so-called “Rooney rule.” That rule requires that NFL teams interview at least one minority candidate when they are filling head coaching vacancies.

That group says more effort has been made in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has a diversity officer to assist Democratic senators with hiring. That group’s efforts are geared more toward getting more minorities hired for senior roles, like chiefs of staff. Only five white lawmakers have black chiefs of staff.

The CBC, along with the CHC, challenged the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006 for not hiring enough minorities, prompting now-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to appoint an ad hoc panel of lawmakers to investigate concerns with DCCC’s management.

Still, some have criticized the CBC for not doing more to recruit African-Americans. Critics say the CHC has a better-developed internship process and actively aids those interns in finding a place on Capitol Hill.

CBC report a peek at president's Black agenda?

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0700

WASHINGTON (NNPA) - A bi-annual report released by the Congressional Black Caucus may give a sneak peek at President Barack Obama's agenda for Black America.

"We have a very forward-thinking, progressive, bold agenda and that's what we're working on in terms of the Congressional Black Caucus agenda—but also the president's agenda—which 99 percent of the time is in sync," says CBC Chair Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) in an interview with the NNPA News Service.

"So, I see us as being in partnership as we should be as members of Congress with the executive branch to try to make sure that we have an agenda that really speaks to—not only the Black community and communities of color—but to the whole country."

On an election-eve phone conference with Black leaders, then candidate Obama was emphatic in a promise to never forget the disparities in Black America. Since in the White House he has not specifically outlined an agenda for how these racial disparities would be addressed.

Rep. Lee points out that President Obama was a member of the CBC before becoming president and that the CBC's 17 subcommittee chairs and four committee chairs are at the White House on a regular basis, working in tandem with the president on various issues, including those of racial and social injustice.

"And so members are at the White House consistently and constantly on the issues that revolve around their committee, which also reflect the perspective of the Congressional Black Caucus," she said.

The bi-annual report, "Opportunities for All—Pathways Out of Poverty," states that its purpose is to push "for equal empowerment, including equal access to quality education, public facilities and infrastructure, credit and public contracts, jobs and job training, affordable housing, and equal pay for equal work." It lists CBC-sponsored legislation designed to supplement priorities set forth by President Obama and congressional leaders.

A letter from Rep. Lee, introducing the report states, "As our nation's economic uncertainty continues, millions of Americans already struggling to overcome systemic poverty are encountering greater hardships. Millions more are grasping to maintain their quality of life during this turmoil. This crisis is particularly acute among African-Americans. More than 24 percent of African Americans live below the poverty line and African-Americans are 55 percent more likely to be unemployed than other Americans."

The report gives an account of the CBC's first six months under the Obama administration from January through June. It also gives a list of specific bills to watch for the remainder of the 111th Congress—one bill from each member of the 42-member CBC.

A sampling of the bills follows, along with descriptions obtained by NNPA from http://Thomas.loc.gov, a search engine for congressional legislation:

• H.R. 676, the United States National Health Care Act, introduced by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.): "To provide for comprehensive health insurance coverage for all United States residents, improved health care delivery, and for other purposes."

• H.R. 795, the Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act, introduced by Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.): "To establish the Social Work Reinvestment Commission to advise Congress and the Secretary of Health and Human Services on policy issues associated with the profession of social work and to authorize the Secretary to make grants to support recruitment, retention, research, and reinvestment in the profession."

• H.R. 1479 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Modernization Act of 2009 introduced by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas): In part, "To enhance the availability of capital, credit, and other banking and financial services for all citizens and communities."

• H.R. 2299 Minority Business Enhancement Act of 2009, introduced by Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.), "To amend the Small Business Act to enhance services to small business concerns that are disadvantaged."

• H.R. 1064/S. 435 the Youth Prison Reduction through Opportunities, Mentoring, Intervention, Support and Education (PROMISE) Act, introduced by Rep. Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-Va.): "To provide for evidence-based and promising practices related to juvenile delinquency and criminal street gang activity prevention and intervention to help build individual, family, and community strength and resiliency to ensure that youth lead productive, safe, healthy, gang-free, and law-abiding lives."

• H.R. 1728 Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, introduced by Rep. Melvin L. Watt (N.C.): "To amend the Truth in Lending Act to reform consumer mortgage practices and provide accountability for such practices, to provide certain minimum standards for consumer mortgage loans."

Leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus had said from the beginning of the Obama administration that they expected his presidency would bolster their power in Congress along with other Democrats.

Although it is not clear whether the president will support all of the CBC legislation, Rep. Lee said it is good for constituents to know that they have advocates who frequently communicate with the president—all of whom know the conditions in Black America.

Transportation secretary tours port, talks money

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:00:00 -0700

U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and elected officials toured the Port of Oakland on Thursday and discussed the possibility of more federal money rolling on to its docks.

LaHood met with a host of local, state and federal officials in discussing the port's place in the regional and national economies. LaHood stressed the ideas of all of the West Coast's ports working collaboratively to cut down on pollution and talked of creating a "port czar" position that would put together a collaborative plan for the nation's ports.

LaHood also spoke about the possibility of securing for the Oakland port some federal Transportation Investment Generating Recovery Grant money. The $1.5 billion available in the so-called TIGER grants is available to local and state governments for a variety of transportation projects.

"Our ports are our economic engines, and we need these engines to be revving up," said U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, who along Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums and Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, joined LaHood.

Both the port and Alameda County face a great "moment of opportunity" to both restart the economy and clean up the environment by creating green jobs, Boxer said.

Dellums said he sees much potential in the port's future.

"I think the future of the port is that of a port of Middle America," said Dellums, adding the Port of Oakland has the advantage of being able to easily move goods outside of the Bay Area.

Lee mentioned the port already has received nearly $24 million in federal stimulus money, but more will be needed to keep the port — with its more than $9.7 billion worth of U.S. exports — growing and becoming more environmentally friendly.

Both Lee and LaHood stressed the importance of not discouraging ports from looking for environmentally conscience methods of moving goods.

The key to creating more environmentally friendly ports, LaHood said, is to transport more goods by ship rather than trucks. He mentioned, in particular, the importance of a "marine highway" along the West Coast.

"We will be putting a good deal of emphasis on the marine highway in order for us to get trucks off the road and get cleaner air," LaHood said.

No health reform without a public option, Lee vows

Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0700

OAKLAND — Progressives must keep demanding a single-payer health care system to ensure that the reform package Congress eventually votes upon at least has a robust public option, Rep. Barbara Lee told local health care and community leaders Monday.

About 250 people attended the national heath care plan discussion that Lee, D-Oakland, hosted in the Evergreen Missionary Baptist Church on West MacArthur Blvd. Joining Lee on the dais were several Bay Area health policy experts, most of whom extolled a single-payer plan — in which one source of money, most likely the government, pays all health care providers — but acknowledged that's essentially a political impossibility.

But they said pushing for a single-payer plan will build support for the proposal unveiled last week by the Democratic chairman of the Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means committees, which at least includes a public alternative to private insurance.

"At no point can we be silent," Lee told the crowd, adding President Barack Obama wants "a democratic movement of people" to push for the best possible plan under the political circumstances. "Health care should not be driven by a profit motive. I don't believe it should be an industry — I believe it's a human right."

Panelist Dr. James Kahn — a health care systems researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and president of the California Physicians Alliance, a single-payer advocacy nonprofit — said eliminating or drastically reducing the $200 billion per year wasted on unneeded health care paperwork — marketing, contract bureaucracy, grappling with hundreds of different health plans — over a decade would pay for major reform by itself.

Kahn agreed with Lee that "pushing for the ideal is critical to getting the best we can. ... We need a real public option that looks a lot like Medicare and perhaps a lot like single-payer."

Panelist Denise Herd, a University of California, Berkeley, associate professor of public health, said health disparities between whites and minorities have widened enormously in recent decades. In Alameda County, African-Americans now live an average of 7.8 years less than whites, with far higher incidences of diabetes, AIDS, heart disease and other illnesses, she said, arguing that true health care reform must address such disparities by providing financial, cultural and linguistic access to services for all.

Lee noted the "Tri-Committee proposal" incorporates parts of the Health Equity and Accountability Act introduced earlier this month by the Congressional Black Caucus, which she chairs, along with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

Panelist David Sayen, regional administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said the Obama Administration and Congress have "already made a down payment on reform" via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act economic stimulus effort, providing up to $20 billion for electronic medical records that could cut costs while saving lives; $1 billion for expanded preventive care; more money for the National Health Service Corps, which offers scholarships and loan-repayment programs to put medical, dental and mental health providers in areas with shortages; and so on.

Congressional Republicans are mounting a barrage of criticism against the Democrats' plan, claiming it'll cost too much, reduce patients' options and amount to a bureaucratic power grab.

House resolution to honor longtime journalist

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Oakland Rep. Barbara Lee wants Congress to officially recognize veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas "for her pioneering career as a woman in journalism."

The Democrat has introduced a three-page resolution that would bestow the House of Representatives' recognition on Thomas and honor her "unflagging and honest coverage of every president of the United States since John F. Kennedy."

Lee said she authored the resolution to provide "a small token of gratitude to her for her many years of service."

"Helen has been a trailblazer for women in the field of journalism and has served as a model of true journalistic integrity throughout her career," Lee said. "Having served as a correspondent for nearly six decades and covered every president since John F. Kennedy, her love for the written word and for politics is an inspiration to us all."

Lee's resolution praises Thomas as "an essential pillar of American democracy" and notes that "Helen Thomas continues to report on the White House and regularly ask pointed questions of the Obama administration."

Thomas' career has taken her from copy girl to White House correspondent, earning her the nicknames "first lady of the press" and "dean of the White House press corps." She has been a columnist for Hearst Newspapers, which owns The Chronicle, since July 2000; she previously was the White House bureau chief for United Press International from 1974 to 2000.

The resolution is expected to be considered by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Thomas was the subject of a similar tribute in Kentucky, where the state senate in 2002 honored her with a resolution noting her Winchester, Ky., birthplace, her "determination to seek and report the truth" and her "strong sense of morality."

This article appeared on page A - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle

CBC: More Diversity Needed On Shows

Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) say there is a lack of diversity on the Sunday political talk shows.

The CBC is more powerful than ever. Its members are chairmen of four congressional committees, and a former CBC member is now in the White House. CBC contends that more minorities should be invited to appear on the influential shows.

“I’m not pleased at all with the diversity issue as it relates to talk shows,” CBC Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) said in an interview with The Hill. “We have, what, 17 subcommittee chairs and four full-committee chairmen? These members are brilliant; they know their stuff. They’re powerful and they should be part of the Sunday morning talk shows.”

Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), secretary of the CBC, calls himself a “fan” of the Sunday shows, but said he’d like to see change.

“The morning talk shows need to increase the number of African-Americans,” Butterfield said. “Not only for diversity, but it would also be good for the ratings.”

The comments come three years after a study found a striking lack of black participants on the shows. The original study was completed before Democrats took over Congress in the 2006 elections, which put many more black and Hispanic lawmakers into positions of power.

But some legislators say that hasn’t been reflected on the shows.

Lee said the CBC, composed of 41 House members and Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), is working on the issue and has been in communication with the producers of the shows.

The criticism comes as racial issues play an increasingly prominent role in Washington politics, with the first black president, the first Latina Supreme Court nominee and immigration reform on the national agenda.

The CBC’s statements are echoed by the original authors of the study at the National Urban League Policy Institute.

“We’ve seen incremental change,” said Stephanie Jones, the institute’s executive director. “They’re not where they need to be.” Jones’s institute found that black guests made up only 8 percent of the total appearances on the shows. The institute is in the midst of updating its study.

Titled “Sunday Morning Apartheid,” the 2006 report analyzed ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” CBS’s “Face the Nation,” CNN’s “Late Edition,” “Fox News Sunday” and NBC’s “Meet the Press” from Jan. 1, 2004 through Dec. 31, 2005.

Despite its conservative-leaning reputation, Jones noted that “Fox News Sunday” delivered much of the diversity, noting that National Public Radio’s (NPR) Juan Williams is a regular guest.

“There’s at least one show every Sunday where you’re almost guaranteed to see an African-American panelist,” said a Fox News source.

Jones said that after the study, the Urban League reached out to the networks. NBC has been the most responsive, she said.

The late Tim Russert, then the host of “Meet the Press,” met with the group and acknowledged a problem, she said.

As a result of that receptiveness, she said, “Meet the Press” recently brought on Rutgers University economist William Rodgers, an African-American, as a commentator.

“They’re bringing on new voices,” she said. “They need to keep working on it.”

Other African-Americans who have been on “Meet the Press” this year include Tavis Smiley of PBS, former Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.), Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson and NPR’s Michele Norris.

Jones said she found it especially galling when conservatives blamed much of the economic meltdown on policies intended to help minorities get home loans, and there seemed to be no minorities rebutting the charges on screen. It prompted Jones to fire off a letter to the network presidents last October.

“It is unlikely that this and other such irresponsible comments would go unanswered if there were more diversity in your political and policy discussions,” Jones wrote at the time.

Roll Call tracks lawmakers’ appearances. The CBC member with the most appearances this year is Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), with two. The only other CBC member on the list is House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), who appeared once on “Fox News Sunday.” No Hispanic members are on the list.

This past weekend, not one minority lawmaker appeared on the Sunday shows. All seven of those who appeared are white and six are male. A majority of the Congress is composed of white males.

Representatives of the shows say that the CBC is looking only at lawmakers rather than including panelists. The shows say they have made real progress on diversity by including minority commentators like Donna Brazile and Cynthia Tucker. An ABC source said that 13 of 23 “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” shows this year – 57 percent – have included at least one African-American, often several.

“We’re always striving for diversity. We’re very mindful of it,” said Ian Cameron, executive producer of “This Week.” “Several of our regular contributors are African American, and we’re always looking for new voices. It’s something we’re constantly focused on, because it’s important and people wouldn’t watch us if we didn’t reflect the country.”

Betsy Fischer, executive producer of “Meet the Press,” said, “I think if you look over our program guest list in the past year or so, you will find many diverse voices — in terms of gender, race, idealogly and geographic representation. We are proud of our commitment to diversity as we try to present the most informative program of newsmakers and analysis each week.”

Sources at some of the shows note that their bookers are more likely to seek out senators, because there’s more debate and legislative uncertainty in the upper chamber. Burris is the only black senator and has at times dodged the limelight because of a Senate Ethics investigation into the circumstances of his appointment.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), a former CBC chairman and the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, said he organizes church and Sunday golf around the talk shows.

“When I watch these shows, I think, ‘I know my caucus better than that,’” Clyburn said. “I think, ‘That’s not a full discussion of my party’s agenda.’ “

However, he said, it’s not just blacks or Hispanics who are missing, but also regional diversity.

“The talk shows are not diversified enough along those lines,” he said. For example, he said, many were surprised in the climate debate when Southern Democrats came out strongly in favor of nuclear power. That’s because no one had been talking to them.

“These are big nuclear states,” Clyburn said.

Eric Deggans, the TV media/critic for the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, doubts Butterfield’s claim that inviting more minorities would lead to better ratings.

“Those shows’ audiences are those shows’ audiences,” he said.

Deggans, who often appears on CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” said it’s an issue of journalistic quality. Especially on racially charged issues, viewers don’t get a full picture when all the guests are white, he said.

“The Sunday after [Supreme Court justice nominee] Sonia Sotomayor was announced, I didn’t see any Hispanics on. There may have been one or two, but I didn’t see them,” Deggans said. “There’s a whole side of the issue you don’t get.”

But even if its members aren’t well-represented on Sunday talk shows, the CBC is well-represented in the corridors of power, at least on the House side. And they have a distinct take on the big agenda items for the year, including healthcare reform.

Many CBC members aren’t as enthusiastic as many of their fellow liberals about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) signature cap-and-trade bill to address climate change. They’re worried that electric utilities could pass on the costs to their low-income constituents in the form of steep rate hikes.

“Everything that’s going to be charged to the companies, they’re going to pass it on to the customers and I just don’t want to see utility bills so high that working people can’t afford them,” said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas).

Butterfield, who pressed this point in the Energy and Commerce Committee, notes that 15 percent of the allowances will be dedicated to helping low-income families avoid spikes in their bills.

He voted for the bill in committee, but added, “There’s still room for improvement.”

On healthcare, the CBC wants Democratic leaders to look beyond the idea of universal coverage to rectifying what they see as historical disparities. They joined together last week with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Asian American and Pacific Islander Caucus to demand that such disparities be addressed in the healthcare debate. They also recently pressed their point with Nancy-Ann DeParle, the director of the White House Office of Health Reform.

“For us, insurance issue is not enough — these access issues are also important,” said Del. Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands).

CBC members also say the disagreements of last year’s presidential primary season are behind them, and were overstated.

Some members committed early to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“There was no rift at all,” Johnson said. “We have a great feeling across the board about what we’re here for. We don’t question each other about that.”

“It is true we had differences of opinion during the primary, but we did not have a rift,” he said. “Our differences have been transformed into a positive working relationship.”

White House pitches war-funding measure

Wed, 10 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Rep. Barbara Lee is perhaps the toughest vote for President Obama to get on a bill funding the war in Afghanistan. After all, Lee was the lone vote against the popular invasion in 2001.

So the White House called in extra firepower, tapping White House adviser and Obama family friend Valerie Jarrett to make a call to Lee (D-Calif.).

Will it change Lee’s vote? Not likely. But it’s emblematic of the full-court press that the White House put on Congress to pass the war-spending bill.

Obama himself pulled a pack of Blue Dog Democrats aside at the White House to make his pitch. Cabinet secretaries made the case, and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel dialed up some of his old House colleagues to put the touch on them.

The sales pitch: do it for your president.

“They say, “This is going to be an embarrassment to the president,” said a Democratic leadership aide. “But they use that on every last thing.”

Still, Obama has cachet to spare with congressional Democrats, and the approach appears to have worked. House and Senate leaders announced a deal Wednesday evening that is expected to clear the way for a conference report.

A controversial amendment blocking any release of torture photos is out. The $5 billion for the International Monetary Fund is in. And on Guantanamo, the legislation will say detainees can come to the United States for trial, but cannot stay.

House and Senate conferees are to meet Thursday. The target for a House vote is Tuesday, and then the conference report goes to the Senate.

With the agreement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Democratic leaders may have wriggled out of a tight bind. The bill, which passed in May with overwhelming Democratic support, has become weighted down by solid Republican opposition to including money for the International Monetary Fund. Republican leaders call the money a “global bailout.”

That meant Pelosi must pass the conference report in the House with Democratic votes. Only 200 Democrats voted for the measure, so leaders needed to find 18 more votes among the 51 who voted no.

The IMF money was enough to attract some of the liberal, anti-war members who voted against the money the first time around. But the prospect that some of the money could go to Iran threatened to cost Democratic votes, particularly among ardent supporters of Israel.

Then the Senate proposal to use the bill to block release of controversial torture photos threatened whatever ground with liberals Pelosi had made with IMF.

“I am among the get-able group of ‘No’ votes,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.). But, “That’s a deal breaker for me.”

And Blue Dogs were irritated at the overall price tag — now exceeding $100 billion — and an earmark for Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.).

Among the “no” votes were seven committee chairmen, all of whom could feel extra pressure to support leadership when the vote is close.

In some Democratic offices, aides even speculated that leaders might bring the measure to a vote without the magic number of 218 votes, hoping some vulnerable Republicans would fear voting against a measure to fund the troops.

“Is this their, ‘I voted for it before I voted against it’ moment?” speculated a Democratic aide.

Republicans said their wall of opposition to the IMF money is solid, and that even the most vulnerable Republicans, like Rep. Ahn “Joseph” Cao (R-La.) are on board.

“If they’re depending on us, they’re going to lose,” said a senior Republican aide, who rejected the comparison to Sen. John Kerry’s infamous line from the 2004 presidential campaign. Republican members, he said, “voted for a clean troop funding bill and then against a global bailout.”

Black Caucus pushes Obama on health equity

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are pressuring President Obama to take a more aggressive approach on eliminating health disparities in the health care reform legislation working its way through Congress.

In his June 2nd letter to key Congressional stakeholders, Obama came out for a controversial public insurance option and emphasized the need for greater efficiency and cost containment to Medicaid and Medicare.

But there was nary a peep about the well-documented differences in the quality of care among racial, ethnic and income groups -- and that caught the attention of the CBC.

On Friday, the Caucus sent a letter to the President urging him to address the disproportionate lack of insurance in the African-American community, in addition to persistent problems with the quality of care in low-income neighborhoods.

Numerous studies have shown that black and Hispanic patients suffer higher mortality rates on a range of treatable illnesses. Only a fraction of those disparities are attributable to low insurance rates.

CBC Chairwoman Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) asked the president to "institute aggressive solutions to the nation's current plight with health disparities," arguing that "health equity" needs to be a central part of the plan.

Next week the 75-plus member Tricaucus, which includes the CBC, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the Asian-Pacific Island members, will introduce its own alternative next week that will include "sliding-scale" subsidies for working poor families and funding to pay for uncovered costs like deductibles.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee -- a Rebel Inside the House

Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Now in her sixth full term in the House of Representatives, the congresswoman holds to her radical roots, explaining in her new book just how mainstream those revolutionary programs have become. Currently chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, she spoke to author Emily Wilson of her need to define herself.

Barbara Lee, the Democratic congresswoman who represents California's 9th district, which includes Oakland and Berkeley, gained national attention when she cast the only opposing vote to a resolution authorizing then-President Bush to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against anyone associated with the terrorist attacks of September 11. This vote won her both praise and death threats.

In her new book, "Renegade for Peace and Justice: Congresswoman Barbara Lee Speaks For Me," Lee writes about that vote and how many of her friends, including current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, tried to talk her out of it. But the book doesn't just focus on her political life. She tells the story of growing up in segregated El Paso, moving to California, fighting to be the first African American cheerleader at San Fernando High School, her secret marriage after getting pregnant as a teenager, her miscarriage, an abortion in Mexico, and an abusive husband.

Many of these, particularly the abortion, were not easy to write about, Lee says. But she says she wanted to inspire others who are going through hard times, as well as to present her side after that controversial vote.

"One of the reasons to write this book is to define myself because I didn't know who the Rush Limbaughs of the world were talking about - they called me a traitor, unpatriotic, all kinds of horrible things."

Lee writes in her book that she knew nothing about sex growing up and she now champions comprehensive sex education because she wants teenagers to be more informed than she was.

"We have to get rid of this abstinence only policy," Lee says. "The Bush administration implemented a policy that said federal funds would not be allowed in our schools unless they were to teach abstinence only and we've seen that it just hasn't worked."

Lee has also pushed for legislation to help woman who have been abused by their husbands and boyfriends. In her book she writes about the cycle of abuse in her own family, where her mother and grandmother were battered wives. Children who grow up seeing women beaten grow comfortable with it, Lee says. Her second husband was a violent man whose abuse took bizarre forms such as forcing her to take LSD.

Lee writes fondly about Mills College, a women's college in Oakland where she met her mentor Shirley Chisholm and worked on Chisholm's 1972 presidential campaign. Lee attended Mills after leaving her abusive husband, when she was on public assistance and taking care of her two little boys from her first marriage. Lee thinks Mills gave her much more than an excellent academic education.

"They provided the support I needed to be able to raise my kids," Lee says. "Sometimes I had to bring them to class with me. They should know statistics better than myself because they took the whole statistics course with me. A women's college understood that. They knew I was struggling."

While she was at Mills, Lee became very involved with the Black Panther Party, though she never became a member. She became friends with both founders of the party, Bobby Seale and Huey Newton, and she writes about playing cards all night with Seale and talking about classical music with Newton. Both of them also worked on Chisholm's presidential campaign. The Panthers' commitment to social justice was what drew her to them, she says.

"That's where free breakfast programs started and now it's a national law," she says. "There was nothing in our country with regards to sickle cell anemia and testing for African Americans. The Black Panther party with the George Jackson Clinic began that."

Lee studied to be a social worker at Mills and accomplished a goal of opening a mental health clinic in Oakland called CHANGE. Working with people at the clinic is part of what led her to a political life.

"I saw many patients who were depressed, schizophrenic, paranoid‚ there were serious mental issues," she says. "A lot of those issues had to do with economics. They had to do with policies. A lot of the women didn't have day care. A lot of people didn't have jobs."

Now the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Lee says she is still focusing on economic issues among poor people.

"We're looking at how the black community has the highest percentage of poverty rates, and we're trying to close some of these what I call moral gaps," she says. "It's unethical and horrible that we have so many young African American males dropping out of school. It's immoral that we have a prison system that incarcerates more African American men than [served by] an education system that lifts them up and provides the best education so they can stay out of jail and move forward with their lives."

One Voice PAC Taps Earl L. Plante as new Executive Director

Mon, 01 Jun 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Emeryville, CA – The Board of Directors of One Voice PAC proudly announces the selection of Earl L. Plante, former Chief Operating Officer of the National Black Justice Coalition, as the organization’s new Executive Director. Mr. Plante’s appointment as Executive Director becomes effective on June 1, 2009.

In a statement, the Honorable Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Honorary Chair of One Voice and Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus said, “I welcome the Board’s selection of a new Executive Director and am convinced that he has the skills, temperament, drive and focus to take One Voice to the next logical level in its development. I look forward to working with Mr. Plante to mobilize on behalf of its agenda and to ensure our commitment to uniting progressive Americans into One Voice that will effectively fight for the changes our country so desperately needs.”

John Gooding, Chairman of the Board of One Voice PAC, stated that “Mr. Plante brings a wealth of unique experiences to his new position at One Voice. I applaud his strong and long-standing commitment to the progressive mission and work of our organization.   I also want to publicly acknowledge the significant efforts of the search committee for their due diligence that made this selection possible.”

Mr. Plante has worked his entire professional life in the non-profit sector as a passionate advocate for civil rights and social and economic justice in various communities through public education, advocacy, and increased visibility; he ultimately envisions a world where all individuals are fully empowered to participate safely, openly, and honestly in family, faith, and community regardless of race, gender-identity, or sexual orientation.

Mr. Plante most recently worked for The Trevor Project as their Chief Development Officer, which is primarily based in Los Angeles. Earl was chiefly responsible for raising its annual budget of $2.1 million, through individual donors, foundations, corporations, government and special events. Prior to The Trevor Project, he worked for the National Black Justice Coalition (NBJC), a national LGBT nonprofit organization based in Washington, DC where he was the Chief Operating Officer, in which he managed the $1.3 million budget, along with its finances, technology and human resources. Prior to NBJC, Earl was the Development Director at the National Minority AIDS Council (NMAC) where he administered all aspects of fund raising NMAC’s $7 million budget. Earl has also held previous senior management positions at Union Settlement Association, Gay Men of African Descent (GMAD), and Funders Concerned About AIDS (FCAA).   Mr. Plante attended Dartmouth College; he also served on the Founding Board of Queers for Economic Justice and as Board Chairman for the following organizations: the National Black Justice Coalition, One in Ten, NewFest and the Bronx Pride Community Center.

“I am deeply humbled by this opportunity to serve and join One Voice’s struggle for peace and justice as its new Executive Director, an organization that is truly committed to electing progressive candidates to Congress and fundamentally changing our political system, while empowering communities and individuals who have been silenced and excluded from the political domain,” said Mr. Plante. “I look forward to working with One Voice’s Board and its many loyal supporters to continue to grow upon its visionary foundation and leadership. It is a distinct honor and privilege to join this team and help build upon Congresswoman Barbara Lee’s groundbreaking organizational efforts.”

Demographic shift shows in Sotomayor pick

Tue, 26 May 2009 00:00:00 -0700

President Obama's pick of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court represents a brilliant political strategy that could bring Latino voters, the nation's fastest-growing electorate, to the Democratic Party for generations to come, experts say.

The pick is "pathbreaking," said Kevin Johnson, dean of the UC Davis School of Law, adding that Sotomayor's potential role as the first Latina on the nation's highest court is to Latinos like "the appointment of Thurgood Marshall was to African Americans in the 1960s."

"It's the sign of inclusion and their coming of age, and I don't think it will be lost on many Latinos," said Johnson, the first Latino dean of a UC law school. "You have someone who comes from humble beginnings, so she'll bring a different perspective. The more perspectives, ... the better a decision is likely to be."

Obama's naming of Sotomayor, the daughter of a widowed mother and the product of public housing, won raves from women and minority leaders such as Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, who called her "a true American success story" who will bring "a common sense of understanding of how the law practically works in the lives of all Americans."

But for millions of Latinos, the pick resonates on a deeply personal level, said Maria Ontiveros, a University of San Francisco School of Law professor who has specialized in immigrant law and followed Sotomayor's career for years.

'Just so out of reach'

"The idea that you can be a Latino and a Supreme Court justice was just so out of reach" for many generations, she said. "It represents the opening of all kinds of horizons, to say we will be judged on our accomplishments."

But the president's decision to nominate a daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants will have impacts far beyond the court, said Simon Rosenberg, who heads NDN, the Washington, D.C., think tank formerly known as New Democrat Network.

Rosenberg called it "an acknowledgement and affirmation of the great demographic changes taking place in America today. The percentage of people of color in the United States has tripled in just the past 45 years, and America is now on track to become a majority-minority nation in 30 to 40 years."

Andres Ramirez, NDN vice president of Hispanic programs, said the demographic wave has reshaped voting patters and elections and will recast the look of Congress - and the fortunes of the two major political parties - in the next decade.

Most supported Obama

Latinos voted in record numbers in 2008 - with 67 percent supporting Democrat Obama, reversing trends established in two previous elections, NDN studies show.

Latinos accounted for nearly half the nation's population growth of 22.6 million over the past decade - the bulk of that growth in the South and the West, U.S. Census Bureau figures show.

Nevada, Texas, Arizona, Florida and Georgia are expected to gain congressional seats - gains that are "predominantly due to the growth of Hispanic populations" and could mean the election of new Latino congressional representatives, Ramirez said.

For Republicans, the implications are profound: "If they lose those states, there is no road for them to win the White House," he said.

In California, where NDN estimates that 81 percent of the population growth is tied to Latinos, GOP registration is declining so precipitously that there is no longer a single congressional district that is majority Republican, according to a recent study by the California Target Book, an analysis of the state's political trends.

'Brilliant move'

Sotomayor's nomination was "certainly a brilliant move politically," said Patrick Dorinson, a Sacramento-based Republican strategist.

But he cautioned that it is hardly a guarantee of success for Obama, or Democrats, in the future.

"Hispanics want the same things as everyone else," Dorinson said. "They want to work, they want a decent economy and they want their kids educated better than they are. So this pick is a good pick right now. But let's see what happens come election time. If things aren't progressing on other fronts, Hispanics will have the same concerns (as) everyone else."

He warned Republican leaders, some of whom are gearing up to oppose Sotomayor's confirmation, to be cautious.

"They should pick their battles," he said. "I'd tell them: Don't pick a fight just to fight, especially one they can't win. They can't be confrontational. They should be respectful. And if they're just going to listen to what Rush (Limbaugh) has to say, they're going to be in trouble."

Barbara Lee Urges Leadership to Renegotiate Panama Free Trade Agreement

Thu, 21 May 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Washington, DC – Today, Congresswoman Barbara Lee (CA-9) joined 53 of her House colleagues in sending a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi arguing that the proposed Panama Free Trade Agreement be renegotiated. She released this statement:

"The Panama Free Trade Agreement, as it currently stands, is simply a throwback to the Bush Administration´s failed trade policy that has left our economy crippled and thousands of Americans jobless. If we are going to truly be the ´New Direction´ Congress, then we must break away from the policies that have gotten our country into the economic downturn that we are working to pull ourselves out of.

"Our trade policy must seek to level the playing field so that our American businesses and the American worker are not struggling to compete against impossible odds in the international marketplace. We need fair trade not just free trade.

"With the new Administration in place, we now have a historic opportunity to push forward a new trade model that will benefit both workers and businesses. As we work to craft new trade agreements, we must ensure that they meet basic standards protecting labor rights, environmental standards, food safety regulations, financial regulations, and taxation transparency.

"The Panama Free Trade Agreement will likely weaken any effort by the United States implement stricter financial regulations to protect our economy. That is why we must renegotiate this agreement so that it is in it´s in the best interest of the United States.

"Working with the President and my colleagues in Congress, I am confident that we can put new trade policy in place to help create American jobs, protect workers´ rights, and uphold environmental standards."

Barbara Lee urges Congress to fast for Darfur

Tue, 19 May 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Congressional Black Caucus chairwoman Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, and Rep. Donald Payne, D-N.J., who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health held a Capitol Hill news conference today urging all of Congress and others to join the “Darfur Fast for Life” campaign by fasting in solidarity with Darfur residents suffering at the hands of the Sudanese government.

“Almost 15 years ago in Rwanda, the international community turned a blind eye while a million civilians were hacked to death,” Lee said in a statement issued afterward. “Can we really say we have done any different in the case of Darfur, South Sudan, Abyei, and Nuba? We declared genocide in 2004, but we failed to act decisively to stop it. If we had acted then, we could have saved many innocent people. If we do the right thing now, we can save children from a certain death and end the suffering for millions.”

The campaign (though obviously not each individual’s own fast) will continue until Congress adjourns in August. Payne began a four-day, water-only fast May 10. Among those who’ve also fasted are Virgin Group founder and chairman Sir Richard Branson and actress Mia Farrow, the latter of whom was at Tuesday’s news conference.

Lee spokesman Ricci Graham said she’s starting her fast today, for a length yet to be determined.

Lawmakers, Farrow Urge Further Action by Obama on Darfur

Tue, 19 May 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Members of the U.S. Congress are urging President Obama to take further steps to address the situation in Darfur. Lawmakers joined Darfur activist and actress Mia Farrow and others at a news conference on Capitol Hill.

Acting on doctor's orders earlier this month, the 64-year-old actress ended a 12-day-long liquids-only hunger strike to protest the expulsion by Sudan's President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of more than a dozen humanitarian aid agencies from Darfur.

Farrow said the symbolic protest, later taken up by British billionaire Richard Branson, and her appearance with members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), underscore the need for new international action, including steps to bring those responsible for atrocities in Darfur to justice. "It is to say to our president, and to the world, we are better than this. We cannot simply stand and watch, the slaughter of innocents, the death of innocents," she said.

Farrow was appointed Goodwill Ambassador for the U.N. children's agency UNICEF in 2000, and has campaigned on behalf of children in other countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Chad, Nigeria and Haiti.

Several African-American members of Congress announced they will begin limited hunger strikes as part of the Darfur Fast for Life campaign.

The lawmakers also said they are waiting to meet with President Obama, and with Scott Gration, President Obama's Special Envoy to Sudan.

In her remarks, Farrow suggested that after speaking out strongly on Darfur as a presidential candidate, and calling the expulsion of humanitarian agencies unacceptable, President Obama could say and do more:

"The word that stands out from President Obama followed the expulsion of humanitarian agencies, he said it is unacceptable [he used] the word unacceptable. And yet I kept waiting for the second shoe to drop. Surely that was the line that could not be crossed, expulsion of humanitarian [agencies]. And it should be said, many people they don't realize the populations of Darfur are entirely dependent, in the millions upon this humanitarian assistance. So what it has to be is among President Obama's priorities, Darfur has to take its place, and I haven't really been aware that that has happened," she said.

Lawmakers at the news conference sought to soften the sting of that remark, among them Black Caucus Chairwoman, Democrat Barbara Lee.

"The president is very focused on addressing the genocide in Darfur, and we want to make sure that Special Representative Gration [has] the type of tools and assistance that is required to address this humanitarian crisis that is of enormous proportions, one which we have not seen in many of our lifetimes," she said.

Democratic Representative Donald Payne said lawmakers hope to see a strong approach emerge from the president on African issues generally as the State Department and the administration get up to speed on key issues.

"We do expect a very vibrant policy toward Darfur, towards Somalia which has been abandoned, towards all of the countries on the continent that are having problems," he said.

CBC members want to meet with President Obama and with Special Representative Gration, to discuss Darfur, sanctions against Sudan, and obstacles posed by Sudan's president to deployment of an international peacekeeping force.

Lawmakers also want the administration to begin a new push for more cooperation from China regarding the situation in Darfur. Here is Michigan (Democratic) Representative John Conyers: "We must meet with Ambassador Gration, who is going to Beijing tomorrow, today. Secondly, we must meet with the President of the United States as soon as possible, today or tomorrow," he said.

Darfur activists have voiced concern that the Obama administration, in an effort to persuade Khartoum to moderate its policies on Darfur, might consider easing economic sanctions imposed under the Bush administration.

Omer Ismail, a Darfurian refugee and policy activist, has spoken out against doing so and says the world must take a strong stand regarding Sudan's president Bashir. "Bring the government of Sudan to the table, talk to China, because they have leverage more than anybody else. Talk to the Arab world because they are supporting the government in Khartoum against its own people in Darfur. Talk to the African Union and say it is shameful that you are standing by an indicted wear criminal [and] you have to end this today," he said.

This past March, the International Criminal Court issued a warrant for the arrest of President al-Bashir on charges of masterminding mass killings and deportations in Darfur.

Obama selects Bay Area Latina as his choice for U.S. Treasurer

Fri, 15 May 2009 00:00:00 -0700

President Barack Obama has nominated Rosa ''Rosie'' Gumatao Rios -- Oakland's former redevelopment and economic development manager -- as his nominee for United States Treasurer.

The nomination of Gumatao Rios, a veteran development official with more than two decades in urban management and who has worked in a score of key Bay Area cities, was a particular cause of Rep. Barbara Lee of Oakland, who said she will be a "wonderful addition" to the treasury.

''I am so very pleased that my constituent Rosie Gumatao Rios, who I enthusiastically supported, has been chosen to serve as our new U.S. Treasurer,'' Lee told us via email today.

"Rosie brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise to this position having served as the Director of the Redevelopment and Economic Development for the City of Oakland and Managing Director of Investments for MacFarlane Partners,'' Lee said in her statement. "While working for the City of Oakland she led the efforts to facilitate development and business opportunities within Oakland and revitalize the city's downtown and neighborhood corridors.''

Rios was also economic development chief in Fremont, and was a development official for San Leandro, and mananger of the Union City Redevelopment Agency.

She is currently a trustee of the Alameda County Employees' Retirement Association, a board member of the California Association of Local Economic Development and the Fruitvale Spanish-Speaking Unity Council.

The White House official bio said that Rios is currently managing director of investments for MacFarlane Partners, "one of the leading real estate investment management firms in the U.S. with more than $11 billion in assets under management.''

"Rios serves as a primary liaison with the firm's development and global capital partners to facilitate equity transactions for large mixed-use development projects in key urban areas and recently closed on over $345 million worth of equity commitments,'' the White House said.

Rios helped work on Latino vote issues in Virginia for the Obama presidential campaign, and took a leave of absence from MacFarlane Partners "to serve as a member of the Treasury/Federal Reserve Transition Team on behalf of the Obama Administration.''

She received her Bachelor's degree in sociology and romance languages and literature from Harvard University.

House Democrats Seek GOP Help on War Spending

Mon, 11 May 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Despite their increased numbers, House Democrats are once again courting Republicans to ensure passage of a war spending bill opposed by disaffected liberals.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been urging anti-war Democrats to reverse course and support the $96.7 billion legislation when it goes to the floor this week. But the liberal bloc that has opposed past supplemental spending bills for the military operations appears to be holding firm in its opposition to the latest edition.

“It’s very hard not to vote with our new, wonderful president, but I personally don’t see this as bringing an end to Iraq and I actually see it as going into Afghanistan indefinitely,” Progressive Caucus Co-Chairwoman Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said in an interview last week. “My mind is made up.”

Woolsey, who along with other liberals discussed the supplemental with President Barack Obama last month, said it was unclear how many caucus members would vote against the bill.

But with a few careful legislative tweaks — chiefly, cutting $80 million sought by the administration to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — Democrats should easily cement sufficient GOP support to offset Democratic defectors.

The decision by House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) to cut the Guantánamo funds represented a frank acknowledgment that Democrats still can’t muster enough support for war spending among their own Members, despite an expanded majority and the popularity of a charismatic Democratic president who has vowed to wind down the conflict in Iraq.

In announcing his decision last week, Obey said he wasn’t going to fight for the Guantánamo funds until the administration fills in some details on the many lingering questions surrounding the plan. Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), the ranking member on Appropriations, said the decision represented “a conclusion that the administration wasn’t ready and it was a dangerous thing.”

But Democratic aides conceded the decision was driven in part by the fact that including the Guantánamo funds would have been a deal-breaker on the war bill for many in the GOP, which in recent days has ramped up criticism of Obama’s plan to shutter the controversial facility next year.

“The world did not suddenly become safe in January 2009,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Thursday upon introducing legislation to block the transfer of Guantánamo detainees to the United States. “There are still terrorists around the world who are committed to killing Americans and destroying our way of life.”

The decision to defer a debate on the funds — which Senators are expected to join when they take up their supplemental in committee this week — has the twofold advantage of ensuring GOP support for the bill while neutralizing an issue, at least temporarily, that has provided a rallying cry for Republicans.

For example, Obey said during last week’s markup of the supplemental that an unidentified GOP Member told him the decision to cut the funds “took away our best issue.”

Still, Republicans will continue to press the issue at every opportunity, including the supplemental debate, said Rep. Todd Tiahrt (Kan.), who sponsored one of two unsuccessful GOP amendments in committee that would have blocked the transfer of detainees to the United States.

Tiahrt presented the issue in stark terms during an interview last week. “They’ve made it very clear they’re comfortable with bringing terrorists back to America and allowing them on our streets. I don’t think that issue is dead by any means,” he said.

In an effort to bring liberals back into the fold, the supplemental also includes language added by Obey that requires the administration to report to Congress in one year on progress by the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan toward five stability and security benchmarks.

The standards fall short of the firm deadlines sought by some, but they were enough to undercut a proposal by Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) that would have required the administration to develop an exit strategy for Afghanistan.

“I don’t think the votes were there, but I think it’s important that we raise these issues because there’s no military solution in Afghanistan and we have to have a plan to begin to come out,” she said in an interview after withdrawing her amendment during the markup.

Woolsey acknowledged Obey’s benchmarks would attract some liberal support for the spending bill, but said Lee’s amendment would have gone much further in winning over skeptics.

“That would have made a big difference,” she said. “That would help bring an end to the whole situation and we would know that this is a last-time investment, but that isn’t what it is.”

Oakland: Humanitarian Icon Mother Wright Dies at Age 87

Fri, 08 May 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Oakland humanitarian icon Mary Ann Wright, known as Mother Wright to the needy people she has helped over the years, has died at the age of 87, according to a statement issued by U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland.

Officials at the Mary Ann Wright Foundation, which is located at 3120 San Pablo Ave. in Oakland, weren't immediately available for comment.

In her statement, Lee said, "I am deeply saddened by the passing of my friend and community activist Mother Mary Ann Wright."

Lee said, "Mother Wright, as she was known by the many people she has touched, was Oakland's Mother Teresa - a humanitarian who was an advocate for the poor and the homeless."

Lee said, "Mother Wright was a caring and compassionate soul who spent a lifetime giving to others. Through the Mother Mary Ann Wright Foundation, she embraced the hungry and homeless, in what she always said was her spiritual responsibility and her life's mission."

The congresswoman said, "Mother Wright's giving spirit transcended the city of Oakland. She traveled across the globe, going as far Russia to feed the hungry and nurture the poor."

Among her many activities, Wright was known for giving away turkeys for Thanksgiving and distributing food baskets and Christmas trees during the holidays. She also collected food and clothing from various businesses and other donors to help hundreds of people every year.

In 2005 she was inducted into the Caring Institute's Hall of Fame at a ceremony in Washington, D.C.

Black Congresswoman from California backs marriage equality

Thu, 07 May 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Congresswoman Barbara Lee joined Oakland, Calif., Mayor Ron Dellums last year in officiating same-sex marriage ceremonies. She also voted last month in favor of a Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, for which she released a statement.

Various polls show that the black community is largely non-supportive of gay rights advancement. As a political leader, Lee is an important exception to the rule, as are Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, comedian and actress Wanda Sykes, Washington, D.C., Mayor Adrian Fenty, and New York Gov. David Paterson (follow the links of each person to read a short biography).

She is chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, and her official Web site contains a section for gay and lesbian issues. The top of the page reads:

“I am a firm believer in the need to guarantee and protect the civil rights of all individuals. Despite some of the progress we have made towards this goal, discrimination still exists in our society. At the federal and state level, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community has been the focus of several attempts to limit the rights and benefits of individuals and enshrine discrimination into existing policies and laws - and even the Constitution. That is just flat out wrong, and I will strenuously oppose any such effort. Rather than seeking to divide us, our government and our leaders should be working to encourage greater tolerance and understanding. As your representative, I pledge to you that I will do my part.”

California Rep. Lee Calls for Plan to End Afghanistan War

Thu, 07 May 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Rep. Barbara Lee wants the Obama administration to study ways to end the war in Afghanistan, even though President Obama and his Cabinet were meeting this week with Afghan President Hamid Karzai to discuss how to escalate the battle against the Taliban in that country.

The California Democrat, one of the most anti-war and liberal members of the House, offered an amendment Thursday to a war funding bill to request a study by the end of the year from the administration on ways to get out of Afghanistan.

She eventually withdrew the amendment, but not before she aired her concerns that the United States is moving "deeper in Afghanistan" without an exit strategy -- echoing lawmakers' concerns during the height of the Iraq war about that military operation, which is now being scaled back.

Lee said the approach to Afghanistan is "hopelessly flawed" and that the U.S. should have an exit strategy to "minimize our losses." She complained that the $94 billion emergency spending bill for Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan "favors the military and combat over diplomacy."

Obama indicated Wednesday that U.S. withdrawal is not a priority at this point. After meeting with Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, he pledged a "lasting commitment" to the governments of both nations.

"The road ahead will be difficult. There will be more violence and there will be setbacks," Obama said. "But let me be clear. The United States has made a lasting commitment to defeat Al Qaeda but also to support the democratically elected, sovereign governments of both Pakistan and Afghanistan. That commitment will not waver, and that support will be sustained."

Obama Budget Would Kill Abstinence-Only Funding

Thu, 07 May 2009 00:00:00 -0700

President Obama plans to eliminate funding for abstinence-only sex education programs and replace it with money for more inclusive forms of teen pregnancy prevention.

The predictable and potentially controversial reversal of Bush administration policy on abstinence was announced with little fanfare in the 1,380-page budget appendix released by the White House on Thursday morning.

But it was greeted with quick and hearty approval from longtime critics of abstinence-only education.

“Finally we have a president who gets it,” said California Rep. Barbara Lee , chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus and author of legislation (HR 1551) aimed at providing more comprehensive sex and disease education to students.

In place of the abstinence-only funding, which has been roughly $110 million per year in discretionary spending and $50 million per year in mandatory spending under national welfare laws, the president would direct money to teen pregnancy prevention programs.

The mandatory spending, often referred to as Title V funding, is already set to expire in June. Under Obama’s proposal, money that would have gone to that program would be combined with $110 million in year-to-year discretionary spending to fund programs that replicate proven methods of reducing teenage pregnancies. At least $75 million would have to be spent on programs known to delay sexual activity and to increase contraceptive use.

The Department of Health and Human Services describes the shift in thinking this way: “Previous evaluations indicate that the most positive results come from high intensity youth development programs that provide a range of services in addition to comprehensive sex education, such as after school activities, academic support, or service learning.”

The National Abstinence Education Association said in a statement that the White House plan “disregards the growing body of evidence supporting the effectiveness of abstinence education,” including research showing “a 50% decrease in sexual onset among teens that are enrolled in abstinence programs.”

“At a time when teens are subjected to an increasingly sexualized culture, it is essential that common-sense legislators from both sides of the aisle reject this extreme attempt to de-fund the only approach that removes all risk,” said NAEA Executive Director Valerie Huber.

That view was echoed on Capitol Hill among conservative Republicans.

“The congressman thinks it’s a mistake that (Obama’s) basically hijacking funds,” said Andrew Cole, a spokesman for House Republican Values Action Team chairman Joseph R. Pitts of Pennsylvania.

The president could also face opposition as well from some conservative Democrats, who have resisted past efforts to eliminate abstinence-only programs.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey , D-Wis., has taken up their cause in the past. An Obey spokeswoman could not be reached for comment. But last year, Obey and Democratic appropriators initially beefed up the president’s request for abstinence-only funding in an effort to win support for the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill from Republicans. Ultimately the funding was dropped below its fiscal 2008 level of $109 million.

Getting Real About the REAL Act

Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 -0700

The Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act sponsored by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) was reintroduced recently to the applause of pro-sexuality education organizations across the nation. Originally introduced in 2007, the bill proposes to provide funding for "medically and scientifically accurate information" as part of "comprehensive sex education" that is "age-appropriate" and promotes "abstinence as the only 100% effective way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy." Of course, I am not against these things and support any kind of funding that allows states and organizations to choose alternatives to abstinence-only programs. However, I hope the sponsors, co-sponsors, and committee members seize this incredible opportunity and encourage the use of language and frameworks that go beyond merely preventing disease and unwanted pregnancy to promoting healthy sexuality throughout the life-cycle.

In reading some of the blog reactions and news posts regarding this Act, I was struck by a couple of similarities between the anti-sex ed groups (or "pro-abstinence-only" depending on who you ask) and the pro-comprehensive sex education folks. The most common issue I noticed was the use of the word abstinence. On one side, we are told again and again that the only message that young people should receive is that they should abstain from engaging in any sexual activity until they are married (or in a committed relationship - from those who are pretending to be more inclusive). From the other side, we hear that young people should be taught that abstinence is the only 100% effective method for preventing STDs and pregnancy but "just in case" we should teach other methods for preventing these unwanted things and call it something nice like "abstinence-plus." Another issue that seems to land on everyone's radar is this issue of what is "age-appropriate." The ab-only folks immediately begin to scream that young children are going to be taught about sexual intercourse (remember the "story" about Obama wanting to teach Kindergartners how to have sex?). In reaction, the comprehensive supporters tend to ramble on about it being different for different communities and different individuals and never really give an answer. Finally, both sides get caught up on "scientifically and medically accurate information." I don't even know what that means, and I've been a sex educator for almost twenty years (yes, I know it's about effectiveness rates and other types of data that are so incredibly meaningful in a 16-year old's life).

In my opinion, these arguments are old and tired, and it is high time that we consider some alternatives. The main thing that I encourage our legislative representatives (and the policy wonks who spend their days talking to our leaders) to consider is throwing out this disease prevention model that does very little to address the real issues that young people face on a daily basis. Instead, consider what it means to be healthy and what it means to promote healthy sexuality from birth until death.

First, it means acknowledging that we are all sexual beings, including during infancy and old age, regardless of how we choose to express that sexuality throughout our lives. This means that we start to accept that teaching about sexuality is more than teaching about sex acts and includes providing basic knowledge about bodies and society, even at very young ages.

Secondly, a new approach to sexuality education requires understanding what is relevant and important for different people at different points in life - and this is only achieved by talking to people about this. It is our responsibility as educators and parents to engage young people and ask them what these things are and engage them in conversation.

Thirdly, this model involves providing young people the knowledge and skills necessary to be sexually healthy, such as how to access information and services related to sexuality throughout their lives. These life-long skills are a necessity at ensuring sexual health and happiness throughout all of our lives.

Finally, we have to learn to discuss sexuality and sexual choices with a non-judgmental voice. This includes such things as removing anti-gay and exclusionary language, as well as dropping mockery and dismissal of those who choose to wait until they are in a life-long committed relationship (or even marriage) to become sexually active. The goal of such a model--based on promoting healthy sexuality for individuals, couples, and communities, and reaching those with diverse religious backgrounds, sexual and gender identities, race and ethnic origins, political views, physical abilities, and so on--is to embrace and celebrate the very thing that makes the United States what it is - diversity, a pluralistic society, a melting pot, or whatever words and phrases you choose to use.

As the Director of Education and Training at the National Sexuality Resource Center, I applaud Senator Lautenberg and Representative Lee for introducing the REAL Act and acknowledge that this is the first (baby) step in the right direction for healthy sexuality. However, my hopes are that they will consider improving this legislation by adopting a new philosophy about sexuality - one that is not about avoiding danger through risk-reduction but rather encourages conversations and celebration of our diversity in order to promote lifelong healthy sexuality. The desired outcomes of less disease and less unwanted pregnancy will follow, but we will change the way that we as a society view our sexuality by shifting the focus to happiness, health, and well-being.

Getting it right in Afghanistan

Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Seven and a half years after our nation went to war against the Taliban, Afghanistan has escalating violence, rising drug production, a central government hamstrung by corruption and a people struggling to survive. Caught in the middle are tens of thousands of American troops who, despite their sacrifice and courage, have been for years executing a flawed strategy with little chance of success.

Unless our nation undertakes a fundamental strategic shift, both Afghanistan’s outlook and the chances of achieving America’s regional security priorities will remain grim.

President Barack Obama’s supplemental spending request would provide $83.4 billion in funding for the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, including increased funding for diplomatic and humanitarian efforts, particularly in Afghanistan. These proposals echo recent comments by Obama in which he acknowledges the key role that nonmilitary initiatives must play in stabilizing Afghanistan, a clear break from the military-only approach undertaken by his predecessor.

However, the administration’s supplemental request does not adequately reflect these diplomatic and humanitarian priorities — priorities that we believe are essential to success for U.S. security interests. In fact, 90 percent of the supplemental request would go toward funding ongoing and increased military operations. The remaining $7 billion would be divided between humanitarian, civil affairs, reconstruction and diplomatic efforts in the region.

The United States should provide additional resources for reconstruction and economic development initiatives, along with other civilian tools that will be more effective in bringing about long-term peace and stability. One way to accomplish this would be to drop the administration’s plan to increase existing troop levels and instead shift resources toward a “civilian surge.” Our military forces could then be redirected to support these efforts, while minimizing the impression that they are serving as an indefinite occupying force.

In addition, developing a series of rigorous metrics to evaluate the progress of these efforts, and regularly reporting the results to Congress and the American public, would send a clear message that our military engagement in Afghanistan is not open-ended.

Afghanistan will not be stabilized through military might alone, as the history of the British and Soviet involvement in the country has taught. The terrain is not suited, geographically or sociopolitically, for a large occupying force. As a recent report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace noted, “The presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving the resurgence of the Taliban.”

In a letter to Obama, we urged his administration to develop a timeline for the redeployment of troops and military contractors, to address the humanitarian and economic needs of the Afghan people, and to more fully define the goals, objectives and benefits of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. Additionally, we have stated that we will oppose any additional funding for an open-ended military presence in Afghanistan. We also have consistently worked in Congress to ensure that no permanent bases be built in Iraq and will only support fully funding the safe and timely redeployment of our troops and contractors out of Iraq.

The United States must reorient our national security policy in the region and maximize what the Obama administration has called our nation’s “smart power.” At the heart of this strategy must be a regional diplomatic surge that engages all of Afghanistan’s neighbors as full partners in aiding the Afghan people and strengthening its central government.

While it is clear that Obama recognizes the need for a recalibrated foreign policy, his current supplemental request misses an opportunity to fully put his words into action. We look forward to working with our congressional colleagues and the administration to develop a new diplomatic strategy for Afghanistan and the region, one that can succeed where a reliance upon military force alone would continue to fail.

Combined, the initiatives that we have called for — increased regional diplomacy, a decrease in our military presence and a focus on development efforts — provide the best chance of enabling the Afghan people to develop a stable and functioning state of their own, which cannot be used by the Taliban and other extremists to threaten the security of the U.S. or other nations.

Reps. Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey, all California Democrats, are founders of the Out of Iraq Caucus.

U.S. House acts to protect credit card users

Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted on Thursday in favor of legislation to protect credit card users from hidden fees, sudden interest rate hikes and questionable billing practices.

The chamber voted 357 to 70 in support of the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, sponsored by New York Democrat Carolyn Maloney. This year, 107 Republicans voted in favor of the bill, compared with 84 Republicans voting for a similar bill last year.

"Today, the House sent a message to the American public that responsible regulation is part of the new era of financial responsibility," Maloney said.

Banks, which opposed legislation, have warned it could reduce the amount of credit available and make it more costly to use a credit card.

The American Bankers Association, which represents the big issuers, said it has "serious concerns" with the House bill.

Lawmakers "should strive to achieve the right balance between enhancing consumer protection and ensuring that credit remains available to consumers and small businesses at a reasonable cost," ABA President Edward Yingling said. "We continue to believe that more work needs to be done to achieve that balance."

President Barack Obama, who backs congressional efforts to overhaul the industry, issued a statement praising the bill for "paving the way toward real, meaningful credit card reform."

He said he would work with Congress to get a final measure requiring credit card companies to "set rules that are fair and transparent." He is expected to sign a bill into law by late May once the Senate considers its own version next week.

Democrats, who control Congress, added about a dozen amendments to the bill, including one that would require card issuers to maintain low introductory rates for at least six months, and to warn card holders if they are about to exceed their credit limits, allowing them to avoid a penalty fee.

It also includes a provision that would require federal banking agencies to submit information each year to Congress about their supervisory and enforcement activities related to credit card issuers' compliance with consumer protection laws.

It also seeks to make disclosures easier to read and bans issuers from charging card holders who pay their bills by phone or online.

The bill allows issuers one year or until July 2010 to implement new rules after a final bill is enacted into law, or which ever comes first. Lawmakers and consumer groups who want changes sooner have criticized the timeline.

ATTENTION TURNS TO THE SENATE

In 2007, Americans used an estimated 694.4 million credit cards with Visa Inc, MasterCard Inc, American Express Co and Discover Financial Services logos, according to industry data.

Citigroup Inc, Bank of America Corp, JPMorgan Chase & Co and Capital One Financial Corp had almost 77 percent of the credit card market at the end of 2007.

With the House vote concluded, focus turned to the Senate where that chamber's credit card bill, co-sponsored by Democrats Christopher Dodd and Carl Levin, is expected to be considered next week.

Momentum is gaining for passage of a bill in the Senate where Democrats gained a big boost with the switch by Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania from the Republican Party, adding to the Democratic numbers.

Several Republicans could end up supporting the bill.

"Now we hope that President Barack Obama's support for reform will help Senator Dodd break the logjam preventing his even stronger bill from getting to the floor," said Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director at the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

The Federal Reserve and other banking regulators last year approved rules against what Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke called unfair and deceptive credit card practices but gave the industry until July 2010 to comply.

Lawmakers want to codify those rules into law and go even further, frustrated with surprising rate hikes and fees and charges from issuers -- many of which have received billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout funds aimed at boosting lending.

Congress has seized on the public outrage against credit card companies, which was highlighted during a White House meeting last week between Obama and about a dozen credit card executives, who were urged to change their practices.

Senate Democrats recently complained to regulators that banks were raising rates on existing balances ahead of the Fed deadline.

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said that after the Senate acts the implementation date could be moved up if banks are still trying to squeeze money from consumers.

Christians Pressure Washington to Cut Poverty in Half

Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Hundreds of Christians walked the halls of the Senate and House buildings on Tuesday to apply pressure on political leaders and push through doors that they hope will lead to a reduction in domestic poverty.

After hours of training, strategizing and praying, the activists set out for 82 Senate office visits and 210 House office visits hoping to make new allies and influence legislation that would help millions of Americans come out of poverty and gain access to education and healthcare.

"Decisions that are made in this town, in this city impact the poor and we must seek to influence those decisions," said Geoff Tunnicliffe, international director of the World Evangelical Alliance, at a congressional rally later that day.

Kristin Shiffer, 26, from Rochester, N.Y., was one of many young participants sharing her concerns with members of Congress.

"They were very responsive to the things we had to say," she commented. "We went with staff from Sen. [Chuck] Schumer and Sen. [Kirsten] Gillibrand. We talked about how the budget is a moral document and we mentioned that we are all registered voters and ... that in order for healthcare to become universal for all that we're willing to raise our taxes, we're willing to pay as long as we know that it's going to a just cause."

Shiffer has traveled to poor areas and seen firsthand the bleak circumstances of the hungry and sick. Now lobbying in Washington this week during Sojourners' Mobilization to End Poverty conference, she said she believes that through her faith, she can make a difference.

During their morning visits, the lobbying Christians asked members of Congress to support the "Half-in-Ten" resolution which commits to cutting domestic poverty in half by 2020; to fully fund President Obama's foreign affairs budget request in order to fight poverty around the world; and to support the passage of healthcare reform.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who authored the Half-in-Ten resolution, told rally participants, "You really are the people's lobbyists. It's absolutely critical that we come together to begin the work of ending poverty in America."

"This is not an urban issue, it's not a rural issue, it's not a Democratic issue, it's not a Republican issue, it's not an Independent issue, it's not a Green issue. It's a moral issue," she asserted.

Although the rally was intended to be a broad effort across faith and party lines, speakers and participants of the event were predominantly Democrats who support the $3.5 trillion budget that is currently being voted on.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who also made an appearance at the rally, deemed the budget – which passed the House Wednesday with no Republican support – a "values-based budget."

The rally was part of a larger movement called the Mobilization to End Poverty, which is being led by the Rev. Jim Wallis, the founder of Sojourners and a well-known progressive Christian leader. Organizers of this week's poverty conference in Washington say it is the first major movement of the religious left under the new Obama administration.

Despite the label, political and religious leaders supporting the mobilization agreed that they have to bring everyone together to see gains in the battle to reduce poverty.

"The one thing that you are advocating for, that we are advocating for is the concept that solving these problems is going to take everybody," said Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) at Tuesday's rally, adding that he and many members of Congress welcome the political pressure from people in the faith community.

Tunnicliffe of the WEA noted that the movement is not about supporting a party but about supporting good policy. And while they are engaging political structures, they're doing so out of a theological framework.

"The work that is being done every single day at a grassroots level is impacted by circumstances that they have no control over – by policies and structures that impact their every single day," he said. "So not only must we work at the grassroots level, but we must work at this level."

US Lawmakers Hear Opposing Views on Obama Approach to Cuba

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

In recent congressional hearings, members of U.S. Congress have listened to opposing views about prospects for political change and human rights improvements in Cuba, and the question of whether to further loosen trade restrictions under the four decade-old economic embargo imposed in 1962.

With decisions in April to ease aspects of the U.S. embargo, President Obama left no doubt he would like to see a new relationship develop with Cuba, while keeping the issue of the Castro government's human rights record at the top of an emerging agenda.

How successful the administration's outreach to Havana can be will be determined as U.S. and Cuban officials hold additional exploratory meetings in coming months to determine if formal talks on key bilateral and regional issues can take place.

Walter Bastian, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for the Western Hemisphere and International Trade Administration, says easing restrictions on family visits, monetary remittances, and telecommunications investment was aimed at setting relations on a more productive course:

"President Obama indicated at the Summit of the Americas that the U.S. seeks a new beginning in its relations with Cuba. The measures announced on April 13th were intended as a signal to the people of Cuba and to the government of Cuba that the U.S is prepared to pursue policies that will strengthen the ties between the people in our countries and bolster progress toward a free and Democratic Cuba," he said.

Bastian noted that the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, which strengthened U.S. embargo policy, remains in effect and requires that restrictions continue unless conditions change in Cuba, including formation of a transition government.

Supporters and opponents of further easing the embargo testified about advantages and drawbacks in the process for U.S. businesses, and Washington's efforts to support human rights advocates and political prisoners in Cuba.

"We do not feel that a unilateral ending of what remains of the embargo now will promote greater economic or political freedom in Cuba, or great benefit to American companies," said Ambassador James Cason, President of the Center for a Free Cuba, and a former Chief of Mission at the U.S. Interests Section in Havana.

Kirby Jones, President of the U.S. Cuba Trade Association, says 47 years of the U.S. embargo failed to achieve any of its original objectives, and he asserts President Obama should neither set preconditions nor put too much weight on pronouncements by Fidel Castro.

"It would be a mistake to take an editorial or a column in Granma and interpret that as being the final word on Cuban government's policy. I think we ought to take them up on their word. I think there is a way to begin in terms of talking about resurrecting the bilateral talks that the previous administration stopped on immigration, drug interdiction and the environment, all to our interest and we ought to begin the process of talking in the same way that [former President] Ronald Reagan in calling the Soviet Union the evil empire, still kept on talking," he said.

Opposing views on engaging Cuba were evident in statements by Congressman Bobby Rush, the Democratic chairman of the Energy and Commerce Trade Subcommittee, and ranking Republican George Radanovich:

RUSH: "All nations in the Americas, except the U.S. have resumed diplomatic relations with Cuba. All of our economic competitors, including China, Brazil, Mexico, Japan, Canada and the EU are currently trading with Cuba. Cuba has also made it clear that the same doors are open to the U.S. and our policies should not prevent American companies from doing business with the Cuban people."

RADANOVICH: "As long as the Castros maintain a regime which represses individual freedom, oppresses dissenting political views, and expresses hostility toward religious expressions while at the same time maintaining a state-controlled economy to the benefit of the Castro family and their adherents, further trade relations beyond humanitarian aid in the name of making a buck is an injustice to the Cuban people and their brave freedom advocates."

Adrean Rothkopf, of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, agreed with one lawmaker that the U.S. has a record of pursuing a double standard, isolating Cuba while engaging other countries with human rights problems.

She calls decisions by President Obama, and proposed legislation in Congress, important first steps toward a policy more likely to promote a transition to full Democracy and civil liberties. "Rather than encouraging Cuba to democratize, the embargo has helped prop up the Communist regime. Instead of isolating Cuba from the rest of the world, it has isolated the U.S. from its allies," she said.

Geoff Thale, Program Director at the Washington Office on Latin America, says the Obama administration should continue to press Cuba on clearly unacceptable violations of internationally-recognized [human rights] norms.

But he says engagement, and using trade as part of a broader strategy, is preferable to continuing a nearly 50 year embargo policy that has limited contact with Cuba, and left the U.S. with little influence there.

"We have very little influence and very little leverage. Cuba is free to ignore our views on human rights because we don't make much significant difference to the government, or its economy, or its politics, or its diplomacy," he said.

But Republican Representative Phil Gingrey says any future steps with Cuba must be heavily conditioned on human rights improvements. One question, he says, remains paramount as the Obama administration and the Castro government continue their contacts:

"Will Cuba trade with the U.S. improved political and economic conditions for the Cuban citizens, or will it simply reward and endorse the oppressive Communist government run by both Fidel and Raul Castro?," he said.

A State Department spokesman said this week that the Obama administration would like to see Cuba reciprocate for U.S. steps by easing political restrictions and releasing political prisoners, among other steps, but said the U.S. was not insisting on conditionality.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told lawmakers recently that the Obama administration was taking a hard look at an initial statement by Cuban President Raul Castro that Havana would be willing to put everything on the table, including human rights, in bilateral discussions.

Clinton said this in response to Democratic Representative Barbara Lee, who with other anti-embargo members of Congress recently met with Raul and Fidel Castro: "I think that there is such a stake that the Castro regime has in making the U.S. the excuse for everything that goes wrong inside Cuba that they are going to really have a change in attitude about how and under what circumstances they would want to really have that discussion that you describe."

Secretary Clinton said the administration is available to engage with the Cuban government and remains open as part of its outreach efforts.

US and Cuba Must Begin New Chapter

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

By any objective standard, our current policy toward Cuba just hasn’t worked. It was clear to me when I first traveled to Cuba in the mid-1970s as a congressional staffer, and it is even clearer to me now, more than three decades later.

In the intervening years, I have visited Cuba as part of many different delegations and have met with myriad government officials, health care practitioners, artists, musicians, educators and a wide array of dissident groups on several occasions and in a variety of capacities.

I led a congressional delegation to Cuba earlier this month, buoyed by the hope that with President Barack Obama in the White House, we were presented with a great new opportunity to rethink U.S. foreign policy with our nearest Caribbean neighbor. The purpose of this visit was to determine if the climate and the will exist in Cuba to forge a new direction.

After a series of meetings with high-ranking Cuban officials, including President Raul Castro and his brother, former President Fidel Castro, I am convinced that the Cubans do want dialogue. They do want to talk, and they do want normal relations with the United States of America. And I believe that it’s in the United States’ best interest to work to move our countries forward.

While Obama’s decision this week to end restrictions on travel and remittances for Cuban-Americans with family still in Cuba is a step in the right direction, I look forward to working with the administration to move toward a better relationship between the U.S. and Cuba.

Since my days as a congressional staffer, I have worked to normalize relations between our two countries. I know that there are many issues that must be put on the table, among them the status of Afro-Cubans, political prisoners and human rights. I also understand Cuba has differences with the U.S. as well. Only through engaging in discussion and dialogue on these very important issues will progress be made.

I recognize that much work must be done before the U.S. and Cuba will be able to put aside the differences of our past. This certainly will not be easy. However, the purpose of this particular visit was not to put to rest 50 years of differences, but to determine as members of Congress the impact of our foreign policy and if it needs to change.

The U.S. is alone in enforcing a unilateral trade embargo with a nation of 11 million people 90 miles off our shores. Our Government Accountability Office issued a report last year that found our embargo is ineffective because we have no support from the international community and that the enforcement of trade and travel restrictions on American citizens is a dangerous distraction for our government on the homeland security front.

As noted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, our unilateral embargo sequesters “the United States from its allies while denying U.S. companies access to markets in which third-country firms can do business easily.”

Every other nation in the Western Hemisphere has normal diplomatic relations with Cuba, as do most European nations. This leaves the United States isolated from the global community.

We must reengage and begin a new chapter in the history of bilateral relations with both the Cuban government and the Cuban people.

Civil Rights Groups Criticize Obama Boycott

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

The nation's largest civil rights organizations said Monday that they were profoundly disappointed by the Obama administration's decision to boycott the U.N. conference on racism this week in Geneva.

After weeks of discussion, the White House announced Saturday that it would not send a delegation to the Durban Review Conference because of objectionable language in the gathering's official document.

There had been concern that the document and speakers at the conference would be critical of Israel, because at the last race summit in South Africa in 2001, some Middle Eastern states compared Zionism to racism. On Monday, several diplomats walked out of the conference when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Israel is ruled by racists and that the West used the Holocaust as a pretext for aggression against Palestinians.

While they didn't support the statement, American civil rights leaders said a world conference on racism is the perfect place to discuss controversial opinions and views.

Hilary Shelton, vice president of advocacy and director of the NAACP's Washington bureau, said that debate and disagreements are productive.

"There are challenging issues, but a willingness to have ideological discussions makes our nation a better place," he said. "An exchange of ideas moves us forward.

"It saddens us that we could have such an extraordinary event as an African American president and then decline to provide leadership at a race conference."

The Obama administration in February announced that language in the draft of the document to be adopted at the conference was objectionable and demanded changes. But apparently the revised version still contained plans to reaffirm the 2001 document and other language considered problematic. Eight other countries also refused to attend: Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand and Poland.

While a number of Jewish and pro-Israel groups lobbied hard against U.S. involvement, many human and civil rights groups pushed for attendance.

Rep. Barbara Lee of Oakland, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, said her members were "deeply dismayed" by the boycott announcement.

"This decision is inconsistent with the administration's policy of engaging with those we agree with and those we disagree with," she said in a statement. "By boycotting Durban, the U.S. is making it more difficult for it to play a leadership role on the U.N. Human Rights Council as it states it plans to do. This is a missed opportunity, plain and simple."

After hearing of the developments Monday, Lee added that "it is unfortunate that the inappropriate and out-of-line remarks of Ahmadinejad would obscure the only international forum to address racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia."

A joint statement from the NAACP, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the National Urban League said the civil rights groups were "profoundly disappointed" because the boycott deprives the conference of the voice of the Obama administration and "will only undermine efforts to address human rights and civil rights around the world."

"We know there was some unfair language in the initial document, but there were also a number of crucial issues that the United States should take leadership on," said Shelton, of the NAACP. "The world looks to us for experience in how to have a multiracial and multiethnic democracy."

Barbara Lee Promotes New Book on Campus

Mon, 20 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Congresswoman Barbara Lee returned to her alma mater, Mills College, on Apr. 15 to discuss her memoir as well as her work for social justice.

"How good it is be here, to return to the scene of the crime," Lee said about her return.

Constituents from the Oakland neighborhood along with members of the Mills gathered in the Chapel at 6:30 p.m. to hear Lee speak.

Lee's memoir, entitled "Renegade for Peace and Justice: Congresswoman Barbara Lee Speaks for Me," details her life from her birth in El Paso, Texas to her work on Capitol Hill.

Lee said she decided to write about her life in order to give her side of the story after conservatives portrayed her as a traitor to the U.S., particularly when she voted against the 2003 Iraq War.

One such portrayal was John Fund's opinion in the Wall Street Journal.

"One wishes Ms. Lee were just a clueless liberal, but her history leads me to conclude that she is ... someone who 'always blames America first'," wrote Fund about Lee being the sole person in congress to vote against the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists former President George W. Bush requested after the September 11 attacks.

Lee said her life was already public. "It is important to understand that when you are a public official, 99.9 percent of your life goes to the public," Lee said. "It was a real inspiration to put my life together in this book."

Her book also included her experiences as a battered woman, which she said was a foundation her efforts to end domestic abuse against women.

"[My advocacy] is driven by a sense of righteousness to me, my mother, my grandmother, and other women," Lee said.

Her advocacy and legislation has earned her community awards and recognition. Recent awards include the Humane Advocates Award from the Humane Society in March and The Heroes in the Struggle Award from the Black AIDS Institute December 2008.

She also received a grade of "A" on the 110th Congressional Scorecard from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans for America i October 2008.

After the book discussion, Dean of Students Joi Lewis facilitated a discussion between Lee and two Mills professors: Ethnic Studies Department Head Julia Sudbury and fellow Ethnic Studies professor Amina Mama, who is also the Barbara Lee Distinguished Chair in Women's Leadership.

Mama praised Lee's memoir. "The power of this book, the way you have written it; you are living history," she said. "Anyone who reads it are empowered with your words."

Members of the Oakland community came to see Lee. One Mills alumna, Estrella Redua Class of '65 came with her friend Peggy Woodruff, Class of '58.

"I said to Peggy when I first came into the Chapel that this is our dream - that we as alumni and the community can come see Barbara Lee," said Redua.

Jessica Ewing, a resident of Oakland and an accepted applicant for Mills College, said she was excited about Lee's visit because "my mom talks about Barbara Lee a lot."

"I think that it's great that Mills allows the community to be apart of her political process. And I feel that more young people should be apart of the political process," she said.

Giuletta Aquino, the Dean of Undergraduate Admissions, also had kind words to say about the congresswoman.

"Barbara Lee is one of the crowning glories of Mills College," said Aquino. "She is an inspiration to women from all generations. She is an advocate for all humanity."

The Mills Ethnic Studies Department, the F.W. Olin Library and the Global Fund for Women all helped with the event.

Congress Nibbles on Edges of Wealth Gap

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

As Washington policymakers screamed bloody murder last month over bonus payments for a few hundred AIG employees, another much larger scandal flew virtually unnoticed on Capitol Hill: The divide between the wealth of blacks and whites — already gaping — grew again. Now, as Congress prepares to consider a series of consumer-friendly finance reforms, some minority advocates, researchers and lawmakers are pointing to that startling trend as another reason the reforms are urgently needed.

“We need to work together to begin to attack the institutional and structural reasons why communities of color continue to lag so far behind white families,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus.

The concerns were justified last month. According to the Federal Reserve, the net worth of the typical African American family in 2007 was just 10 percent of the net worth of the typical white family — down from 12 percent in 2004. Put another way: For every $1 held by whites five years ago, blacks had 12 cents. Three years later, they had a dime.

“This is not just a gap. It’s a deepening canyon,” Meizhu Lui, director of the Closing the Racial Wealth Gap Initiative at the Oakland-based Insight Center for Community Economic Development, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed last month. “The overhyped political term ‘post-racial society’ becomes patently absurd when looking at these economic numbers.”

The staggering statistic has taken some powerful lawmakers by surprise. Participants in a wealth gap summit on Capitol Hill last month said that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who attended the event, was shocked to learn the extent of the disparity.

But incredulity is one thing; closing the gap is another. And congressional lawmakers with that goal in mind face a series of barriers to getting the job done. Not only is there little recognition that such a divide exists, but the causes, according to reform advocates, are so rooted in history and engrained in policy that they’re tough to iron out. Furthermore, the solutions reside largely in tax code reforms — among the thorniest issues to tackle on Capitol Hill. Advocates for closing the wealth gap say that congressional lawmakers are well behind the curve.

“In terms of them really grappling with it,” Lui said Friday, “I don’t think they’ve done that yet. There’s plenty of room for them to address this further.”

It won’t be easy. Advocates are pushing to reverse the Bush-era tax cuts, like those slashing the capital gains and estate taxes, which provide handsome benefits to those with accumulated wealth, but do almost nothing to help Americans of color, whose assets are a fraction of those held by whites.

“People aren’t thinking in terms of wealth, it’s always about income,” Lui said of the public policy focus. “But income alone won’t do it.”

Thomas Shapiro, professor of law and social policy at Brandeis University, said additional tax reforms could include a shift in the mortgage interest deduction to benefit lower-valued homes and the creation of another deduction for renters — controversial ideas that “no one’s really talking about,” he said.

“When the issue is something like the racial wealth gap,” he said, “it’s very difficult to think of policy levers [as solutions].”

That the wealth disparity is so wide is largely attributable to prejudiced policies both public and private. Advocates and academics point out that some of the largest federal benefit programs of the last century propped up whites but largely excluded minorities. The G.I. Bill, for example, provided $120 billion in low-interest mortgage loans to servicemen after World War II, yet less than 2 percent went to minorities before 1962, Liu found. And the Depression-era Home Owners’ Loan Corporation, created to modify mortgages to prevent foreclosures, benefited no minorities whatsoever, she said.

More recently, Harvard University discovered that, among blacks and whites of similar incomes, lenders targeted blacks more often for sub-prime loans, even when those minority borrowers were eligible for less risky arrangements.

To combat that trend, advocates and some Democrats are pushing for the creation of a Financial Products Safety Commission, a concept championed by Elizabeth Warren, who chairs the congressional panel created to oversee the Wall Street bailout. A Senate bill, sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) would do just that. The commission would regulate financial products, like mortgage loans and credit cards, much the same way the Consumer Products Safety Commission protects buyers from faulty coffee makers and lawn chairs. Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) have also sponsored the bill.

The release of the Fed’s latest Survey of Consumer Finances, a triennial assessment of American financial trends, reveals that a focus on policy through a racial lens could come none too soon. The report found that, as a group, people of color held roughly 16 cents for every $1 held by whites in 2007. For Hispanics, the figure was 12 cents. For blacks, a dime. And those figures were crunched before the collapse of the economy. Advocates fear that the gap probably widened since then because, while fewer minorities than whites own their homes, minority homeowners tend to have a higher percentage of their wealth wrapped up in their homes.

Similarly, blacks and Hispanics have fewer credit cards, but tend to drive up higher debts per card. As a result, said Jose Garcia, associate director for research and policy at Demos, a liberal policy group, “more of [minorities'] income goes to pay debt, and less goes to buy assets.”

Minority advocates are also wary of payday lenders, who tend to charge exorbitant rates and target minority communities where traditional banks are often scarce. “Billions of dollars are being taken out of low- and moderate-income communities as a result of these alternative financing schemes,” Shapiro said.

Not that Congress isn’t doing anything at all. Legislation to help homeowners by empowering bankruptcy judges to alter mortgage terms passed the House last month, though it’s since stalled in the Senate. Democratic leaders are also preparing to take up bills tackling predatory lending and credit card abuses. Another proposal to rein in payday lenders is also on the Democrats’ radar screen.

Speaking at the wealth gap summit last month, Lee said that reforming these industries to protect minority communities is long overdue. “Too many communities do not have access to traditional banks and rely too heavily on payday lenders and check cashing stores that charge uncontrolled fees and out of sight interest rates,” Lee said. “We must work together to use this financial storm to demand the institutional reforms that will begin to lift all American families out of this crisis.”

Reform advocates say they’re heartened by such statements coming from Capitol Hill, but many remain wary that few lawmakers are sticking their necks out to close the wealth gap.

“They were very friendly and very encouraging,” Shapiro said of the congressional participants at the summit, “but nobody was stepping up and saying, ‘I want to be the champion of this.’”

Obama Eases Cuba Travel Restrictions

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

President Obama lifted all restrictions Monday on the ability of individuals to visit relatives in Cuba, as well as to send them remittances.

The move represents a significant shift in a U.S. policy that had remained largely unchanged for nearly half a century. It comes days before Obama leaves for a key meeting of hemispheric powers, the Summit of the Americas, in Trinidad and Tobago.

"President Obama has directed that a series of steps be taken to reach out to the Cuban people to support their desire to enjoy basic human rights and to freely determine their country's future," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said.

Obama also ordered new steps to promote the "freer flow of information among the Cuban people and between those in Cuba and the rest of the world, as well as to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian items directly to the Cuban people," Gibbs added.

The president took "these steps [in part] to help bridge the gap among divided Cuban families."

Obama believes that the change in U.S. policy will ultimately help bring about a more tolerant, democratic Cuban government, noted White House Latin American policy adviser Dan Restrepo.

He thinks "that creating independence, creating space for the Cuban people to operate freely from the regime is the kind of space they need to start the process toward a more democratic Cuba," Restrepo said.

Several key components of America's embargo on the island nation will be preserved, however. Among other things, Americans will still be barred from sending gifts or other items to high-ranking Cuban government officials and Communist Party members.

Travel restrictions for Americans of non-Cuban descent will also remain in place.

Critics of the change blasted the administration for unilaterally changing what had been a long-settled U.S. policy.

President Raúl Castro's "dictatorship is one of the most brutal in the world. The U.S. economic embargo must remain in place until tyranny gives way to freedom and democracy," Rep. Connie Mack, R-Florida, said in a written statement.

Obama "should not make any unilateral change in America's policy toward Cuba. Instead, Congress should vigorously debate these and other ideas before any substantive policy changes are implemented."

Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Florida, and a native of Cuba, had kinder words for the administration, saying, "The announcement today is good news for Cuban families separated by the lack of freedom in Cuba."

He said that, in turn, the Cuban government should focus on improving its relationships with its citizens and the United States. "Lowering remittance charges and allowing travel for Cuban families wishing to see relatives abroad are two steps the Cuban regime could immediately take that would show change in Havana," he said.

Reps. Chris Smith, R-New Jersey, and Frank Wolf, R-Virginia, held a news conference last week urging Obama to refrain from easing trade embargo or travel restrictions until the Cuban government releases all "prisoners of conscience," shows greater respect for freedom of religion and speech, and holds "free and fair" elections.

"Over the past 50 years, the Castros and their secret police have been directly responsible for killing thousands of nonviolent, courageous pro-democracy activists and for jailing and torturing tens of thousands of others. And they continue to this day to perpetrate their brutal crimes," Smith said.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-California, who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus, responded that it makes no sense to continue what she characterized as a failed policy.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but by any objective standard, our current policy toward Cuba just hasn't worked. Simply put, it's time to open dialogue and discussion with Cuba," she said in a written statement.

Lee and other Congressional Black Caucus members met in Havana this month with Raúl Castro and his brother, former President Fidel Castro.

Several members of Congress see broader relations with Cuba as vital to U.S. interests. A group of senators and other supporters unveiled a bill March 31 to lift the 47-year-old travel ban to Cuba.

"I think that we finally reached a new watermark here on this issue," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, one of the bill's sponsors.

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, another sponsor of the bill, issued a draft report in February that said it was time to reconsider the economic sanctions. Lugar is the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Sarah Stephens, director of the Cuba Travel Projects and one of the leading advocates pushing for an end to the embargo, said Monday that "these are welcome steps, but the right course is to allow all Americans to travel to Cuba, to open up commerce and to directly engage the Cuban government in diplomacy and solving problems in both countries' interests."

Obama "has a historic opportunity not to be the last president of the Cold War but the first president to turn the page in U.S.-Cuba relations," she argued.

Before he was elected president, Obama promised to lower some of the barriers in Cuban-American relations. Provisions attached to a $410 billion supplemental budget Obama signed in March also made it easier for Cuban-Americans to travel to Cuba and to send money to family members on the island. In addition, they facilitated the permitted sales of agricultural and pharmaceutical products to Cuba.

The provisions loosened restrictions enacted by President George W. Bush after he came to office in 2001.

Obama's moves appear to be tracking the overall public sentiment on what has historically been a hot-button political issue.

Seventy-one percent of Americans think the United States should re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba, according an April 3-5 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, and 64 percent think the United States should lift the travel ban to Cuba for all Americans. Sampling error for the poll was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Tammerlin Drummond: Rep. Barbara Lee is right; it is time for a change in Cuba policy

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

WHY DOES THE U.S still have a trade embargo against Cuba?

Why do we cling to this failed, Cold War policy?

It was supposed to drive Communist dictator Fidel Castro from power.

Yet instead, nearly five decades later, el comandante, who has more lives than any cat, is still calling the shots from behind the scenes. Even though he stepped down for health reasons and his brother Raul Castro is officially now in charge.

Instead of isolating Cuba, the trade embargo has isolated us. Everyone else in Latin America, and pretty much the rest of the world trades with Cuba. European companies are making a killing there while U.S. businesses sit by, fuming on the sidelines.

In 2009, Cuba is about as much of a threat to our national security as Djibouti.

The fact is, the embargo makes no sense and hasn't for quite some time.

To find out why it continues to exist, one must look to Florida — Miami specifically. It is another world where rabid anti-Castro exiles who fled Cuba after Castro's Communist revolution live as though the Bay of Pigs was just yesterday.

Day in and day out, they await news of Castro's death so they can plan the big victory party. Only they can't take the champagne off ice because the old man won't die.

This very loud, strident minority has sent congressmen and women to Washington whose main mission is to fight efforts to lift the trade embargo.

For far too long, the Cuban-American lobby has had a stranglehold over U.S.-Cuba policy, using political clout to intimidate lawmakers and block any attempts to normalize relations with Cuba — rolling over the moderate voices within the Cuban-exile community.

But now, at long last, that may be changing.

There is a growing movement in Congress and the business community to ease travel and trade restrictions with Cuba.

Legislation to loosen the embargo had passed once before but it died when President George W. Bush threatened to veto it.

But now we have a new president and, we hope, a new era. President Barack Obama has said that he supports lifting some travel and trade restrictions to Cuba. Legislation is pending in both chambers of Congress.

Last week, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, a longtime supporter of increasing relations with Cuba, led a Congressional Black Caucus delegation to Cuba.

Lee and her fellow lawmakers met with Raul Castro and were granted a meeting with Fidel.

It was the first time American officials had met with Fidel Castro since he had emergency intestinal surgery in 2006. Despite continuing reports of Castro's imminent demise, Lee said the former Cuban president was lucid, energetic and forthright about his desire to normalize relations with the U.S. — without preconditions.

"It's time to turn the page on our foreign policy with Cuba," said Lee, who says that Americans ought to be able to travel to the Caribbean island without breaking the law. (Many of them do so anyway).

"America's harsh approach toward our nearest Caribbean neighbor divides families, closes an important market to struggling U.S. farmers, harasses our allies and is based on antiquated Cold War-era thinking."

The reaction from hard-line Cuban exiles was swift and as predictable as ever.

"Propaganda tourism" some screamed. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., the son of Cuban immigrants, has vowed to fight any loosening of restrictions.

"Our great nation should always stand for human freedom and democracy and against underwriting regimes that oppress, suppress and murder," Menendez proclaimed.

Hello? China?

Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., was equally hot. "Changing travel restrictions for U.S. citizens will simply allow Americans to contribute to the resources available to the Castro regime to perpetuate its repression," he sniffed.

But there is a whole younger generation of Cuban-Americans who are fed up with these anachronistic attitudes. They want to be able to travel freely to the Caribbean island and learn firsthand about their culture. They're tired of fighting their parents' and grandparents' battles.

White House officials have hinted that Obama may announce more changes at the Summit of Americas in Trinidad and Tobago sometime between April 17-19. However, Obama has said he would not support lifting the embargo until Cuba improves its human rights record.

"It's going to be very tough," Lee says. "And it's going to take a while. But it's time."

Tax Rates for America

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

With Tax Day just around the corner, and the nation attempting to recover from our worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, a new report from the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) -- "Reversing the Great Tax Shift" -- offers seven strong recommendations on how to pay for the recovery and rebuild an economy of shared prosperity.

There is good momentum for reversing the disaster of thirty years of tax cuts for the wealthy that have contributed to growing inequality, concentration of wealth, and a shifting of the economic burden to the poor and middle class. In New York, for example, a strong progressive coalition won a key victory in pushing through a new tax structure that requires the wealthy to pay their fair share instead of paying the same rate as those earning just $20,000 a year.

The IPS report provides a good dose of historical perspective at a time when Republicans and too many Democrats fulminate at the possibility of raising the highest tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent for households earning over $250,000. It notes that in 2006 (the most recent IRS data) the 139,000 taxpayers reporting incomes of $2 million or more paid just a 23 percent rate thanks to mega-loopholes; in 1955, people earning over $2 million in 2006 dollars paid a 49 percent rate. The top 400 taxpayers paid a 51 percent in 1955; in 2006 they paid just 17 percent of their incomes in federal income tax.

IPS' seven policy proposals would result in over $450 billion in annual revenues from the wealthiest people who have benefited the most from the failed conservative economic policies embraced by both parties. Some of these practical proposals include supporting the bipartisan Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act which would crack down on individuals and corporations to the tune of $100 billion annually; reversing the Bush tax cuts on income, capital gains, and dividends for households earning over $250,000, bringing in $43 billion annually (and impacting just 2.5% of taxpayers); a progressive estate tax on large fortunes -- exempting estates worth under $2 million, or $4 million per couple -- that would bring in $40-$60 billion per year while taxing no more than 1 of every 200 estates; a 50 percent tax rate on incomes over $2 million, generating $60 billion a year.

IPS says there are things you can do right now to drive these good proposals. You can contact your representatives and tell them to support the following: the president's budget -- which includes an increase in the top tax rate (35 percent to 39.6 percent) and closes overseas tax havens; the Income Equity Act introduced by Representative Barbara Lee which would eliminate tax subsidies for excessive executive compensation; and the Sensible Estate Tax Act, which will be reintroduced by Representative Jim McDermott later this month (in contrast to too many weak-kneed Senate Dems who have bought hook, line and sinker the absolute hogwash that the estate tax is hurting small businesses and family farms, and voted with the GOP to cut it.) Wealth for the Common Good is also building support among small and large business leaders and high net worth individuals who will pay these higher taxes.

Finally, in June, look for IPS to formally launch a "revenue campaign" to rally support around these proposals. There will be more opportunities for action as supporters push for further legislative action.

In the mean time, check out this smart and valuable report to learn more about good policies and for a clear historical perspective on tax rates in America. As we look to address challenges on health care, energy, global warming, and a more equitable economy, this is the kind of good work that will help provide the solutions we need.

Policy Toward Cuba That Was Once Radical Is Now Logical -- My Interview With Rep. Barbara Lee

Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

What is it about the congressional seat that represents Oakland and Berkeley? Is there some radical potion that one consumes before occupying it?

Though radical tends to carry a definition of being an extremist, it is often a term given by the dominant culture because of the discomfort created by the proposed change.

Sometimes radical is simply running ahead of contemporary thinking, pushing the envelope until others catch up. Radical today can be the status quo tomorrow.

The decades that former Rep. Ron Dellums carried the South African sanctions bill looked radical to many before it finally passed in 1986. Today, the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 is viewed as critical to speeding the process of ending the suffocating conditions of apartheid as well as the release of Nelson Mandela.

In that same tradition, Rep Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, and current chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, led a delegation on a visit to Cuba, which included a meeting with former President Fidel Castro, to discuss proposed relaxing travel and financial restrictions.

For 50 years, any challenge to lifting the United States' economic embargoes toward Cuba has been viewed as radical. How radical is it to put an end to a policy that has not worked, based on Cold War thinking that no longer exist?

I am aware of the arguments against normalizing relations with Cuba, it could open a virtual Pandora's box of dictatorships spreading throughout Latin America. Doesn't that echo with the hollow ring of the "Domino Theory?"

Moreover, it assumes that Castro overthrew a paragon of democratic values in Fulgencio Batista in 1959. In 1954, Vice President Richard Nixon visited Havana to congratulate Batista on the winning an election in which his was the only name that appeared on the ballot.

But unlike Batista, Castro showed little interest in bending to the political will of the United States, which was more of a problem than ideology. But even President Kennedy saw the virtue of normalizing relations with Cuba in 1963, despite of the CIA's Operation Mongoose. Opponents to normalizing Cuban relations also cite its human rights record, which includes limiting freedoms of expression, assembly, the press; it's lack of due process and arbitrary imprisonments.

It's not as if the United States' foreign policy historically has been averse to supporting dictators in Latin America. U.S. support for individuals such as Augusto Pinochet and Anatasio Somoza may have been the necessary cost for America to maintain its sphere of influence in the region during the Cold War, but in retrospect it was propping up murderous dictators.

But as Lee said to me during our interview, "We can't let this moment pass by. The climate is definitely changing."

Not that long ago, it would have been inconceivable to imagine an official congressional delegation meeting with Castro, with the blessings of the Speaker of the House.

Nontraditional bedfellows from Amnesty International to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have coalesced in support of ending a policy that has had five decades and 10 presidents to prove beyond any doubt to be a miserable failure.

Economic trade can do more to alter Cuban politics internally than anything achieved by staying the present course.

There are trading opportunities between Cuba and the U.S. that cannot happen as a result of the existing policies. Lee, whose district includes a number of biotech firms, told me about the advances Cuba has made in this area that could be beneficial to America.

According to Lee, "This is a trading relationship that Cuba wants. It's closer. The prices are better, the quality. So they want to buy American.

"Why in the world are we keeping our business from profiting from the Cuban market? It just doesn't make sense."

Lee's right; it doesn't make sense. But making sense is not always the criterion that drives U.S. foreign policy. The Cold War that fueled the current Cuban policy ended in 1991. What's driving the policy now?

Lee's leadership informs us that what was impossible in the '60s and '70s, radical in the '90s, is now simply the next logical step in a 50-year odyssey that has accomplished very little outside of political pandering.

Poll: Three-quarters favor relations with Cuba

Fri, 10 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

A new poll shows that two-thirds of Americans surveyed think the U.S. should lift its travel ban on Cuba, and three-quarters think the U.S. should end its five-decade estrangement with the country.

According to the CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted April 3 to 5, 64 percent of the 1,023 Americans surveyed by telephone thought the U.S. government should allow citizens to travel to Cuba.

And 71 percent of those polled said that the U.S. should reestablish diplomatic relations with Cuba, while 27 percent opposed such a move.

Both questions had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The Obama administration has signaled that new rules on family travel and remittances to Cuba may be announced before President Obama goes to the Summit of the Americas on April 17.

A group of senators and other supporters unveiled a bill March 31 to lift the 47-year-old travel ban to Cuba.

"I think that we finally reached a new watermark here on this issue," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, one of the bill's sponsors.

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Indiana, another sponsor of the bill, issued a draft report in February that said it was time to reconsider the economic sanctions. Lugar is the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"Republicans as well as Democrats favor reestablishing diplomatic relations with Cuba," CNN polling director Keating Holland said. "On the issue of lifting travel restrictions, Republicans are evenly divided, while independents and Democrats support the change."

A delegation from the Congressional Black Caucus traveled to Cuba earlier this week to find out if Cuba was interested in resuming relations with the U.S., said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-California, a member of the delegation.

"We have to remember that every country in Latin America, 15 countries, have normal relations with Cuba," Lee said. "We're the country which is isolated."

Lee said that Cuba has no preconditions on resuming relations.

The trip prompted a pair of Republican congressmen to rip the Black Caucus members for ignoring Cuba's "myriad gross human rights abuses," saying the trip to the island nation ignored the plight of political prisoners under the Castro regime.

Reps. Chris Smith of New Jersey and Frank Wolf of Virginia also urged the Obama administration to refrain from easing trade embargo or travel restrictions until the Cuban government releases all "prisoners of conscience," shows greater respect for freedom of religion and speech, and holds "free and fair" elections.

Cuban-American members of Congress, regardless of party affiliation, have voiced outrage over the easing of relations.

Florida Republican Sen. Mel Martinez, who was born in Cuba, doesn't want to see changes to the embargo.

"Having tourists on Cuban beaches is not going to achieve democratic change in Cuba," Martinez has said.

New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat and Cuban-American, said in a recent speech that the Cuban government is "pure and simple a brutal dictatorship. ... The average Cuban lives on an income of less than a dollar a day."

Obama has said he is in favor of changing the relationship with Cuba. The $410 billion budget Obama signed in March makes it easier for Cuban-Americans to travel to Cuba and to send money to family members on the island. It could also allow the sale of agricultural and pharmaceutical products to Cuba.

Three provisions attached to the omnibus spending bill loosened restrictions enacted by former President Bush after he came to office in 2001.

U.S. citizens are allowed to visit Cuba, but must apply for special licenses to do so. Though it is illegal, some citizens travel to a third country like Mexico or Canada and then into Cuba.

Fidel Castro led the 1959 revolution that overthrew Cuba's Batista dictatorship. The United States broke diplomatic ties with the nation in 1961. The next year, the U.S. government instituted a trade embargo. Both policies remain in effect.

Rep. Barbara Lee Meets With Cuba's Fidel Castro

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

WASHINGTON (KCBS/AP) -- Signaling its willingness to discuss improved relations with the Obama administration, Cuba on Tuesday granted three visiting members of the Congressional Black Caucus the first meeting with Fidel Castro by American officials since he fell ill in 2006.

The surprise meeting came a day after the full delegation of six representatives spent more than four hours talking privately with Cuban President Raul Castro, his first encounter with U.S. officials since formally replacing his brother as head of state nearly 14 months ago.

The sessions occurred as Washington discusses whether to warm up long chilly relations with Cuba. President Barack Obama has ordered an assessment of U.S. policy toward the communist nation and some members of Congress are pushing to lift a ban on Americans visiting the island.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., current head of the 42-member caucus, said at a news conference in Washington after the group's return that lawmakers met for nearly two hours with Fidel Castro and found him "very healthy, very energetic, very clear thinking."

Rep. Laura Richardson, D-Calif., who also met Fidel with Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., said Castro "looked directly into our eyes" and asked how Cuba could help Obama in his efforts to change the course of U.S. foreign policy. Richardson said she had the impression that 82-year-old Fidel wants to see changes in U.S.-Cuba relations in his lifetime.

Raul Castro, added Lee, "said everything was on the table."

Greg Adams, a spokesman at the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, which Washington keeps here instead of an embassy, said he expected the Cuban government to release details during the nightly newscast on state television, though it was not clear if photos or video of the encounter would be made public.

Fidel Castro has not been seen in public since undergoing emergency intestinal surgery in July 2006 and it was his first meeting in several years with American officials. Although he gave up his presidential duties after becoming ill, he remains an influential force in Cuba.

Among the last U.S. officials to see him face-to-face were state governors visiting the island separately on farm trade missions in 2005: Dave Heineman of Nebraska and Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana.

Lee's group was in Cuba five days on a trip meant to encourage dialogue between the United States and Cuba.

Jeffrey Davidow, the White House adviser for this month's Summit of the Americas, which Obama will attend, says the U.S. president has no plans to lift the 47-year-old trade embargo against Cuba. But he says Obama will soon ease travel and financial restrictions affecting the island as his administration reviews its Cuban policy.

Lee's delegation is sympathetic to Cuba, with most of its members openly praising the country's communist government while decrying U.S. policy.

Before the meeting with Fidel Castro was revealed, Lee said her group's talks with Raul Castro left lawmakers "convinced that President Castro sees normalization of relations and an end to the embargo as a benefit to both countries."

In commentaries Monday in state media, Fidel Castro said that Cuba is not afraid to talk directly to the United States and that the Cuban government does not thrive on confrontation as its detractors have long claimed. He also welcomed the visit by the U.S. lawmakers.

Opponents of the Castro government have long argued that while Cuban officials publicly call for an end to the trade embargo, they strive to antagonize Washington so it will keep the sanctions in place. The critics say Cuban leaders want to be able to blame the country's problems _ from restricted public Internet access to chronic food shortages _ on trade sanctions.

A member of the visiting U.S. delegation, Rush of Illinois, said he found the 77-year-old Raul Castro "to be just the opposite of what is being portrayed in the media."

"I think that what really surprised me, but also endeared me to him, was his keen sense of humor, his sense of history and his basic human qualities," Rush said.

The American lawmakers were "in conversation with him as though we were old family members," said Rush, who was once a Black Panther.

"I intend to do everything that I can when we get back to the States to make sure that normalization with our relationship with Cuba is given proper consideration both within the House of Representatives and the neighborhoods of America," Rush added.

Bills in both houses of the U.S. Congress would effectively bar any president from prohibiting Americans from traveling to Cuba except in extreme cases such as war.

Lee predicted the measures will be approved, but said that will not spell the end of the trade embargo.

"This would be a wonderful step, allowing American citizens the right to travel to Cuba, but much would follow after that," she said in an interview.

The lawmakers' meeting with Raul Castro touched on few specific issues, especially thorny ones like Cuba's checkered human rights record.

"We did not come to negotiate, we came to associate and cultivate," said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri.

Lee said the legislators would use their visit to prepare a report for Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the situation in Cuba.

"Our basic message back to our country would be, it's time to talk to Cuba," Lee said. "The time is now."

Asked about the lawmakers' trip, before the session with Fidel Castro was reported, State Department spokesman Robert Wood said members of Congress are free to go where they want and to discuss issues with world leaders.

"And I'm sure that the members of that delegation will be raising some of the concerns that the U.S. government has with Cuba in terms of allowing Cubans to have the same rights and freedoms as (citizens of) other countries in the hemisphere," Wood said.

Raul Castro meets with 6 visiting US lawmakers

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

HAVANA (AP) — President Raul Castro met Monday with six visiting members of the Congressional Black Caucus, his first face-to-face discussions with U.S. leaders since he became Cuba's president last year.

State television showed images of Castro, who holds the rank of four-star army general, wearing a business suit instead of his trademark olive-green fatigues and sitting down with Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat, and other members of the American delegation behind closed doors.

Seven Democratic representatives traveled to Havana but an official communique read on the air said only six attended the meeting with Castro. The statement provided no details of what was discussed or how long the meeting lasted. It added that the group also spoke in recent days with the head of parliament and the country's foreign minister.

The lawmakers came to talk about improving U.S.-Cuba relations amid speculation that Washington is ready to loosen some facets of its 47-year-old trade embargo against the island.

The meeting came as Fidel Castro said Cuba is not afraid to talk directly to the United States and that the communist government does not thrive on confrontation as its detractors have long claimed.

In a column published in state-controlled newspapers earlier Monday, the 82-year-old former president also praised U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar, saying the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee "is walking on solid ground" with a proposal to appoint a special envoy to reshape U.S.-Cuba relations.

Castro wrote that "those capable of serenely analyzing the events, as is the case of the senator from Indiana, use an irrefutable argument: The measures of the United States against Cuba, over almost half a century, are a total failure."

Though they share a strong and mutual distrust of Washington, both Castro brothers have said for decades that they would be willing to talk personally with U.S. leaders. Fidel repeated Cuba's desire for dialogue in the column, saying direct negotiation "is the only way to secure friendship and peace among peoples." Currently, the countries do not have formal diplomatic relations.

"There is no need to emphasize what Cuba has always said: We do not fear dialogue with the United States," he wrote. "Nor do we need confrontation to exist, as some foolish people think. We exist precisely because we believe in our ideas and we have never feared dialogue with the adversary."

Suffering from an undisclosed illness in a secret location, Fidel Castro was succeeded by the 77-year-old Raul as president last February.

In a second column posted late Monday night on a government Web site, the ex-president saluted the members of the Congressional Black Caucus for traveling to the island, saying he "values the gesture of the legislative group."

"They are witnesses to the respect with which Americans who visit our homeland are always received," Castro wrote. "It's unlikely that the delegation has seen a face twisted with an expression of hate, and maybe they admire the total absence of illiterate people or children shining shoes in the street."

Lawmakers in both houses of the U.S. Congress have proposed a measure that would prohibit the president from barring Americans from traveling to Cuba except in extreme cases, effectively lifting a travel ban that is a key component of the embargo.

Lee has said that many of the representatives, who arrived in Cuba on Friday and are scheduled to leave Tuesday, support the travel legislation.

Democratic Rep. Mel Watt of North Carolina said that Fidel Castro's writings make it "clear that both countries can exist without either dialogue or adversity to each other."

"But wouldn't it be so wonderful," he added, "if we struck a dialogue and found the things that were mutually advantageous and mutually of interest to our two countries and stopped the historical divisions that have separated us (though we are) so close geographically?"

Sex Education: Getting Real

Sat, 04 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Bombarded at every turn with sexually explicit messages, American teenagers need comprehensive sex education. As they might put it, it's time to keep it real.

For the past eight years, this country has done a disservice to young people by spending $1 billion to push an abstinence-only message that disregards the importance of other viable methods to prevent pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

The Bush administration believed that encouraging teens to wait until marriage to have sex was enough to reduce teen pregnancies and STDs. But statistics available now show that approach hasn't worked. Young adults need more information to avoid risky behavior that could have lasting consequences.

The United States has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the developed world. Experts estimate that as many as 750,000 teen girls will get pregnant this year.

Even more troubling is that at least one in four teenage girls has at least one of four commonly sexually transmitted disease. The statistics are even worse for black girls ages 14 to 19, with nearly 50 percent having an STD at some time.

The abstinence-only message has proven costly and ineffective. It offers only one narrow viewpoint to a population that needs all the viable options when it comes to making decisions about sex.

A 2007 report on abstinence-only programs found that they had no measurable impact in delaying teens from having sex for the first time. Fortunately, lawmakers are ready to repeal this leftover from the Bush administration with a bill authorizing federal funding for comprehensive sex education programs.

Sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.) and Rep. Barbara Lee (D., Calif.), the bill would cut millions of dollars in funding currently available to the states for abstinence-only programs. They could still get funding by offering more comprehensive sex education.

Under the Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act, youngsters would get age-appropriate and medically accurate sex education. Instead of less information, they would get more. They would still learn about abstinence, which really is the only foolproof way to avoid unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

Since so many teenagers are making up their minds to have sex, they need to hear about being in a monogamous relationship with a disease-free partner. But they also need to know about condoms.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 19 million new sexually transmitted infections occur each year in the United States, costing the nation's health-care system $15.3 billion annually.

Researchers estimate that 3.2 million teenage girls are among those infected with an STD. Young people should be given the comprehensive information they need to make informed decisions about sex. Their very lives are at stake.

Congress delegation in Cuba to "learn and talk"

Fri, 03 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

HAVANA (Reuters) - Members of the U.S. House of Representatives arrived in Havana on Friday to meet with Cuban officials in a sign of accelerating efforts to improve U.S.-Cuban relations.

Representative Barbara Lee said the group of seven Democrats came with no messages from President Barack Obama or proposals for the Cubans but simply to "see what the possibilities are."

"We're here to learn and talk and to see if there are any issues we need to communicate back to our government," she told reporters.

The congressional delegation is the first from the United States known to have come to Cuba since Obama took office in January.

"Change is in the air and our president, of course, talks very clearly about bilateral relations with all countries in the world," said Lee.

The five-day visit comes as the U.S. House and Senate prepare to consider bills that would eliminate a ban on Americans traveling to Cuba that is part of a trade embargo imposed on the island by the United States since 1962.

Obama has said he would ease the embargo but not eliminate it until Cuba shows progress toward democracy and greater human rights.

Obama also has called for dialogue with Cuba as part of a move toward normalization of relations that have been hostile since a 1959 revolution put Fidel Castro in power and transformed the island into what is now one of the world's last communist countries.

Obama's more conciliatory approach to Cuba, after eight years of hardline policies by the Bush administration, has sparked hope for change among Cubans and Americans opposed to a U.S. embargo policy that has failed to achieve its goal of toppling the Cuban government.

Lee said the delegation hoped to discuss a range of topics with Cuban officials but their agenda was not yet fully set.

"We've asked to meet with key ministries that affect trade, commerce, tourism, agriculture -- all those key areas we believe the American public would be interested in understanding and knowing about," she said.

The U.S. delegation is made up of members of the Congressional Black Caucus, with the exception of Representative Mike Honda, a spokeswoman said.

Barbara Lee leads Cuba delegation

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Rep. Barbara Lee, a longtime supporter of increasing relations with Cuba, is leading a congressional delegation to the communist nation starting Friday.

Lee (D-Calif.) described the trip as an opportunity to loosen the 50-year U.S. embargo against the country. The United States has no formal diplomatic relations with Cuba.

“The election of President Barack Obama presents a great new opportunity to rethink U.S. foreign policy in many regions of the world,” Lee said in a statement late Thursday. “America’s harsh approach toward our nearest Caribbean neighbor divides families, closes an important market to struggling U.S. farmers, harasses our allies and is based on antiquated Cold War-era thinking.”

She also called for the travel ban to be lifted.

“While I am pleased that there was a slight movement to help ease the onerous travel ban in the recently enacted omnibus spending bill, all Americans should be allowed to travel to Cuba without restriction,” she said.

The delegation is composed of all Democratic lawmakers. Reps. Mel Watt of North Carolina, Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri, Marcia Fudge of Ohio, Mike Honda of California, Bobby Rush of Illinois and Laura Richardson of California are joining Lee on the trip.

There has been support growing in Congress and the business community to ease travel and trade restrictions. While legislation to ease those restrictions has passed Congress with bipartisan support in the past, it died when former President George W. Bush threatened to veto it.

During the presidential campaign, Obama pledged to change the nation's Cuba strategy. He called for lifting some travel restrictions but said the embargo should not be lifted until the Cuban government improves on its human-rights record and holds free elections.

Legislation is pending in the House and Senate that would end restriction on travel to Cuba except in select circumstances.

House honors slain Oakland officers

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

The House of Representatives formally honored as "fallen heroes" Oakland's four slain police officers, unanimously passing a resolution Wednesday by Oakland Rep. Barbara Lee.Lee called the resolution a "small but fitting tribute to four good men who routinely performed great deeds and who gave their lives in service to the people of Oakland."

The names of the officers, Sgts. Mark Dunakin, Ervin Romans and Daniel Sakai and Officer John Hege, were read on the House floor, and a moment of silence called by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco. HR290 passed 417-0.

The names of the officers will be engraved on the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial in Washington.

"We stand together in our resolve to make our city safer and peaceful," Lee said. "Only by achieving our goals of peace, nonviolence and resolutions of conflicts by peaceful means will we be able to achieve a truly peaceful community and then repay the debt that we owe to these four remarkable human beings who made the supreme sacrifice to keep us safe."

The March 21 slayings were condemned in Washington, and drew personal condolences to the families of the victims from President Obama.

Friday's funeral drew a crowd of 20,000 and eulogies from California's two senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, among others.

The officers died when parolee Lovelle Mixon, 26, shot them in separate incidents in East Oakland.

"A giant pall hangs over the Bay Area," Pelosi told the House. "These deaths have hit people very, very hard, as you would expect, and I think you can feel some of that in this chamber this afternoon."

The resolution noted that the killings were the first multiple slayings of law enforcement officers in the nation in more than a year and the first time in more than 15 years that four were killed by gunfire in the line of duty.

The resolution also stated that the killings were the deadliest such incident in California in almost 40 years, since a shootout on April 6, 1970 in Los Angeles County, when four California Highway Patrol officers were killed in a gun battle with two heavily armed suspects.

The resolution said those slayings were "so traumatic and so shocking to the nation that it galvanized the movement to reform police training procedures, firearms use and arrest techniques."

Several members representing the districts where the officers lived spoke in their honor. Rep. Gerald McNerney, D-Pleasanton, who represented Dunakin, who lived in Tracy with his wife and three children, and Romans, who lived in Danville, also leaving behind his wife and three children. Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, represents Concord, where Hege lived. Sakai was from Castro Valley, which Lee represents, and leaves behind a wife and young daughter.

House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers, D-Mich, also spoke on the resolution, along with Rep. Bart Stupak, a Democrat who represents Ironwood Township on Michigan's Upper Peninsula, where Romans grew up and his parents, Chester and Sueko Romans, still live.

Rep. Barbara Lee heading to Cuba to talk tourism and trade

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, will be heading to Cuba today with a congressional delegation to discuss thawing relations between the United States and the Caribbean island.

The diplomatic overture signals a possible easing off policies that had hardened under the Republican administration of former President George W. Bush.

"The election of President Barack Obama presents a great new opportunity to rethink U.S. foreign policy in many regions of the world," Lee said.

The purpose of the delegation is to review trade and commerce policies with Cuba and discuss cultural, health and academic exchanges, which are complicated by a ban on travel to Cuba for most U.S. citizens — the only country in the world to bar its citizens from visiting the island.

Lee also has joined Democratic and Republican House members in supporting a bill introduced Thursday to lift the travel restrictions.

Critics of the ban estimate that U.S. tourism to Cuba — just 90 miles from the southernmost point of the 48 contiguous states — could generate as much as $1.6 billion annually.

But there are fears that an influx of U.S. tourism would lead Cuba in an unwanted direction. Others oppose the move because they say it would bolster the Communist regime headed by Raul Castro.

Cuba's official response to the bill to lift travel restrictions has been cool, according to press accounts. The reason for the response may be that the

bill does not advocate ending the economic, financial and commercial embargo that has been in place for 45 years.

The U.S. government imposed the blockade after Fidel Castro, who led the 1959 revolution that ousted the U.S.-backed Batista regime, took control of U.S. properties, particularly the American Fruit Co. Raul Castro, his brother, took over leadership in 2008.

Lee said she wants to send a message to Cubans that the U.S. public is interested in "building a new relationship."

"America's harsh approach toward our nearest Caribbean neighbor divides families, closes an important market to struggling U.S. farmers, harasses our allies, and is based on antiquated Cold War-era thinking," Lee said.

U.S. House, Oakland council to honor slain officers

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 00:00:00 -0700

OAKLAND — The U.S. House of Representatives and the Oakland City Council will consider resolutions today honoring the lives of four Oakland police officers who were shot and killed by a wanted parolee earlier this month.

The resolutions are in honor of Sgts. Mark Dunakin, Ervin Romans and Daniel Sakai, and Officer John Hege, who were shot and killed by 26-year-old Lovelle Mixon on March 21.

The House resolution is authored by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, who attended the memorial service Friday for the four slain officers.

The House was scheduled to vote on the resolution at 1 p.m. today, according to Lee's office.

Lee's resolution points out that the officers' killings represent the deadliest incident involving public safety officers in California since April 6, 1970, when four California Highway Patrol officers were killed in a shootout.

The resolution states that the four slain officers "represented the best of their community and the future the people of Oakland are determined to create for their children, grandchildren and generations to come."

The Oakland City Council will vote on its resolution at a meeting at 6 tonight.

Low-income residents urged to get tax help

Sat, 28 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0700

OAKLAND — Low-income families were urged Saturday to take advantage of free tax assistance in claiming a federal tax credit that can provide families with up to $4,800 in refunds.

In a down economy, with social services on the chopping block, it's important for low-income families to get what they deserve when filing tax returns, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, said.

"These credits are vital and extremely important to the working poor," Lee said. "It's putting money that they have earned into their pockets, into bank accounts and into the community."

Lee joined state Controller John Chiang in discussing the credit in East Oakland as people were getting help on their taxes Saturday afternoon. They were at the Roots International Academy and the Coliseum College Prep Academy, two schools on the former Havenscourt Middle School campus in the 1300 block of 66th Avenue.

Lee and Chiang praised the efforts of Earn It! Keep It! Save It!, a United Way of the Bay Area-led group offering free tax help, including assistance in ensuring Bay Area families qualifying receive the Earned Income Tax Credit. The credit is designed for low- and moderate-income working individuals and families.

Lee and her congressional staff are credited with playing a key role in creating the organization that became Earn It! Keep It! Save It! in 2002 and 2003, when Lee grew concerned over how many of her constituents in Oakland were not claiming tax credits to which they were entitled.

The initiative began in Oakland in the 2003 tax year, with tax filers taking in $1.8 million in the Earned Income Tax Credit and $3 million in tax returns in total through the help they received, according to Carole Watson, the chief community investment officer for the United Way of the Bay Area. Earn It! Keep It! Save It! has since expanded and now includes 171 sites in eight counties around the Bay Area, and it has helped families collect more than $100 million in refunds, Watson said.

Households earning less than $45,000 in 2008 are eligible for the free services. The organization said more than $75 million in federal tax credits go unclaimed by the Bay Area working poor every year. And Chiang said statewide one in every four or five households eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit fails to take advantage of it.

"Hundreds of millions of dollars are left back in Washington, D.C.," he said.

When collected, "This is money in the accounts of individuals that can start to transform their lives, can help bring the dreams they need," he said.

Uncovering Haiti's Hidden History

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0700

A congressional bill that would create a truth commission to explore the U.S. role in the 2004 regime change in Haiti is languishing in the House Foreign Affairs Committee with only 12 co-sponsors. But Rep. Barbara Lee’s (D-Calif.) H.R. 331 has sparked hope among some Haitians who think the bill might pass under a friendly Obama administration and bring needed change to the indebted island nation.

Lee introduced the bill Jan. 8 without fanfare. She has brought the same bill to the U.S. House almost every year since 2004. It has never advanced out of committee.

The commission’s task would be to determine what happened on Feb. 29, 2004, and the months leading up to the removal of Haiti’s President Jean Bertrand Aristide, currently exiled in South Africa.

The official U.S. position goes something like this: In February 2004, an armed militia was poised to take over the capital, Port-au-Prince. To avoid a bloodbath, Aristide called on the Americans to airlift him and his wife to safety.

Aristide “left the country with our assistance, which he requested,” Mari Tolliver, spokesperson for the U.S. Embassy in Haiti, told In These Times in August. (Karl Duckworth, spokesperson for the State Department, said that he could not comment on the U.S. role in Aristide’s departure, as the Obama State Department is doing a “complete evaluation of all the areas to see where we will be on issues.”)

Aristide tells a different story. He says that a rag-tag band of some 200 rebels strong-armed poorly equipped police stations in several Haitian towns, but posed no threat to the capital, the president or the central government. Aristide says American officials forced him to board a plane whose destination was unknown.

Congress has only once formally addressed the question of the U.S. role in the coup. On March 3, 2004, the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee held a hearing, providing the opportunity for Congress to question State Department officials. Those testifying were not under oath; there were no follow-up hearings.

The week following the hearing, Lee introduced her bill on the House floor, explaining that the purpose of the truth commission was to “find out more about the events leading up to President Aristide’s departure, the twilight activities of his alleged resignation, the current unconstitutional government, and the ongoing turmoil, fear, and misinformation that is still flowing out of Haiti.”

In 2004, 49 representatives co-sponsored the bill.

Nicole Lee, executive director of Washington, D.C.-based TransAfrica Forum, an advocacy group, is an attorney who, before the coup, lived in Haiti. Lee (no relation to the congresswoman) says one of the key functions of the commission would be to document the role of the International Republican Institute (IRI) in destabilizing the Haitian government. The nonprofit IRI is affiliated with the Republican Party and funded, in part, by the nonprofit National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which Congress partially funds “to strengthen democratic institutions around the world through nongovernmental efforts,” according to the NED website.

“The International Republican Institute all along really fomented a lot of tension between the Democratic Convergence [the anti-Aristide party] and the government,” says Lee. “There were reports—and continue to be reports—that the IRI provided information and also provided funding and training to former Haitian military officials that ended up coming across the border with the Dominican Republic” leading to the February 2004 coup, she says.

Unless the truth about the coup is uncovered, Congress will write off the Bush policy of regime change as an anomaly, says Lee.

Meanwhile, the proposed bill has elicited response in Haiti. From exile, Aristide referenced the bill in a statement read recently on the radio by a representative: Lee’s bill leads us to believe that the new American administration will not support the coup d’état as was the case for the previous administration, the statement said.

Yvonne Zapzap heads the Families of Political Prisoners Collective and spoke by phone from Haiti through a translator. She says Haitians are aware of the bill and believe a truth commission would help end the lingering effects of the coup.

People voted for [current President René] Préval so that the political prisoners would be out of jail, but people are still in jail, she says, referring to supporters imprisoned without trial during the 2004 to 2006 U.S.-appointed interim government. The impacts of the coup are still present since Aristide was snatched from Haiti, she says.

TransAfrica Forum’s Lee puts it this way: “When Aristide was removed, water projects stopped, education projects stopped, healthcare clinics shut down. It wasn’t just about removing a leader, it was about destroying a real democracy. And that really needs to be accounted for.”

Is Congress Finally Ready To Seriously Tax the Rich?

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0700

How much has the uproar over the bonuses at AIG impacted America’s political discourse? This much: We now have elected leaders on Capitol Hill, for the first time since World War II, openly talking about slapping a 100 percent top tax rate on the income that’s cascading into rich people’s pockets.

On Tuesday, Rep. Steve Israel from New York proposed a 100 percent tax, effective this year, on bonuses over $100,000 that go to employees at companies that receive federal bailout funds.

“If we can't kill the bonuses,” says Israel, “we'll tax the bonuses.”

That’s just what the full House voted yesterday to do, adopting a proposal that would tax bailout bonuses — on any tax return that reports at least $250,000 in income — at a 90 percent rate.

The federal tax code hasn’t sported a tax rate that high since 1963, when all salary, interest, dividend, and bonus income over $400,000 faced a tax rate set at 91 percent.

The current top tax rate on any of the income that goes to America’s wealthiest: 35 percent.

President Obama has already proposed upping that figure to 39.6 percent. But has the AIG furor — amid the escalating meltdown crisis — now placed an even higher tax rate on the rich back within the realm of political possibility?

History offers an answer: maybe. Since the last quarter of the 19th century, the years when wealth in the United States first started concentrating at epic levels, taxes on the rich have only risen significantly three times. Each of those three hefty hikes took place at times of national crisis, the last nearly 70 years ago, in a situation filled with parallels to today’s furor over AIG.

Back then, in 1940, the Nazis were marching in Europe, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt was anxiously trying to rearm America amid the Depression’s hard times.

“Not a single war millionaire,” the President flatly pledged in 1940, “will be created in this country as a result of the war disaster.”

Top U.S. corporate leaders of FDR’s day had other ideas. They mobilized to stop Roosevelt’s pitch for a stiff excess profits tax on corporate earnings. They actually refused to enter into defense contracts until Congress gave them a more business-friendly tax bill.

But then came the attack on Pearl Harbor, and FDR soon had the upper hand. In April 1942, just a few months into the war, Roosevelt proposed a 100 percent “supertax” on all income over $110,000 — the equivalent of about $1.4 million in today’s dollars — for couples filing jointly.

Congress, in the end, didn’t go along with FDR’s 100 percent tax, but lawmakers did eventually agree to a 94 percent top rate on income over $200,000, around $2.5 million in today’s dollars, and the nation’s top tax rate would hover around 90 percent, under Democratic and Republican Presidents alike, until 1964.

Over the course of these years of high taxes on America’s very rich, the Great Depression would end, World War II would be won, and the United States would usher onto the world stage the first prosperous, mass middle class nation in economic history.

FDR’s willingness — even eagerness — to take on the rich and powerful opened the door to all this success. Elected leaders in Washington today have yet to show anything close to that courage. The bailout executive pay limits Congress enacted last month and the AIG bonus tax the House adopted last week certainly do constitute positive steps, but neither goes nearly far enough.

The AIG bonus tax, for instance, won’t touch Joseph Cassano, the power suit who ran the AIG division that wheeled and dealed the company into $99 billion in 2008 losses. Cassano left AIG last March, but not before collecting over $300 million for his toxic labors. He gets to keep all that, even if the House bonus bill adopted last week becomes law.

The same story holds for the executive pay bailout restrictions Congress passed in February. These place a $500,000 limit on what companies that get taxpayer bailout dollars can deduct off their tax bills for executive pay. That’s a welcome move, but this limit doesn’t in any way impact Lockheed Martin, the defense industry giant that rakes in billions of tax dollars via government contracts.

Lockheed’s CEO, the company has just announced, took home $26.5 million in 2008. Under current law, Lockheed gets to deduct, on its corporate tax return, almost all that $26.5 million.

One member of Congress, Rep. Barbara Lee from California, has introduced legislation to end such taxpayer subsidies for excessive executive compensation. Her new Income Equity Act, HR 1594, would deny all corporations tax deductions on any executive pay that runs over $500,000 or 25 times the pay of a company’s lowest-wage worker.

Lee, interestingly, had a similar bill before the last Congress. That bill went nowhere. Has the AIG bonus ruckus changed anything? We’ll soon see.

Oakland To Get $30M For Housing, Homeless Programs

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Oakland is expected to receive nearly $30 million in federal funding for its homeless prevention and housing programs and services, U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, announced Saturday.

Lee said that the "critical funds," which includes $7.5 million in new funds through the economic recovery package, would be put to work in communities in Oakland and the 9th District.

"With the California unemployment rate currently at a staggering 10.5 percent, these funds will be essential to giving the city of Oakland and the entire state of California a much needed economic boost," Lee said.

California has received over $32 billion in funding since the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was enacted last month and stands to receive additional funding in the upcoming months.

Renewed Vision for Racial Progress

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0700

You have lived through some of the most important events of racial politics in America, have volunteered for the Black Panther Party in California, and now head the Congressional Black Caucus. What did voting in the 2008 presidential election mean to you?

It was one of those moments; it was really a transformational moment. I felt like how many in our country felt about the work of our ancestors, the work of our civil rights organizations [such as] the Black Panther Party, all of our groups, organizations and individuals that really fought for that moment and now we were there. When I voted, I thought of all of those who had paid such a dear price, who sacrificed so much for this day to come. So I voted in the spirit of gratefulness and thankfulness.

The 2008 election saw the highest voter turnout since the 1960 general election, according to the Washington Post. The African-American community also saw record-breaking turnout. Some political analysts have predicted that black turnout rates exceeded white turnout rates for the first time in American history. To what do you ascribe this record-breaking turnout? Can it simply be explained, as some have suggested, as the African-American community’s excitement to vote for the first African-American candidate on a major party ticket?

No, I would say we had an inspirational candidate who was an African-American, who was smart and had a message of change. We saw many young people get involved, and I think that may have factored into the huge turnout. It was amazing how young people saw President Obama as a person who got it, who really wanted real change, and so they volunteered in many, many ways to make sure that he won. It was quite a turnout that we all hope to continue in terms of the engagement of young people and the African-American community. We have to make sure people stay engaged in their government processes.

What sort of role models do you believe President Obama and his family will be to the African-American community? What will be their influence on the broader U.S. population?

They are wonderful role models. You see a father, a mother, two children who are ordinary folks, who care not only about their family and their children, but who care about their community, their country, and their world. Every time you see them, you see this beautiful first family, with these two beautiful young girls going to school, doing what normal young girls do. I think it really shows the country and the rest of the world the strength of African-American families and how we can build on our strengths. When we strengthen our families, we strengthen our community, we strengthen the country, and we strengthen the world. They are a great example of what parenting is about.

Journalist Gwen Ifill’s upcoming book, The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama, describes a new generation of black politicians who are “younger and more likely to get to power not by marching in marches the way their parents did or by leading protests” but through education and “choosing public service in a different way.” Do you agree that this is the future of black politics after Obama?

I think we have to have both inside and outside strategies. I think the protests and the marching, which I call ‘street heat,’ still have their place. When you look at, for instance, what is happening in my own community with police brutality, with a young man just being shot in a cold-blooded murder by a police officer, we have to have protests; we have to have an outcry of support. We need to know that we have the right to petition our government in the Constitution. Education, moving up the professional ladder, and using our skills and knowledge to help not only our families but the community and country are really the keys with young people. I see that as a strategy, but I do not think we need to believe that the protests and the ‘street heat’ are not important. That pressure has to be there on the government for it to respond appropriately to the needs of the people. [Marches and protests] may not have the same role in terms of civil rights, but when you look at trying to end the occupation of Iraq, when you look at the peace movement, we have to have that support.

During the Civil Rights Era, the preeminent challenge facing the African-American community was discriminatory law and blatant discrimination. Now, however, challenges facing the African-American community such as inferior public schooling and sub par healthcare seem to be more complex. What do you see as the biggest challenge facing the African-American community? How do you think President should address these issues?

When you look at incarceration rates among African-Americans, especially among African-American women, and crack cocaine determinant sentencing, it is hugely disproportionate. We have to address these issues in order to close these moral gaps. When you look at healthcare, the health disparities in the African American communities, and in all communities of color, are huge. With HIV/AIDS, look at the disproportionate rate as it relates to African-American men and women, so when we talk about universal healthcare and healthcare reform, you can’t forget communities of color have specific gaps that have to be closed. Otherwise, we won’t be attacking the problem where we need to. I think [President Obama] is doing a great job. The economy is the first issue to millions of people who are losing their homes with the foreclosure crisis, and he’s really focusing on how to mitigate that and keep people in their homes and create jobs. We look forward to working with him.

You have been a persistent advocate of poverty eradication, as evidenced by your authoring of the poverty section of the Congressional Black Caucus’s Gulf Coast reconstruction legislation. Yet, the issue of poverty was overshadowed by rhetoric focused on the middle-class during the presidential campaign. How should President Obama address persistent poverty, especially as this issue significantly impacts African-American communities?

We, in the Congressional Black Caucus, are definitely looking to make sure that not only middle class issues are addressed, but that the people who are poor and don’t have a voice, have a voice. That’s part of what being the ‘Conscience of the Congress’ is. We’re looking to deal with poverty head on with the Half in Ten Campaign, cutting poverty in half in ten years. We have earned income tax credits [and other] specific initiatives that will help reduce poverty. We definitely, as a Congressional Black Caucus, intend to address this in a big way.

At the time of the Democratic primaries, the 42 members of the Congressional Black Caucus were roughly split between supporting Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. What do you believe accounted for this early split in support among the African-American leadership?

Well, I think that’s what democracy is about. That’s what primaries are about. Everybody has the right to endorse whomever they want to endorse. Senator Clinton was a phenomenal candidate. But, you saw after the primary election that we became unified. I endorsed [President Obama] for many reasons including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I’ve been against these wars from day one. He has been very clear on how he will begin to bring our young men and women home from Iraq in a responsible way. The other members supported Senator Clinton for their own reasons, but I think in a democracy, debate is healthy and people have the right to endorse and support whom they desire.

As the new head of the Congressional Black Caucus, how do you intend to work with the Obama Administration? What issues will the CBC most strongly address this year and why?

We hope to continue, first of all, to be the ‘Conscience of the Congress’ and the voice of the voiceless. That is the role of the Congressional Black Caucus. We’re currently working with him on the economic recovery initiative, creating jobs, and health care efforts. We have four full committee chairs and 15 subcommittee chairs in the Caucus, so many of President Obama’s policy agendas will come to committees that members of the Congressional Black Caucus chair. We look forward to working with him to bring unity to his agenda and our agenda, so that the bottom line will be that people will be served well, and the country will be served well by this collaboration on the legislative packages that come forth.

Obama has tapped four African-Americans for his cabinet, including the first African-American Attorney General, Eric Holder, and UN Ambassador, Susan Rice. The only cabinet appointment you have commented upon is the nomination of Steven Chu for the Department of Energy. What is your assessment of the incoming Obama cabinet? What has been the wider reaction within the Congressional Black Caucus?

I can give you my personal reaction. I think he’s put together a very creative team. This is a team of experts, of bright, smart people who are coming to his administration with a new perspective, but also with experience. He has his ideas of where he will take the country and I think the people he has appointed will make sure that those ideas, and his vision that the people voted for, become real.

You have also been a key leader in addressing the continuing crisis in Darfur. How is the Darfur initiative progressing in Congress and what actions do you hope President Obama will take in regard to Darfur?

Others and I have submitted a white paper on how we think the new administration should look at ending the horrific genocide that has killed hundreds of thousands of people. It’s a shame and disgrace that while the Bush Administration has talked a good game, they didn’t walk the walk like they should have and too many people’s lives have been lost. I intend to keep pushing forward on all of my bills. We’ve got the divestment bill passed and signed into law. We’ve made some major, important steps, but it’s the implementation of these measures that needs to happen now. I authored the divestment bill on sanctioning multinational companies doing business in Sudan and receive no federal contracts. The Bush Administration didn’t comply with all of these laws and now we need to make sure these laws are executed.

Asking the hard questions about the Iraq war

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Six years ago this week, President George W. Bush launched our nation into one of the most disastrous, misguided and dangerous military actions in our history - the initial invasion and proceeding occupation of Iraq.

Now, as a new administration seeks to withdraw troops from Iraq, it's essential that the media, the public and those of us in elected office hold them accountable.

This time, no matter how uncomfortable it may be for those of us who support President Obama (who himself opposed the invasion from the beginning), we must hold our Iraq policy accountable and demand answers to tough questions regarding how and when our occupation of Iraq will end.

Last month, Obama laid forth a time line for the drawdown of our military presence in Iraq. His proposal would have two-thirds of our troops home by August 2010, with the remaining force of 50,000 scheduled to leave by the end of 2011, almost three years from now. While his announcement received praise from both sides of the political aisle, it has not received an honest and frank discussion of its merits and potential faults.

Americans seem to be collectively trying to forget about Iraq, and while we appreciate the president's decision, his declaration allows us to simply move on and focus on other issues. While this reaction is understandable, it is also dangerous.

We cannot afford to ignore the enormous risks and potential sacrifices that loom ahead. As founders of the Out of Iraq Caucus, our position has been clear all along. We opposed the war and occupation from the start, and we have worked day-in and day-out to end it.

We believe that ending the occupation of Iraq means redeploying all troops and all military contractors out of Iraq. It also means leaving behind no permanent bases and renouncing any claims upon Iraqi oil.

We remain concerned about the president's plan - not opposed to it, but concerned. The plan calls for 127,000 troops to stay in Iraq until the end of this year, and for 50,000 troops to remain in Iraq for another two-and-a-half years after that. We cannot imagine the need for such an enormous military commitment. How did military planners agree on such a large residual force, one which is comparable in size to our force levels in South Korea at the height of the Cold War?

What role will this transitional force play in the event that violence flares back up?

And what steps are being taken to address the 190,000 American contractors in Iraq and to dismantle our permanent bases? These questions must be addressed before we can move forward.

America's interests in Iraq and the region will best be advanced by reducing the size of our military footprint and making greater use of our other assets of national power, including diplomacy, reconciliation, commerce, development assistance and humanitarian aid.

As we solemnly mark the beginning of a seventh year of the conflict in Iraq, we not only reflect on the incredible sacrifices made by the men and women who serve in the military, but also demand an honest assessment of the potential future obstacles that their brothers and sisters in arms will face.

We urge everyone to remain engaged and continue to aggressively question Iraq war policy. This includes Republicans, Democrats, independents and, especially, the news media. We must all be willing to ask the hard questions as we work toward the common goal of ending the war and occupation, redeploying all American troops and military contractors out of Iraq and reuniting them with their families and loved ones.

As Obama has said, "We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in."

Reps. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, and Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles, are founders of the Out of Iraq Caucus.

All that was old is new again

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0700

Bay Area lawmakers continue to resurrect bills that died in previous Congresses, hoping that having a wider margin of majority in the House and a Democrat in the White House could bring them success this time around.

For example, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, and U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, today re-introduced their Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act, which would authorize federal funding for comprehensive, age-appropriate, medically accurate sex education; for now, such funding is available only for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs which have been shown to exclude important information about contraception as a protection against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

“It’s time for us to get REAL about sex education,” Lee said in her news release. “We should absolutely be teaching young people about abstinence, but we shouldn’t be holding back information that can save lives and prevent unwanted pregnancies. Instead of ‘abstinence only,’ what we’re proposing is ‘abstinence-plus.’”

Lee and Lautenberg first introduced the REAL Act back in 2005, then again in 2007; the bill has never made it out of committee, despite the 2007 versions having 18 Senate cosponsors and 110 House cosponsors.

Elsewhere, Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, today introduced H.R. 1546, the Caring for Veterans with Traumatic Brain Injury Act of 2009. The bill would establish a special panel within the VA to assess the VA’s current capacity to treat veterans with traumatic brain injuries as well as to make recommendations on developing policies for care and rehabilitation, and also would help establish TBI-specific education and training programs for VA’s health professionals.

“Many of our soldiers who have been wounded in Iraq have experienced a Traumatic Brain Injury. In fact, Traumatic Brain Injuries are the hallmark injuries of this war,” McNerney said in his news release. “It is incumbent on us to ensure that the Veterans Administration is equipped and ready to provide the ongoing services necessary to fully address the impact of traumatic brain injuries.”

McNerney had introduced a similar bill in May 2007; it, too, never made it out of committee.

Barbara Lee finds many admirers in Alameda

Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0800

Some consider her the lone voice on Capitol Hill.

Others tout her as a brave, courageous and principled public official.

California's 9th District representative in Congress, Barbara Lee, considers herself a "Renegade for Peace and Justice," the title of her recently released memoir.

Lee introduced her autobiography to nearly 130 people packed into Books Inc. on Park Street last Friday. The congresswoman — who represents most of Alameda County but not the city of Alameda — admitted to being an "extremely private person," so writing about her life and political career was not an easy task.

"In a memoir you have to be authentic, and I didn't know if I wanted anybody to know some of the issues and challenges and mountains of difficulty that I have experienced," said Lee, who finally gave in to friends' encouragement to write her own story. "They said if I didn't, someone else would. People need to know where your values come from, who you are, what motivates you, what drives you. It's important for public people to define themselves."

Lee considers the difficulties of her birth the defining moment of her life. She told the story of how her African-American mother went into labor in El Paso, Texas, and almost died because a hospital refused her an emergency cesarean section because of the color of her skin.

"They finally talked their way into seeing a doctor and having a last-minute natural birth. They had to use forceps to pull me out. So, that's how I got into this world," said Lee. She further explained when her mother told her the story as a child, she didn't understand racism and segregation and questioned how anyone could allow that to happen.

"Early on I said, 'You know, if there's anything I can do to make this a better world where people don't have to go through what my mother went through — where women, African-Americans don't have to face those kinds of difficulties — then I was going to do it.'"

And so she did. Her most defining moment in Congress happened three days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Bush administration pushed hard for Congress to pass a resolution authorizing the use of force against any nation or organization responsible for or harboring anyone connected to that day. Lee voted no. She was the only one.

"Thirty-five hundred people were killed. The whole country was in mourning. Everyone was angry and not sure what was going on. It was a terrible time for all of us. I was sitting on the Capitol that morning and had to evacuate," remembered Lee. "Members of Congress, and I can remember (it) very vividly, we looked at this resolution, and many said, 'This is not the way to go.' It was too broad. It served as the foundation to use force against Iraq — any country, Pakistan, Iran.

"At that moment if you can remember, it was all about unity, can't be partisan, have to be unified with the president, and that was kind of a blow. It didn't really matter what it (the resolution) said," Lee said as she retold the story, included in her book, to a captivated audience. "You have to remember, members of Congress are also human beings, it was the emotion of the moment."

One man interrupted the congresswoman at that moment and reminded her that she didn't give in to that peer pressure.

"Yeah, but I told you how I was born, too," she exclaimed as the crowd broke into loud laughter, cheers and applause. "There was no way I could vote for it, so I didn't. Only Congress can declare a war, not the president. You don't give the authority to the president.

"I was called unpatriotic. The right-winged, Rush Limbaughs of the world said I committed acts of treason. I could just go down the line. It was really hateful, how could they say that about me? I'm as patriotic as the next person," Lee added. "Plus, patriotism and the right to offer a different point of view is central to our democracy. So, what are they talking about? I don't even recognize the person they're demonizing."

Lee is one of Congress' most vocal opponents of the war in Iraq and continues to promote policies that foster international peace, security and human rights. It's that kind of strength, courage and integrity that brought her supporters out in droves for the Alameda stop on her nationwide book tour. Many attendants took the opportunity to voice their opinions on some of those issues, some even asking her for direct help with their causes — from legalizing same-sex marriage and impeaching former President Bush to withdrawing American troops from Iraq and putting more funding into the Peace Corps.

"I'm part of the Alameda Middle East Study Group and here to ask the congresswoman to support humanitarian aide to Gaza," said Irene Dieter, a 20-year resident of Alameda. "I've been a fan of Barbara Lee's for many years. I share her politics — she's more progressive than most Democrats. She's a principled and courageous woman."

"I have a lot of respect for what she's said in the past," said Dennis Owens, who's lived in Alameda for 25 years. "Her standing alone and going against the allowance of using American troops to start wars and her continued work in that area, I think that's an astounding thing. I'm not a fan, I'm an admirer of what she does."

Those are the reasons, Lee said, her story should be told from her point of view.

"It's good to be back in Alameda," Lee said. "Unfortunately during reapportionment in 2000, lines were drawn where Alameda was taken out of my district. But, I love the residents here."

First black congresswoman honored

Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0800

The Congressional Black Caucus honored one of its founding members, Rep. Shirley Chisholm, D-N.Y., the first black woman in Congress. To honor her achievements, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., unveiled a self-portrait by Chisolm on Tuesday.

Pelosi described Chisholm as “a brave pioneer who was unwilling to settle for the status quo. … As the first woman speaker of the House, I want to say thank you to Shirley Chisholm,” she added.

The portrait is all too appropriate for a woman whose memoir is titled “Unbought and Unbossed” — it depicts a playful rendition of Chisholm, arms folded across her chest with an indignant index finger wagging.

Can Obama keep liberals happy?

Mon, 02 Mar 2009 00:00:00 -0800

The many millions of liberals who gambled that a young, charismatic politician could become a great president are now feeling that they're in political nirvana. First, President Obama rolled out a bold agenda on energy, education and health care before Congress on Tuesday evening. Then he produced a budget backing up those commitments. It was as if he were saying, "Words are cheap in Washington; watch what I do."

It's becoming more clear by the day that Obama is a president of stunning ambition. Some members of Congress reacted skeptically when Obama said he would halve the deficit by the end of his first term. Yet compared with the other challenges he set out, like saving capitalism and finding a cure for cancer, cutting the deficit is small potatoes. Opponents say he's unrealistic or even dangerous. What everyone can agree on is that he's cast aside the Reagan-era wisdom that the best and most successful chief executives focus on just a few big things. As befits a modern multi-tasker, Obama wants to do everything. For now, at least, he's got the country behind him, even if voters are uneasy about bailouts and red ink.

It's so quiet on the left flank of the Democratic Party that the Congressional Black Caucus may not draft an alternative budget this year. To put this in perspective: The CBC has done an alternative budget every year since the mid-1980's—during the Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 presidencies. But after eight years of being iced out by the latest Bush administration, the CBC now has a friend in the White House. "It's as though the dreams of a generation not just symbolically but substantively have been honored," says Bill Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a liberal-leaning think tank. "I have to believe that unless and until he retreats or compromises in a way that is unnecessary or unconscionable, [the CBC] will be his most loyal supporters."

Maybe so, but the CBC won't remain quiet spectators for long. "Their agendas are on the same page, but Obama should not assume he's got them," cautions David Bositis of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, which focuses on issues of particular concern to African Americans. In politics, impatient friends sometimes cause more problems than enemies. When Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, he had strong backing from black voters. But six months later Vernon Jordan, then head of the Urban League, criticized Carter for betraying those voters because he hadn't delivered on a jobs bill. "If there's any group in the Congress that is cognizant that you have to manipulate, that you don't always get what you want right away, that you have to keep maneuvering, it's the Black Caucus," says Bositis.

On foreign policy, there's not a lot of slippage between the 16 months Obama promised as the timeframe to withdraw combat troops from Iraq and the 19 months announced this week. After everything the country has been through for the past six years, it's hard to imagine a big fight over June versus September. The argument, if there is one, will be over Afghanistan, and Obama will hold his ground. He campaigned on the basis that Iraq is the wrong war and combating extremists in Afghanistan is a right, necessary and just war. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi frets that there's no clear plan, but unless conditions in Afghanistan deteriorate even more rapidly than they have, a revolt from the left is unlikely. Obama is asking the same question: where's the plan?

Once he settles on a course of action, he'll have to justify the escalation. The CBC, like the rest of the Democratic left, is strongly anti-war. CBC members voted uniformly against the October '02 resolution to go to war in Iraq; California Rep. Barbara Lee, the current chairman, was the only lawmaker in either chamber of Congress to vote 'no' on a resolution three days after the 9/11 attacks giving President Bush authority to use "all appropriate and necessary force" against "nations, organizations or persons" deemed culpable or that "harbored such organizations or persons." She quickly became a favorite target of right-wing radio. Now, almost eight years later, events have borne out the danger of placing too much faith in a president—any president—when it comes to war powers.

Lee did very few interviews at the time and backed out of a scheduled appearance on "Larry King Live." An angry producer said, "No one cancels on King." Prodded by veteran reporter Helen Thomas to tell her story before someone else did, Lee finally broke her silence and the result is a memoir, "Renegade for Peace & Justice," that describes her singular vote and the passions and policies that drive her in the Congress. A person who cherishes her privacy to the extent that she omits personal data from her official biography, the exercise forced her to open up. She reveals for the first time that she was once on public assistance, and details a journey to the Congress as extraordinary in its own right as that of the president she aims to serve. "His agenda is our agenda," she said as the CBC prepared to meet with Obama Thursday at the White House.

Bay Area lawmakers react to Obama's Iraq pullout plan

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

Obama chose to announce his plan to end the war before an audience of Marines at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.

"By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end," Obama said.

But the president added that a transitional force will remain to train Iraqi security forces, fight terrorists and protect ongoing U.S. civilian and military efforts.

"Initially this force will likely be made up of 35,000-50,000 U.S. troops," Obama said.

Obama plans to have the last of the U.S. forces will leave by the end of 2011, which drew mild applause from the Marines at Camp Lejeune and criticism from North Bay Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, an ardent opponent of the war.

"We've been training the Iraqi police and the Iraqi military, that's what we've been doing for the last few years, so we're going to stretch that out a whole another year and a half, I don't agree with that," Woolsey said.

Woolsey says she is glad the president is ending the war; she just believes it should be sooner.

"The sooner we are out of there with all of our troops, the sooner we will be certain the Iraqi people will know it's their responsibility to run their own country," Woolsey said.

In San Francisco Friday morning, during a visit to a Mission District preschool, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi defended the president's time table.

"Well, the president has a plan that will again end the war and remove all troops from Iraq at the end of 2011," Pelosi said.

Pelosi added that she believes leaving 50,000 troops is too generous.

"Many of us believe that the smaller the force, the safer the troops because they won't be as big a target," Pelosi said.

Thursday, the president met with Oakland Congresswoman Barbara Lee, another long time opponent of the war.

"Of course there's still questions remaining for myself and others with regard to what the mission and the role of the 35,000 troops who will remain in Iraq will be, hopefully they won't be combat troops," Lee said.

President Obama has first meeting with Congressional Black Caucus

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

WASHINGTON – The Congressional Black Caucus met Thursday for the first time as a group with President Barack Obama, the group's most famous alumnus.

"Obviously this is the first time ever that the CBC had the opportunity to be with a president who happened to be of African ancestry," said Houston Rep. Al Green, one of three Texans in the 42-member group, all Democrats. "This country has demonstrated that character counts. And that's important, not to overlook the fact that we have had this giant leap forward."

The caucus chairwoman, Rep. Barbara Lee of California, called the hourlong White House meeting a "historic moment."

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a fellow Houstonian, noted the 12 percent unemployment rate among blacks and said the caucus is eager to work with Obama on solutions.

"This was a vibrant meeting. This was a meeting where there were a lot of 'amens' because here we were, listening to someone that is on the same page as the American people of all economic levels," she said.

Although some caucus members had grumbled about waiting more than five weeks for the meeting, long after Obama sat down with conservative "blue-dog" Democrats and House and Senate Republicans, the praise flowed Thursday.

The caucus met three times in eight years with the last president, Republican George W. Bush.

This time, said Rep. Chaka Fattah of Philadelphia, "There was no need for staff to whisper in his ear."

Fattah urged the new president to create a commission to fix educational disparities. The meeting also covered health care, judicial nominations, civil rights, foreign policy and – naturally – jobs, taxes and the economy, participants said.

"All of the issues were important," Green said, and the reception was "without question" better than in the Bush years.

"Not only do we have an ear, but we have someone who wants to act on some of the concerns that we have. Our agenda has not changed, the presidency has," he said.

The caucus includes many of Congress' most senior members. It's a powerful group, with four committee chairmen and 16 subcommittee chairmen, and includes some of the House's most liberal members.

Dallas Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson declined an interview request and didn't join other lawmakers who spoke with reporters after the meeting. In a written statement, she said caucus members emphasized the need to make "a brighter future possible for young African-Americans" and said that "today's meeting was truly a dialogue."

Black caucus to press Obama on priorities

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

President Barack Obama may be in familiar company when he sits down for his first White House meeting with the Congressional Black Caucus, but it won't be a clubby reunion.

Members of the liberal, all-Democratic caucus that just last year counted Obama as one of its own say they plan to press him on their priorities. The session could rekindle lingering differences Obama has had with the group, which hasn't always embraced his approach to politics.

It hasn't slipped some caucus members' attention, for example, that Obama first hosted congressional Republicans and the conservative Blue Dog Democrats in his push toward the political middle. They say it's their job to ensure he remains true to certain priorities, such as fixing inner-city poverty, that he once faced as a community organizer in Chicago.

"He knows these issues, but I think it's very important that no group is taken for granted," said Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Fla. "It doesn't matter who is president ... if you're not in the room, your interests will be left on the table."

Without question, Brown and other African-American lawmakers say they are thrilled to have Obama in the White House, not just because he is the first black president but because his agenda aligns with theirs far more than former President George W. Bush's did.

In turn, Obama relies partly on the organization's largely black constituents, who were a big factor in his presidential win.

Any differences between Obama and the caucus are overblown, said the group's chairwoman, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif. "His agenda is our agenda," she said.

"We are working with the president, and we want to make sure his agenda is supported," she said.

Yet Obama maintained a distant relationship with the caucus when he was its only Senate member from 2004-08. That dynamic was on display early in the Democratic presidential primary, when many senior caucus members initially backed Hillary Rodham Clinton even as Obama quickly became viable as a candidate.

Those lawmakers eventually endorsed Obama, some realizing it could cost them politically if they didn't.

Lee and others declined to discuss specific policy items that may come up at the meeting, which the caucus routinely holds with the president at the start of a new Congress. The list is likely to include concerns about the continued wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, diversity in administration jobs and more help for homeowners facing foreclosure.

The caucus already has demonstrated it will challenge Obama if he strays from its priorities.

Members were quick to question the wisdom of Obama's failed appointment of Republican Sen. Judd Gregg as commerce secretary. They were wary of the New Hampshire conservative and whether he would ensure a full counting of minorities in the 2010 census, which is conducted under the Commerce Department's jurisdiction. Those concerns in part led Obama to announce that the census would be directed by the White House, not Commerce.

The Congressional Black Caucus also lent critical support to former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's appointment of Roland Burris, who is black, to fill Obama's vacant Senate seat, even as the new administration and other leading Democrats resisted the move. In part, caucus members argued it was important to have at least one black senator.

Earlier this week, when the president convened a summit on reducing spending, Lee warned the White House about balancing the budget "on the backs of the most vulnerable Americans."

"We will continue to speak out for those who have been disenfranchised," Lee said in an interview. "That's our job."

It wasn't clear if Burris — who is resisting calls to resign — would attend the meeting.

Obama names head of AIDS policy office

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

President Barack Obama has selected a senior researcher from Georgetown University to direct his Office of National AIDS Policy, the White House announced Thursday.

Jeffrey S. Crowley will lead an office tasked with coordinating government efforts to reduce HIV infection in the U.S. and leading treatment of Americans with HIV/AIDS.

Crowley, who holds a master's degree in public health from Johns Hopkins University, has worked since 2000 as senior research scholar at Georgetown University's health policy institute.

"Jeffrey Crowley brings the experience and expertise that will help our nation address the ongoing HIV/AIDS crisis and help my administration develop policies that will serve Americans with disabilities," Obama said in a statement. "In both of these key areas, we continue to face serious challenges and we must take bold steps to meet them."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported last summer that it had been underestimating new HIV cases in the U.S. and that a better blood test and new statistical methods showed roughly 56,300 new HIV infections in 2006 - about a 40 percent increase from the 40,000 annual estimate used for the past dozen years.

Obama's 2010 budget proposal released Thursday pledged increased resources to domestic HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, though no dollar figure was specified.

Crowley previously worked at the National Association of People with AIDS. His areas of expertise include Medicaid policy.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus, welcomed Crowley's appointment in a statement. "We need a national AIDS strategy to better coordinate and guide our response to this devastating disease," she said.

CBC to Obama: Don't forget us

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

When the first African-American president holds his first meeting with 42 veteran black lawmakers Thursday, it will be a mountaintop moment for all involved.

But members of the Congressional Black Caucus will also be sending the president a subtle message.

“Don’t take us for granted,” said one House Democratic aide.

The meeting between President Barack Obama and the CBC, scheduled for 2 p.m. Thursday in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, has been in the works for several weeks, but the timing is, in part, “the result of member concerns about certain things,” said an aide to a senior member of the caucus.

Caucus members are pleased, by and large, with the size and composition of the $787 billion stimulus package passed earlier this month.

But in the lead-up to the final stimulus vote, many grumbled that party leaders, including the president, buckled by allowing the GOP to strip out nearly $60 billion in aid to states to make way for an alternative minimum tax extension that will largely benefit the middle class.

Moreover, many members, including CBC Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), are still bothered by Obama’s selection of New Hampshire Republican Sen. Judd Gregg as commerce secretary — an appointment that ended with Gregg’s voluntary withdrawal over ideological differences with the White House.

Lee and other members successfully pushed the White House to remove the Census Bureau from the commerce secretary’s direct control after raising concerns about Gregg’s longtime opposition to the use of sampling — as opposed to door-to-door counting — as a means of determining the population in hard-to-count urban areas.

At the time, Lee called for “thorough scrutiny” of Gregg, saying his “record of previously voting to abolish the Commerce Department and his attempts to block President Bill Clinton’s efforts to secure adequate funding for the 2000 census raise troubling concerns.”

Some members, including Lee and outspoken Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), have privately expressed concerns that Obama hasn’t hired enough blacks for his administration, especially in the increasingly powerful Treasury Department.

“CBC actually got what they wanted in the recovery package; I don’t think they were upset in the end,” said another top aide to a senior caucus member. “I think they were more upset by the Judd Gregg nomination and the all-white Treasury Department.”

Another aide said that members are putting together a list of a half-dozen areas of policy concerns on which to quiz Obama, including the targeting of anti-foreclosure programs in low-income neighborhoods, reforming the rules regulating credit cards and the 14,000-troop increase in Afghanistan, which Lee and Waters view as a potentially dangerous escalation.

“We don’t want to substitute Afghanistan for Iraq,” Waters said on HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher” Friday night. “We don’t want to continue to send our young people off to war without really understanding what we’re doing.”

Waters acknowledged the difficult balance Obama faces by following through with a pledge to remove troops from Iraq while expanding the troop presence in Afghanistan.

“He wants to show that we’re strong; we’re not weak,” Waters said. “He’s trying to do this balancing act.”

Time to Bring Common Sense to Defense Budgeting

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

For many years, many of us here in Congress have been pushing for an honest and critical look at our defense budget so we can make the adjustments necessary to reflect our true national security interests. The time has come for the entire Congress to do this and Congressman Barney Frank’s proposal to reduce military spending provides this opportunity.

Eighteen years since the collapse of the Soviet Union the Pentagon continues to waste tens of billions of dollars buying outdated, Cold War-era weaponry for a national security threat that no longer exists.

Our spending on security should address the current threats we face. By cutting these unnecessary Defense programs we can make much needed investments in ensuring health care for all of our children, improving our public schools, and ending our dependence upon foreign oil, without diminishing our ability to protect our nation.

In his address last night, President Obama mentioned his support for reforming the defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use and during these tough economic times this it makes good sense.

Strange Bedfellows at Obama's Fiscal Summit

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

President Obama promised to administer some medicine after the candy of nearly $800 billion in stimulus spending at a "Fiscal Responsibility Summit" at the White House on Monday, a prelude to an address tonight to a joint session of Congress and the release of his budget outline on Thursday.

Obama brought together in academic-style breakout sessions a Who's Who of Strange Bedfellows: Washington's most ardent defenders of government entitlement programs and its fiercest budget hawks, including his presidential election rival, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Liberal East Bay Reps. Barbara Lee and George Miller squared off with House GOP turks Darrell Issa of Vista (San Diego County) and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Spots were reserved for Senate moderates in both parties who hold the keys to Obama's ambitions on health care.

The summit served several purposes: to establish Obama's credibility as a Democrat who cares about budget deficits despite the stimulus, to court allies in both parties who are pivotal to his aims and to throw down the gauntlet on health care reform. Obama has inherited the largest budget deficit in post-World War II history, $1.2 trillion of red ink, which is expected to swell to $1.5 trillion or even $2 trillion this year if tax receipts drop sharply. Obama is promising to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term, to $533 billion. That would still leave deficits at near-record postwar levels.
Calling on McCain

Afterward, the president stood above the group at a lectern, calling on power brokers as if they were students at his seminar, affirming and recasting their points. He called on McCain first, who looked as if he were at someone else's town hall meeting.

McCain in one session seemed close to losing his temper with Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek, over her support for government satellite contracts in California despite their cost overruns.

Union chiefs sat down with emissaries from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. The powerful senior lobby, AARP, conceded that Medicare cannot continue on its current course, agreeing with the Peter Peterson Foundation, which seeks to reduce long-term spending and which ran full-page newspaper ads over the weekend showing the budget as an iceberg threatening to sink the country.

"We cannot and will not sustain deficits like these without end," Obama told the assembly. "Contrary to the prevailing wisdom in Washington these past few years, we cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences to the next budget, the next administration or the next generation."
Health care

Without reforming health care, Obama and his budget director said, it will be impossible to rein in the giant Medicare program for the elderly that soon will drive the budget off a cliff.

"There were groups I haven't seen at the White House in a long time," said Rep. Lee of Oakland, who supports government-run health care and wants more access for communities of color. "You could see the beginning of a dialogue and consensus around some issues. Yes, we're going to have to engage each other, but that's what democracy is supposed to be about."

When Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, complained that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco was excluding Republicans from House deliberations, Obama shot back that "the majority has to be inclusive, but the minority has to be constructive ... and not just want to blow the whole thing up."

A consensus could be developing around a proposal by Obama's erstwhile nominee for commerce secretary, Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., and Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., to apply something akin to a military-base-closing commission to trimming costs in controversial programs like Social Security. The uncomfortable trade-offs necessary, such as raising the retirement age or taxes, are well understood. But both parties need political cover; a commission could provide that by putting together a package for an up or down vote without amendments.

Health care is much more complex. Issa, the Southern California Republican, said that while there is agreement on extending health insurance to the uninsured, cutting costs is harder.

He cited tort reform, a perennial GOP demand. "Can we hold doctors harmless when they don't over-prescribe and over-test?" Issa said of protection for doctors fearing lawsuits. "There are some core constituencies that have to be told to step aside on some or all of it, and that's tough."

Obama saw "no contradiction" between the stimulus and budget cutting, arguing that if the economy sinks further, falling tax revenues and higher spending on the unemployed would be just as costly. Even liberal budget analysts, however, disagree about whether the stimulus will pay for itself.
Revenue sources

To find more revenue, Obama is expected to call for a cap-and-trade system that would address global warming emissions and collect more tax revenue.

Bruce Bartlett, a Reagan administration Treasury official who has criticized Republicans who refuse to modify their tax-cut prescriptions, said Obama's plan to raise revenue through controls on carbon emissions resembles the consumption tax that many believe is necessary to supplement the overburdened income tax. But he said a straight carbon tax would be more efficient than a cap-and-trade system, in which companies pay for the right to emit greenhouse gases.

Administration officials said they would allow the Bush-era tax cuts to expire in 2010 on individuals earning more than $250,000 a year and would make hedge funds pay income taxes rather than the lower capital gains rates. Obama also plans to cut spending in Iraq, but that might be offset by the addition of troops in Afghanistan.

White House budget chief Peter Orszag said he sees health care reform as the key to long-term budget control. "Let me be very clear: Health care reform is entitlement reform," Orszag said. "The path of fiscal responsibility must run directly through health care."

Yet barring heroic gains in efficiency, restraining health costs means restricting access to expensive treatments. During his campaign, Obama talked only about expanding access. Any hint of the dreaded "R" word, rationing, would be sure to rile a hornets' nest of health care interests in Washington and those now getting gold-plated care.

Barbara Lee On Q&A

Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

Uncorrected transcript provided by Morningside Partners.
C-SPAN uses its best efforts to provide accurate transcripts of its programs, but it can not be held liable for mistakes such as omitted words, punctuation, spelling, mistakes that change meaning, etc.

CSPAN/Q&A Host: Brian Lamb Guest: Representative Barbara Lee February 23, 2009 9:00 a.m. EST

This week on Q&A, our guest is Congresswoman, Barbara Lee. Representative Lee came to Congress in 1998 in a special election. She represents California’s 9th Congressional District, which includes Oakland and Berkley. She is also the new Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

BRIAN LAMB: Barbara Lee, Chairman of the Black Caucus and the House of Representatives, what’s been your personal reaction to seeing an African-American in the White House?

BARBARA LEE, CHAIR, CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS: I tell you, Brian, I knew it would happen one day. I believed it would happen. When I first met President Obama, this is when he was running for the Senate, then listening to him at the Democratic Party Convention; I told many people, I said, ”You know, one day he will be the President.” I didn’t know when. But I am excited, delighted and he is doing an unbelievable job.

LAMB: Go to next level, what does it mean-I know you say that you knew he would be there one day or somebody would be there one day, an African-American, but what does it-what do you think it means to the community?

LEE: Well, to the community, to the country and to the world, I think it means a major breakthrough in many, many ways and it is, as many have said, really transformative moment. I think what he has accomplished in his campaign and now as President has broken through many, many glass ceilings, many barriers, we have a long way to go. This was a quantum leap. I mean this was a major, major deal. And to see him as a President of the country, as a leader in the world is quite an amazing moment for all of us.

LAMB: Now you have been very visible about your one vote and lot of others, but one vote back in 2001 where you were the one of-the one out of 421 that voted to do what?

LEE: That was a terrible time. It was right after our country had been hit with horrific terrorist attacks. It was, I think, three days later a resolution came forward to authorize the use of force. And that resolution for me was so broad and so you know an open ended. It was a blank check, really. And what it did was it gave not only the previous administration, but any administration the authority to use force imperatively. It was not specific and again, it really authorized a President to wage war. Only Congress can declare war, our constitution dictates that. So, why would we grant authority to any administration to wage a war? The resolution, as I remember, it said the administration is authorized to use force against any nation, organization, individual; the administration deems connected to the horrific attacks on 9/11. And in retrospect, when you look at how that has been used, it set the stage for Iraq and must that repealed and who knows where we would go in terms of preemptive strikes. It was a dangerous resolution and I-I just couldn’t vote for that.

LAMB: Here is the video view on the floor right before the vote was cast.

[Video Presentation]

How do you look, well, almost eight years later?

LEE: I tell you, I still feel the pain of that day; I still mourn the loss of so many lives. And I am so angry like everyone as it relates to Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda and what took place. And in no way am I Pollyannaish about a terror-I mean we have to address a terror and terrorism in a real way. But we have to address it in a way that doesn’t create more war, more terror and more violence. And as I look back and I have to say during that time it was a very difficult time personally, for my office, my staff member, my former Chief of Staff, Sandre Swanson, his cousin Wanda Green was a flight attendant on 593. That morning I was sitting in the Capital, had to evacuate, we were in an early morning meeting with the administrative SPA.

So it was a very, very horrible time and I think that you know we have not first of all, found Osama Bin Laden. Afghanistan is you know back-the Taliban is back in Afghanistan, the poppy seeds are growing. You know so what has-have we done over the last five or six years? We have to redefine this Global War on Terror and really try to figure it out in a way that doesn’t create more violence. We have to seek global peace and security and determine the best strategies to do that.

LAMB: Did you know at the time you were going to be the only vote?

LEE: Well, I knew that many people were concerned about that resolution. We had discussed it in our Democratic Caucus meeting and we tried to make it a little bit better, less broad. But some-and when you look at the Congressional records, some said, in essence what I said, but you know that was a terrible time. And the-the horror of the moment was very overwhelming. And so, I wasn’t sure if I was going to be the only one or not, I thought maybe you know a couple of members might vote against it. But when I looked up and saw that one red vote, I must say it was quite a scary moment, but my friends tried to get me to change that vote in a very compassionate way. I mean they knew what that meant. But for me, that was a moment of truth. I think that everyone gets to that point in their life where they have to throw down on something they believe and then I firmly believed then as I believe now that that was not the proper resolution at that moment without any debate except for maybe a couple of hours without a rational response. And members of Congress are elected to lead. And I think in moments such as that and in times of national security threats, it takes more time, more debate, more rational thought to try to determine what the best possible strategies are so that we don’t end up in a quagmire and in more wars where we don’t need to be.

LAMB: How long after that did the Capital Police give your personal protection?

LEE: Wasn’t too long after that because the threats started coming in immediately and may have been in two or three days. But I must say and I have to salute and thank the Capital Police because the Capital Hill Police were professional and they put their lives at risk for people that they provide protective service to. They were phenomenal in how they helped me out, they traveled with me and it was a very dangerous time.

LAMB: When did you give up that security?

LEE: I think it lasted probably about three months, I don’t exactly remember the timeframe, but it seems like it was about three months.

LAMB: In your book, Renegade for Peace and Justice, when did you actually publish this?

LEE: This was published in August of 2008, the initial edition.

LAMB: In your book you spent a lot of time on an era that I remember, the Black Panther days for you. How did you get-I mean you were a close friend and a confidant of Bobby Seale?

LEE: Yes, I was not a member of the Black Panther Party, but I was what, they called community workers. And community workers were people who volunteered on the survival programs, on the ten point program platform, which the Black Panther Party held, breakfast programs for children. Now-and the Panther Party really started the free breakfast programs for low income and poor children. So, I worked on those programs, I worked to help develop the community school. We held survival rallies where we gave out bags of food and shoes. People were desperate then as they are now just to have the basic needs. When you look at the sickle cell anemia movement, that began through the Georgia Jackson Medical Clinic, then later sickle cell research became more popular with the government. And so, the Panther Party started many social programs that I felt were very important for my community and made a lot of sense in terms of helping people just survive in terms of their daily needs and what they needed, housing, food, clothes, ten points was their platform.

LAMB: So how much of that past, we can’t possibly get it all here, the Black Panthers was full of drugs and violence and all that. I mean give us that; I mean Bobby Seale is still alive, isn’t he?

LEE: Bobby is a good friend and he is speaking throughout the country. He hasn’t-I don’t think believe that I receive the type of credit that he has owed because Bobby Seale was and still is a great organizer, a great intellect. I was a community worker in the early 70s and fortunately, I was focused on the part of the party that was the service oriented part, the school, the breakfast programs, the survival rallies. Actually Bobby Seale ran for Mayor of Oakland and he got into the run off. I was his fund raising coordinator in the early 70s. I think that the precinct operation, the way they organized at the local level, the grass roots organization really did help lead to the-it laid the groundwork for our first African-American Mayor of Oakland, Lionel Wilson.

And so, during the time I was involved with the Black Panther Party, they became very involved in politics, I got involved in politics through the Shirley Chisholm’s Presidential Primary in 1972 and that’s when I met many of the Black Panther leaders and they got involved in the Shirley Chisholm’s Primary Campaign also.

LAMB: Why didn’t you join the party back then, the Black Panther Party?

LEE: Well, I was a student at Mills College and I joined the Black Student Union. I was President of the Black Student Union, so I had my hands full. And I volunteered in many community efforts. It wasn’t only the Black Panther Party where I volunteered, I volunteered with many non-profit organizations in the community, with many churches. And so, my life was about trying to help others. And wherever I found, I could do that. That’s what I did.

LAMB: I have got a list here of things that you have done in your life and I just want to rattle them off so that the audience can catch up with what I know that you were born in El Paso, moved to Los Angeles in 1960, graduated from San Fernando High School in ’64, volunteered with the Black Panthers in ’68, ’73 you worked for Bobby Seale, you just said when he ran for Oakland Mayor. BA from Mills College in ’73. Where is Mills College and what did you study?

LEE: Mills College is in Oakland, California, is a wonderful women’s college. I majored in psychology in undergrad and then I went on to the University of California at Berkley and received my Masters of social work actually in clinical social works, I haven’t messed up yet.

LAMB: Worked for Ron Dellums on his Congressional Staff, ’75 to ’91, is that right?

LEE: Seventy five to eight six, and also I was an intern, Cal in the Capital intern in 1973 during the Watergate Era.

LAMB: What did you do for him?

LEE: Everything. It was really great. Ron helped me break many glass ceilings. There were very few African-Americans on Capital Hill in top positions and very few women. And I was his AA, and Chief of Staff and we really put together a team in the office that helped support Ron’s legislative agenda. He was my mentor, he is still a friend, he is the Mayor of Oakland now. We worked very closely together on making our great city, the model city that he envisions and that he is really working day and night to embrace.

LAMB: Now in ’91, if I understand right, you ran and won the State Assembly seat in California. But what did you do between ’86 and ’91?

LEE: Between ’86, I actually left Ron’s staff and started a business and it was Lee Associates, well, it was the WC Parish Corporation, Lee Associates, WC Parish was my grandfather and he was an unbelievable man and so we named the company in his honor and it was a family run business, facilities management. We ended up, actually at one point, we had about 400 employees. I really wanted to see if-if I could create jobs; you know jobs for people who didn’t have an opportunity to work, had a union contract, benefits, the whole nine yards. So, it was really quite an amazing moment because as a business owner, I was able to learn more about tax law, worker’s comp, how to provide a stable business for my employees, but also how to make sure that employees receive the type of benefits that they deserved. And it was quite excellent, I think, run business. And this business, let’s see, I sold it in 1998 when I-when I came to Congress.

LAMB: But in ’91, as I said, you ran for the California State Assembly and won, and then in ’97, you ran for the Senate in California and won, but then right away, Ron Dellums, what happened, where did he go and how did you get into Congress?

LEE: I ran-I think I ran for the Senate in ’96. I was in the California Senate from to ’96 to-well, it may have been ’97 when I sworn in, it was about a year and a half. And Ron decided to retire in 1998 and he retired, I believe in the fall or winter, maybe it was November December. There was a special election and so, we decided that I would run. It was a surprise to me, I wasn’t sure when he was retiring but he decided that that was a moment for him. And so, we put together a campaign and I would never forget at the campaign kickoff, he actually brought a baton and he passed the baton to me. And it was a very interesting campaign. That year I had, I think, three elections, I had a special election, a primary and then a general. And so, that was a very intense year with campaigning. And the community rallied around me. You know Ron actually, I see, is the father of coalition politics. The 9th Congressional district is a wonderful district. It reflects the best of America. We have a multicultural district, a progressive district. We have people who historically have worked together, not always agreeing, but had put together the rainbow coalition really, and that’s what actually elected me.

LAMB: If my numbers are right, this morning I found 45 percent of the district is white, 21 percent is black or 20 percent roughly Hispanic, and 16 percent Asian and then 10 percent others. You know a very high percentage, 25 percent were born in other countries.

LEE: Sure. And it’s a great district because we have so many immigrants and that’s one of the beauties, I think, of my Congressional district because in many areas in the country, we are seeing more immigrants move into these Congressional districts and I always share how we worked together on our immigration issues, on-I mean my office, for example, the largest number of cases we handle are immigration cases, helping people with family reunification, with green cards. The department of Homeland Security historically hasn’t been you know quick enough in processing claims and what have you. And so, we handle quite a few cases in immigration and I am very proud of my immigrant community. We have immigrants from all over the world. And hopefully, we will have a comprehensive immigration reform in one of these days and we have to understand what immigrants bring to our country and that we are a country of immigrants and my district is really a district of immigrants from all around the world.

LAMB: I want to ask you about a speech that the Attorney General made this week, Eric Holder, what’s he pointed out that very sooner and this will be a country where there will be any one race that’s in the majority. And he said some things that have made the headlines and have some people talking rather controversially about, let’s watch a minute of it.

[Video Presentation]

I know you haven’t seen that before because you are traveling. What’s your reaction to it?

LEE: Well, race has been swept under the rug. And I think we saw that after Katrina, the devastating response to Katrina. And that I think began a new dialogue about race and class and poverty. And we haven’t had these honest discussions as he said about race and I think he was absolutely clear in his comments that we do need to get past that. And personally, you know we, as he said, you know we may socialize during the day, we work together, but then in our personal lives, you see very little of the interaction that needs to happen in order to get beyond where we are and because often times and I-and I think about this a lot, we do get stuck, and there has not been a way to have an open dialogue about race. I was very pleased that President Obama you know gave his speech on race in Philadelphia. I think that’s an excellent speech and I think people need to reread that and understand that and not just leave it on the shelves but begin to understand what he was talking about and try to really you know open up more discourse on race.

LAMB: So what is he really talking about though? I mean are any of the code words, here is the-he didn’t get much publicity on the speech, not you, but he didn’t in the newspapers. USA Today had it on page four, America’s nation of cowards on racial issues, Holder says. What’s he talking about?

LEE: Well, I think you said what he is talking about in looking at the tape. He is talking about-

LAMB: Then how do we get beyond the word-you know we are not talking about this, so how do we talk about?

LEE: We start talking about it by a talking about it, by being honest about it. You know often times, for example, when you look at the disproportionate rates of incarceration among young African-American males, especially for non-violent drug offenses, there is a problem there. When you have you know the disparity in crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentencing, there is a problem there. When you look at the health disparities and when you look at the rates of HIV and AIDS, the disparities in cardiovascular diseases, there is a problem there as it relates to the African-American community. When you look at the unemployment rates, I think now over 12 percent in the black community, nine-unfortunately, nine percent, 9.3 in the country, there is a problem there.

So when you look at the institutional nature now of what has happened as it relates to race, its very devastating and we have to begin talking about it. There is a reason that there are so many African-American young men in jail. And it’s not just because they are bad kids. You know when you look at the fact that young African-American boys and girls drop out some-in some school districts, 50 to 60 percent, there is a problem there. And so, why don’t we talk about that instead of saying that, ”Well, that’s their fault. That’s their problem” There’s been a huge disinvestment of resources in low income communities, communities of color and the black community and people turn their-their head to that.

LAMB: So what would you do if you acknowledge that there are always problems, what would you do to change them?

LEE: Well, I would say that we have to work, first of all, as federal official and my job is to look and I am on the Appropriations Committee, is to look at resource allocation, how we spend our tax dollars. Are we going to spend our money, are we going to fund after-school programs, are we going to say, ”yes, we have got to keep our young black kids in school”, are we going to say, ”yes, we are going to make sure that the HIV AIDS pandemic is addressed in a big way”, we are working out to develop a national HIV AIDS strategy. Are we going to fund those efforts? And so, we have to be for real in terms of how we do our public policy and understand that race is a factor, it may not be the only factor. But when you look at budget resources and resource allocation, you can look at how much money and where we have put our federal dollars and we have not been supporting schools that have=in urban areas that have young black boys that who need that type of support so that they can finish school and not drop out and end up in juvenile hall and then on to state or federal prison.

LAMB: What do you make of a district here where they spend a lot of money, one of the most expensive school systems in the country? The federal government spends it and it doesn’t seem to work.

LEE: Well, I think you have to look at structure it’s not only about money, but it’s also about class size, it’s about teacher salaries, it’s about curriculum, it’s about the overall educational system. It-and again, yes, money, as I said is very, very important, but you have to look at what-what young kids need in school. You know go into the history for example, our young people need to have art and sports and history in their classes and in the school-school grounds-on the school grounds, in the curriculum because that helps young people develop a self esteem. It helps young people understand who they are. It helps young people stay ground and many of our young people come to school from poor families, they don’t have enough to eat. You know I think when you look at how school districts are organized; we may need more health clinics on campus. No schools are there to provide healthcare but young people often times go to school without having seen you know a doctor and they may not be well. They may have-and I have been working on this for many years. We need more counselors in schools. Often times behavioral problems are seen as-they, yes, are disruptive, but they are seen as problems that cannot be corrected except putting kids out of school or expelling them. But maybe we need more counselors to intervene on campuses, mental health counselors to help young people and to help their families understand what they are going through.

So, I think it’s the overall school system that needs to be addressed and how we have the support on our school grounds to help these young kids stay in school and learn and grow and develop the way we want all of our children to.

LAMB: In your book and there is a lot in this book about your personal life that you are wrote. You write chapter six, and you start off by saying this has been the hardest chapter for me to write and it’s all about your personal life and what happened to you when you were 16 years old. Why did you write that and why did you want people to know all these details on your-your-those teenage years?

LEE: Well, it’s very important, let me just say, for teenagers and who read my book, to understand the issues around a women’s right to choose and women’s healthcare and comprehensive sex education. Young people need to know how to prevent unwanted pregnancies, I didn’t. Young people need that information about sex education so that they don’t get pregnant you know until they marry. And I think this abstinence only policy is not working. And you know I think it was under the Clinton administration and the welfare reform bill where abstinence only was put into law. And I have been trying for many years now to repeal that. Federal funds could not be used in our public schools to teach comprehensive sex education. Federal funds could only be used to teach abstinence only. And what I say and what many are saying is that, yes, abstinence, but we have to teach our young people comprehensive sex education, how to also prevent unwanted pregnancies, how to prevent the transmission of HIV and AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases and why we need to focus our resources and tax dollars on a comprehensive sex education strategy so that we can help young people prevent unwanted pregnancies, help young people know what they are doing and help young people understand what sex education should really be about, not just abstinence only.

LAMB: Well, in the-in your book, you start off by telling us that when you were 16 years old you got pregnant and then you had a series of-you had two marriages, how many children?

LEE: Well, I have two children. And I actually got married when I was 16. And this was very difficult, I didn’t want to write this, but my editors and-said you have to do this because a book is about trying to help others and trying to inspire other to know that they can overcome their own challenges. So, I had to do this. But I didn’t necessarily want to write those chapters. But during that time, Roe v. Wade had not been the law of the land. And so, you could only get an abortion, a back alley abortion or you know go to Mexico and that’s what I did. And I am a strong advocate of preserving Roe v. Wade. We have to preserve women’s right to have an abortion, a woman’s right to choose. Many young girls now believe it always was like this but part of what I am writing about is it wasn’t always like this. Young girls got into trouble; many, many, many died as a result of not having access to adequate medical facilities and so-and I am a person of faith, I am a very devote religious person. And so, the moral dilemmas around these issues are very personal and very deep. But I think that as a public person and a lawmaker, I have to be able to be an advocate for young girls and women and preserving women’s right to choose and not going back to where we were before Roe v. Wade.

LAMB: But here you were at a very early age where you had all of these difficulties and you ended up Chairman of the Black Caucus and a Congresswoman from Oakland, California. How did-how did you deal with that back then? I mean you got pregnant, got married and then you miscarried?

LEE: Yes, it was hard. And you know everyone goes through challenges. I pray a lot, that was one thing that helped me get through.

LAMB: Are you Catholic? Are you still Catholic?

LEE: I am not a Catholic now, no I am a Baptist now, but I go to Catholic Church periodically. But I was a devoted Catholic there. And my family supported me, they helped through many of these difficult challenges that I have to overcome, domestic violence, I write about that. And so, it’s been a series of traumas in my life like many young girls, Black, White, Latino, Asia-Pacific, American had. And I think that what’s important is that whatever it takes you use and utilize to get through these issues in your life and what’s important again and why I wrote about this again, I didn’t want to, but I felt you had to be authentic. And if I were going to write a memoir I had to be authentic. You have to be able to help others.

Once you experience these issues, once you overcome them, it’s not just I have overcome and I am OK now, but it’s my duty and responsibility wherever I am, whatever I am doing to help others overcome their challenges and their problems and try to change those conditions that give rise to that. You know like I carried the Violence Against Women Act in Sacramento and I was a staunch advocate-Vice President Biden, of course, that his legislation at the federal level, I carried the implementation law for the state of California. I worked for many, many laws as it relates to domestic violence. And as I wrote this, and thinking about, I said, ”You know, this was it. This was what I have to do so that I can help other women understanding where some of the-the gaps were in these laws and have an experience, what I experienced, I had to do what I had to do.” And so you have to make things better.

LAMB: Let me read from your book, page 21, by age 20 you had two children and you lived in England and you were divorced. So, up by age 20, you married, you had a child, you miscarried, then you had an abortion, and then you had two boys? How old are they today by the way?

LEE: Boy, they are in the forties, 43 and 44 and I have five beautiful grandchildren.

LAMB: And then you said you went on warfare? I am going to quote here. ”I had to give my ex-husband pretty much every asset worth anything just to gain custody of children because I was one-I was the one who left Carl, who was a good husband and a father and I think he was guilt that he kept me from being more aggressive in pursuing child support. Carl was a good provider, husband and father, but that was not a problem, it was me, it was discontent with my suburban life and began to dislike him, resent him for no reason. Is this tough to put down on paper and have people to read it?

LEE: It’s very tough.

LAMB: Why did you do it though?

LEE: Why did I do it? You have to be for real in a memoir and in an autobiography; otherwise there would be so many gaps in the book, why would I write it. And so, I think honesty and integrity is very important.

LAMB: ”I would spend hours watching the television as if in a daze. Later on you said that breaking points-my marriage with Carl where he decided to go Jamaica for a vacation I didn’t rather than talk things out like adults, I refused to go. So Carl ended up going by himself. While he was away I moved out without telling him and took the furniture and my clothes and left.”

LEE: Yes.

LAMB: Carl is still around?

LEE: Yes, that’s honest, he has remarried, two beautiful kids. What can I say? That was-I was in my early 20s and I think it’s important you know especially for public people and by no means did I talk and write about my entire personal life, but there were some issues in my history that I felt if I were going to write this you know I had to write about because hopefully, it’s instructive to others and it really also I hope helps the reader understand that not all members of Congress get to Congress as a result of charmed lives or having it easy and that we all come with history, and some with a lot of baggage, and some have broken through some of this and have tried to work and which I have tried to do all of my life to hopefully help clarify issues that may be muddy for other women and families and also to use my life to make things better for others.

LAMB: Tell the story that you open up the book and you tell the story about your birth and the forceps.

LEE: Yes, you know again growing up-I was born in El Paso, Texas, segregated. My mother, when she was pregnant went to the hospital; it was a Catholic hospital, hotel to deliver me. She needed a c-section. They wouldn’t admit her because she was Black. And so, my mother was in labor and she couldn’t get into the hospital. Now my grandmother, and again, going into family histories with African-Americans as a result of our segregation and slavery, my grandmother’s grandfather-her father was actually Irish. And so she looked white. And so, my grandmother had to come up to the hospital and say, ”This is my daughter.” Now my mother is beautiful, she is 84 and lives in Arizona and she has green eyes and she is fair but she wasn’t as fair as my grandmother.

So my grandmother went up to that hospital and say, ”You let her in, this is my daughter.” And so, you know and of course the admitting staff was a little confused because here they thought a white woman trying to get this sort of looking half way you know fair skin woman into the hospital. So they finally got in touch with the doctor and they let her in. But they didn’t do anything, they just left her there and I think it was-she sat on a gurney or a bed on-in the hallway and she needed a c-section. She was in pain, she was delirious. And they just did not attend to her or they didn’t do anything, just left her there. And so, finally the doctor got there and he said, ”Oh yes, this is my patient, let’s get here in, but it was too late for the c -section then. And so, she really almost didn’t make and I almost didn’t make it. So, they had to deliver me, use some forceps and I had the scar over my eye for many, many years.

And I learned the story as a child you know and it really moved me. Early on it was like how could they not let my mother in the hospital? You know what is that about the hospital, what is it about my mother? How is that that I never-that I almost did not make it? And I think for me and in writing this, I think that really began my life in terms of my commitment to try make things better for others and to try to address racism and sexism in a big way. And I wrote in my diary when I left El Paso, Texas, when I was 13 that-and again, my dad was 25 year military, Lieutenant Colonel and I can remember going to restaurants with him in his uniform and being told, ”I am sorry, we don’t serve and they would use the N word. And so, I experienced this racism, like others experienced in the South and in El Paso, Texas in a very big way. And that combined with how I almost didn’t make it here as a result of my birth really prompted me to write when I was 12 or 13 as we were moving California that I did not know how I would do this, I did not know when or what, but my entire life had to be about trying to correct these injustices that my family and my community and that I have been experiencing since I was born.

LAMB: Great grandmother is it?-was raped, repeatedly raped by a white Irish man. Explain that.

LEE: Yes, you know again, like with many black families, you know my great grandmother was a domestic worker in Louisiana in a household of Irish people and her-the man of the house was an Irish man who continually raped her. And that resulted in the birth of my grandmother and my aunt Anna.

LAMB: How did that word get pass down to you?

LEE: That word got passed down through my aunt, who is now 97 years old and still alive in Arizona.

LAMB: How-how old were you when you learned that?

LEE: Well, I heard it throughout my life, bits and pieces, snippets you know but you know how families, we don’t like to talk about those things and it was very difficult, my mother and my aunts, no one talked about it, really. But every now and then, I would hear a little bit here and there. And so, finally several years ago, I sat down with my aunt and we talked about it and I taped her and my mother and oh my God, the stories and what she told me and we talked to other people and I found out a lot. And I would encourage anyone who has an elderly family member to sit down and talk about their history and what transpired in their lives and what they remember and my aunt was very clear and so she put the pieces together for me. I said, ”Oh, so grandma Charlotte was in Louisiana when all of this happened, I didn’t realize that because grandma Charlotte, she died when she was 100 years old when she was in California. And so, you know and I remember her very well and I used to hear little bits and pieces of stories from her, but I wasn’t quite clear on her-how my mother and grandmother and my aunts, why they look the way they looked in terms of them being very fair skin when she was brown skin. And so she kind of told us a little bit about it, but not a lot and so my aunt, my 97 year old aunt, you know-you know put all the pieces together for me.

LAMB: Let me read this to you and have you explain some more. ”We were having dinner and everything was calm and normal at the table. I was using my bread to sop up the gravy on my plate, which for some reason made my father so angry that out of the blue he rolled up a newspaper and hit me with it like I was a puppy. This of course, made my mother angry and in retaliation she threw a glass of-bottle of water at him. She then grabbed me and my sisters ran out of the house and took us to stay with one of my aunts who lived nearby.” Now, there is a-as you go on to tell us, there is a hiccup on who really was your father? So, was that your real father there at the table at that time or he is?

LEE: I thought he was, but again and-he had legally adopted me and he was a wonderful man who loved us very dearly. He took care of us.

LAMB: He had gone?

LEE: And he passed last year, yes. And when I was 14 and I received a phone call in the middle of the night, and I was told by this man on the phone that he was my father, not my father and my mother was in the hospital and I had no idea what this was about. And it was very sad and traumatic for me and come to find out because he had been very abusive. My mother, of course, left him and she was a battered woman, he had threatened to kill her. And so we were actually in hiding for many years, my mother didn’t want us to know what had transpired. And so, my stepfather legally adopted us and I thought he was my dad and he took care of us and he is my dad. But my biological father had actually, he actually died about three or four months after he made several phone calls to me and my sister reaching out, trying to-I guess these were his-he knew he was dying and he wanted to establish contact. But my mother in talking to her and remembering now what was taking place, she really went through a lot and she finally just couldn’t take it anymore and left and left with her two little girls. And you know when you look at domestic violence, and when you look at those-the multigenerational cycles of domestic violence and how all of that happens, I wrote a little bit about that because battered woman syndrome and battered woman really have a hard time and you need to provide every bit of support for battered women, and we need to have a dialogue. Again, a public dialog, we need to talk more about domestic violence.

LAMB: What did you do-and let me read some of it, you meet your second husband, Bill, ”As our relationship progressed, he became increasingly violent. He would hit me and I went threatened to leave him, he would apologize, tell me how much he loved me and begged me to stay. There were periods of calm in our relationships but most of the time Bill beat and badgered me so much that my eyes were always swollen from crying. Living with Bill was a like a brutal cruel nightmare come to life from which there was no escape.” And what year was that and how long did you stay married to him?

LEE: That was, I think, early 70s, late 60s, early 70s. Actually we had gone together maybe for about a year and didn’t got married and I, of course, I thought it would get better. You know the abuse was taking place during the relationship and when we got married, it just got worse and worse and worse. And I think we must have been married maybe a year or so and then I finally just had to leave.

LAMB: What is it? You have studied psychology.

LEE: Psychology, yes.

LAMB: What is the violence with men come from in your opinion?

LEE: It’s very complicated. You know it’s a very complicated issue. There is so much, first of all, anger and frustration as a result of, first of all, when you look at what’s happened in our country in terms of African-American men and the economics of it, the discrimination, races, and you know the struggles that many men go through each and every day leads to frustrations that often times, not always, but often times are taken out behind closed doors. And I think it’s very important to recognize that you know we have to see domestic violence in a comprehensive way, not just as a personal anger thing because you know it is-that’s how it’s manifested. But there are many, many external circumstances that create the environment for domestic violence. And it’s again, it’s a very complicated issue, but women, I think, there are some women because of, as in my case, family history, you know haven’t figured out how to break out of those circumstances and it’s very important that we learn how to empower ourselves as women so that we don’t stay in situations like that and how we help men. I think men need, who are batterers, of course need to-the counseling and they need the support to get out of themselves. And so, it’s not just about the woman, it’s about the woman and the man in trying to figure out how to get the anger and frustration and the economics and all of those issues outside of the relationship.

LAMB: But let me ask you though. You know the question was about the man and you have come through all these years, experienced all this that you consider yourself-are you violent? And if you are not violent, why is it you haven’t been-why did you let the men off the hook? Why aren’t women more violent then? I mean they have gone through all the same things that men have gone through.

LEE: Well, I am not a violent person. And I think that I was taught non-violence in an early age and I witnessed violence in no way would I accept myself being a violent person. I mean there is only one way that we are going to survive is human beings and that’s understanding conflict resolution and mediation and peaceful solutions to our problems, both internally in our own families and also throughout the world. And so, I though, you know when I was in the legislature, worked a lot with the Governor then, Pete Wilson to try to and make sure that the battered women who were in prison who needed their sentences commuted or deserved clemency would be released from jail and I would never forget this and I wrote about this in my book that we had hearings and then I believe and she is a phenomenal Congresswoman, Jackie Speier and she was in the legislature then. We went down to Frontier Prison in Southern California to hold hearings with women who were incarcerated as a result of killing their spouses. And it was a-it was a very moving hearing because these women had histories of being battered. There were emergency room records, I mean they had been half dead many times. And for whatever reason, during one of those encounters, they reacted and they killed their batterers and so they were incarcerated many for life. And that was before and we worked very hard to get Battered Women Syndrome admitted into courts as it admissible evidence in court records.

And so, some women just can’t take it and react in those ways. And we have to understand that violence begets violence and trying to find peaceful solutions to conflicts and that’s what my life hopefully is about.

LAMB: All right. In your book, the title of your book is Renegade for Peace and Justice. I looked up the word renegade in the dictionary. You know what the definition is?

LEE: Yes.

LAMB: Well, there are two of them. One is-and I want to ask you which one you are the one, ”A deserter from one faith, cause or a religion to another” or the second definition, ”An individual who rejects lawful or conventional behavior.” So, which one are you?

LEE: A little bit of both. I think conventional behavior; I reject conventional behavior in many ways because you have to go against the grain to make things better. And I remember Shirley Chisholm who-she really helped me get involved in politics and encouraged me to register the vote. She said you can’t just go along to get along that if you see some injustices, conventional behavior is going to allow those injustices to continue. So, you have to go against the grain, you have to say if this is wrong, how do I make it right? And often times that means going against what the norm would be. And I think that’s what women and people of color have always done. That’s what Dr. Martin Luther King was about, that was Harriet Tubman and, Sojourner Truth, our ancestors, those who paved the way just so I could in Congress, so we could do the things that we are doing, so that Barack Obama could be President. They all went against the grain and conventional wisdom.

LAMB: Let me ask you about numbers. Is it still 42 members at the Congressional Black Caucus?

LEE: Yes.

LAMB: And you are in sixth full term?

LEE: Sixth full term.

LAMB: You are Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus?

LEE: Yes.

LAMB: How did you get there?

LEE: Well, I tell you, first, the Black Caucus is an unbelievable body of brilliant committed individuals who come to Congress from different places and who had been committed for 40 years, this is the 40 years of their existence and their founding, have come to Congress to make not only the Black community benefit from the fruits of our American society but the whole country in terms of making America better. And we are and have been considered the conscience of the Congress and I worked with my colleagues over the years on many, many issues and have supported them and they have supported me. And they decided to elect me as-as the Chair for this next two years, which I am very proud of and very humble to be leading such an august body of committed men and women.

LAMB: We covered a news conference of the Black Caucus. You were there, Charlie Rangel was there and Jim Clyburn, who is the Majority whip in the House, number three person in the leadership. Tell me, if-when I saw this I said this looks like a transformation of attitude based on the fact of Democrat’s power in the Congress in the House and the Senate and in black man in the White House. And just watch Jim Clyburn here and tell me if you see the same thing that I saw?

[Video Presentation]

Couple of things, over his right shoulder was Bobby Rush, Congressman from Chicago, former Black Panther?

LEE: Absolutely. And when you look at that and when you look at what the Congressional Black Caucus accomplished in this economic recovery package, I am very proud of what took place. I established an Economic Recovery Taskforce right after I was elected in January and asked Congressman Cleaver, a phenomenal Congressman and Minister from Kansas to Chair that taskforce. And we early on looked at what we thought should be in this economic recovery package. And we decided that early on we were going to put forth what we thought needed to be that such as, of course, a large amount for our infrastructure and jobs. But we recognize that many in our communities throughout the country don’t have the necessary training for those jobs that are going to be created. And so, we were strong advocates for workforce training and for training funds in this package. We recognized early on that our schools are dilapidated and we wanted the modernization money and construction money for our schools. And we recognized early on that many people may be left behind or could have been left behind in this economic recovery package and we didn’t step up and talk about what we thought needed to be included to make sure that it became the broadest package to cover and employ the most amount of people.

And so, we proceeded on that and it was a very intense process and I have to thank Speaker Pelosi and our Majority Whip, Mr. Clyburn for you know looking at what the Black Caucus thought would be important in this package and being strong advocates in the negotiation. When you look at the neighborhood stabilization piece, many and-our neighborhood, many houses have been foreclosed on. Our neighborhoods, the entire neighborhoods that are just like demolished in many ways. And so, through the efforts of Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who chairs the Housing and the Community Opportunity Subcommittee, we were able-initially it was $4.2 billion for neighborhood stabilization. The Senate zeroed it out and we were able to get $2 billion back in, not enough, but we are going to keep moving on that front to try to get more resources into neighborhood stabilization.

And so, as a result of the advocacy of our leadership and what the Congressional Black Caucus, as part of those negotiations, we believe that this package is a much better package that the entire country can be proud of.

LAMB: Just in the couple of minutes remaining, you did everything you could to stop the funding of the Iraq experience. What is your reaction to the fact that there has been no announcement that those troops are coming out yet and we have just heard an announcement this week from President Obama that there are 17,000 additional troops going into Afghanistan, which will take our numbers up to, well, it’s over 60,000 American troops, plus another 20,000 NATO troops. So, we are getting up there 80,000, 85,000 troops which is almost more than half the number that was in Iraq.

LEE: First to Afghanistan, let me just say Congresswoman Waters and myself, and Congresswoman Woolsey, we co-founded the Out of Iraq Caucus. And we wrote to the President last week about Afghanistan and we indicated in our letter that we hope that we would have a comprehensive strategy with regard to Afghanistan that we believed and historically we can see that military action alone is not going to stabilize the situation in Afghanistan and that we have to really reevaluate and understand what this new definition of the Global War on Terror should be. And we are pleased that he has established a commission or a taskforce to really look at this and what we need to do. We are very careful about this because we don’t want to see this hole dug deeper. And -

LAMB: Are you pleased with 17,000 troops being sent to Afghanistan?

LEE: And these are combat troops, let me say, I think that it’s very important that we help in Afghanistan in terms of stabilizing the country so that we can help with their development processes and so we can help with figuring out how the farmers can find alternative ways to make money instead of growing you know poppies and what have you. And so, I am not-I think we have to be clear about what the mission is, is it stabilization or is it combat? I don’t want to see our troops put in harm’s way and another total combat situation emerge and that’s why we wrote to the President asking him to you know or at least encourage him to make a total comprehensive plan so that we know where we are going in Afghanistan so that we don’t end up with another Iraq. I have always opposed the funding for the operations in Iraq. This is a war that did not need to be fought. There were no weapons of mass destruction. You know, this administration knew that, we knew that.

And I have offered and will continue to offer the Lee Amendment which says that the only way we should provide money for Iraq is to protect our troops and contractors and to begin a redeployment. And I am pleased that President Obama has said that he does want to begin a redeployment; timeframe, I believe it was 16 months, I think and of course, there are some of us who think that it should be quicker, but we are going to work very closely with the President to make sure that we begin to bring our young men and women home. And they should come home and we need to provide for their economic security when they get home and for the benefits because they have fought, they deserve, they have served our country and they deserve to be taken care of when they come home.

LAMB: Congresswoman Barbara Lee, we are out of time and the book is Renegade for Peace and Justice and we thank you very much.

LEE: Thank you. Good to be with you.

Stimulus Funds Coming, Lee Assures East Bay

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

Help is on the way for East Bay school districts, local governments and small businesses through the economic recovery act that President Barack Obama signed into law Tuesday, Rep. Barbara Lee said Wednesday.

Exactly how and when this help will arrive remains to be seen, she acknowledged.

The White House estimates the $787 billion stimulus package will create or save 369,000 California jobs over the next two years. Lee, D-Oakland, said an estimated 7,300 of those would be in her 9th Congressional District, which includes Oakland, Berkeley, Albany, Piedmont, Castro Valley and various adjoining areas.

Lee also said about 2.4 million Californians will get $100 more per month in unemployment benefits, and about 506,000 laid-off workers will see their benefits extended. And the Golden State stands to reap millions — $30 million for Oakland alone — to modernize its dilapidated public schools, she added.

But now that the enormous, complex bill has been signed into law, it'll take federal agencies a while to work out how to get the money out. Some of the money — for things like Medicaid reimbursements, state fiscal stabilization funds and highway infrastructure spending — is apportioned by formula; some requires agencies and organizations to compete for grants; and some flows out through various federal and state agencies.

Flanking Lee at her news conference Wednesday inthe Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building's atrium were members of her Minority Business Advisory Committee, with whom she'd just met in private to discuss their options under the stimulus plan.

Mark Quinn, district director of the Small Business Administration, was there too, and said the plan will help his agency loosen the bank credit that is the lifeblood of small businesses.

Lee said she'll be holding similar meetings in coming weeks with school districts, local governments and other entities in her district as the stimulus package's funding avenues become clearer.

"We'll just have to track it and stay on top of it," she said

Barbara Lee Says Stimulus Bill Will Create 7,300 Jobs in Her Area

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, said today that she wishes that the $787 billion economic stimulus bill signed by President Obama on Tuesday had included at least another $213 billion but she believes it will still create or save almost 400,000 jobs in California.

Speaking to reporters in the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building in Oakland, Lee estimated that the 1,434-page American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will create 7,300 jobs in her district, which encompasses Oakland and surrounding cities.

Lee said she wished that the bill would have created more jobs, stating, "I wanted the bill to be $1 trillion."

However, Lee said negotiations and amendments trimmed the amount of money in the bill.

The bill includes $10 billion for school modernization projects, including $30 million for such projects in Oakland's schools, according to Lee.

"I want to get the word out to my district about what is in the package and how communities can position themselves go get dollars," Lee said.

According to a fact sheet distributed by Lee, California is projected to receive more than $26 billion in economic recovery funding under the stimulus bill.

Among the items included are $1.7 billion for supplemental nutritional assistance, $2.6 billion for highway funding, $4.8 billion for a "state stabilization fund" aimed at helping balance the state's budget, more than $1 billion for transit projects, $224 million for the state's energy program and $192 million for weatherization projects.

Some critics have complained that the final version of the stimulus bill was rushed through Congress less than 24 hours after House and Senate conferees had agreed to it.

But Lee said, "We've been working on the bill for a few months" and "the majority knew what was in it."

Although President Obama didn't sign the bill until three days after it was approved by Congress, Lee said the legislation was "an emergency bill," was "transparent" and was debated during lengthy hearings.

Alameda Creates Stimulus Wish List

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

ALAMEDA, Calif. (KCBS) -- As Congress works toward a final vote on the president's economic stimulus bill, Bay Area cities are already lining up for a piece of the $789 billion package.

Bay Area cities have turned in requests to fund dozens of projects. Alameda’s list includes $750,000 to repave basketball and tennis courts at Washington Park, along with two other parks. That would be welcome news for players.

”The ground is kind of hard and messed up. It messes up our shoes, and we get hurt on the ground sometimes. If it were a fresh basketball court it would be good because more people would come,” said one basketball player.

Critics wonder whether projects like that will really create jobs, but East Bay Congressmember Barbara Lee says she would like to see even more spending.

”To start under a trillion dollars for me was not a good thing, because here we end up now with under $800 billion,” said Lee. “My problem with the overall bill was that the tax cuts are too deep, and it’s not enough money.”

Some of the larger Bay Area requests include $300 million for a parking garage at Oakland International Airport, and $100 million for BART and high-speed rail expansion in San Jose.

Deal reached on $789 billion stimulus package

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

House and Senate leaders, under intense pressure from President Obama, buried their differences over competing economic stimulus bills Wednesday and agreed to a $789 billion package aimed at jump-starting the economy.

The final package, likely to be approved by week's end, will be less generous to California than the House version of the bill. But the state will still reap tens of billions of dollars for education, infrastructure, health care costs and other programs.

At least 12 million California taxpayers will see their payroll taxes cut, although lawmakers trimmed the tax cut from $1,000 to $800 for couples earning up to $150,000, and from $500 to $400 for individuals making up to $75,000.

A $15,000 tax credit for new home purchases, which home builders and real estate interests pushed to revive the housing market, was pulled from the bill. But car buyers will be able to deduct the sales tax they pay on a new vehicle.

The deal was announced in embarrassingly awkward fashion. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was noticeably absent when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stepped to the microphones Wednesday afternoon to say, "The difference between the Senate and House versions we've resolved."

But, in fact, they hadn't.

Pelosi and other House Democrats, including Martinez Rep. George Miller, were still negotiating over key provisions, including trying to boost the amount of money for school construction. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who helped broker the deal, was called in to iron out the differences.

Money for education

By late afternoon, Obama had issued a statement praising the deal. Pelosi stepped out of negotiations briefly Wednesday evening, saying the delay had allowed her to nail down a promise of more money for education.

"We have come to an agreement with the Senate as to how we'll go forward, and I think people are pretty happy about that," she said. "We had to make sure that the investments in education were there."

Lawmakers said the deal would restore about $10 billion in a fiscal stabilization fund for the states, which was cut in half by the Senate. Under the Senate bill, California would have received about $4 billion, and that share could grow by about $1 billion under the compromise.

Governors would be allowed to use the money to modernize public schools but not build new ones.

The deal showed the immense clout of three Republican senators, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who demanded that the price tag be kept under $800 billion. The three moderate GOP members also fought for, and won, more tax cuts and more infrastructure spending.

Spending, tax cuts

The final bill is a mix of about 65 percent spending and 35 percent tax cuts, with roughly $150 billion devoted to spending on highways, bridges, water systems, electricity transmission lines, broadband expansion and other infrastructure projects.

"I'm particularly pleased that we have produced an agreement that has a top line of $789 billion," Collins said. "It is a fiscally responsible number that reflects our efforts to truly focus this bill on programs and policies and tax relief that will help turn our economy around."

But some House Democrats were unhappy with the way the deal was negotiated with the Senate. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said she was upset that tax provisions kept growing even as spending programs to help those hard-hit by the recession were shrinking.

"I'm very disappointed at how the Senate negotiations have gone. ... You have two or three members of the Senate negotiating the bill for the whole country," she said.

Details are unclear

Details were still sketchy Wednesday night, but Lee said she was pleased to hear some money had been restored for education and for a program to help communities buy foreclosed properties.

"We want to support the president. We know this is not a perfect package," she said. "We were very disappointed it didn't go further in the negotiations in alleviating suffering ... but we understand the political realities of what is taking place."

The final bill includes a $70 billion provision to keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting upper-middle-class taxpayers, a provision the Congressional Budget Office said would do little to stimulate the economy.

But the measure also provides $14 billion for one-time $250 payments to Social Security recipients, poor people on Supplemental Security Income, and veterans receiving disability and pensions, all of whom are seen as likely to spend the money quickly.

House Republicans denounced the deal. House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said, "It appears that congressional Democrats have made a bad bill worse by reducing tax relief for working families to pay for more wasteful government spending."

Stimulus compromise

Highlights of a nearly $789 billion version of President Obama's economic recovery plan agreed to by Democrats and moderate Senate Republicans. Additional debt costs would add about $330 billion over 10 years. Many provisions expire in two years.

Spending

-- Aid to poor/unemployed: $40 billion to provide extended unemployment benefits; $20 billion to increase food stamp benefits.

-- Direct cash payments: $14 billion to give one-time $250 payments to Social Security recipients, poor people on Supplemental Security Income, and veterans receiving disability and pensions.

-- Infrastructure: $46 billion for transportation projects; $8.4 billion for mass transit; $8 billion for construction of high-speed railways and $1.3 billion for Amtrak; $4.6 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers; $4 billion for public housing improvements; $6.4 billion for clean and drinking water projects; $7 billion to bring broadband Internet service to underserved areas.

-- Health: $21 billion to subsidize insurance premiums for the unemployed under the COBRA program; $87 billion to help states with Medicaid; $19 billion to modernize health information technology systems.

-- State aid: $5 billion to help states defray budget cuts.

-- Education: $54 billion in state fiscal relief to prevent cuts in state aid to school districts, with up to $10 billion for school repair; $26 billion to school districts to fund special education and the No Child Left Behind law for students in K-12; $17 billion to boost the maximum Pell Grant by $500 to $5,350; $2 billion for Head Start.

Taxes

-- New tax credit: Approximately $115 billion for a $400 per-worker, $800 per-couple tax credits in 2009 and 2010.

-- AMT: About $70 billion to spare about 24 million taxpayers from being hit with the alternative minimum tax in 2009.

-- Home buyer credit: $3.7 billion to repeal a requirement that an $8,000 first-time home buyer tax credit be paid back over time for homes purchased from Jan. 1 to Aug. 31, unless the home is sold within three years.

In census, leave no one behind

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

When Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) was announced as the commerce secretary-designate, we, leaders of the congressional minority caucuses, collectively known as the Congressional Tri-Caucus, were very concerned about the 2010 decennial census.

As the 2010 count nears, we are supportive and appreciative of President Barack Obama’s decision to bypass the commerce secretary on matters of the Census Bureau. Sen. Gregg’s history of obstructing funding to the bureau raises serious concerns about his commitment to and understanding of the bureau’s important work. The decennial count of every person living in the United States is mandated by our Constitution. With this mandate, we must do everything we can to ensure that every person is counted.

The White House is wholly justified in providing oversight over the Census Bureau at this critical hour. Shortly after President Obama’s election, the Government Accountability Office listed the 2010 decennial census among the top 13 “urgent issues” identified as those needing immediate attention from the new administration and named the 2010 count as a “high-risk” area for 2009.

President Obama’s decision is particularly judicious, as the Bush administration’s 2010 census preparations have left much to be desired. Unsubstantiated cost estimates, mismanaged technology contracts, a partial dress rehearsal (as opposed to a full dress rehearsal), and underfunded communications and outreach plans to minority communities are among the long list of problems inherited by Obama’s team from the Bush administration.

Given the urgency of the looming 2010 census, President Obama’s decision to work directly with the Census Bureau director at this time is fully warranted.

Counting minorities

Ensuring an accurate count is particularly challenging in minority communities. Racial and ethnic minorities, including those in highly dense urban populations and those who are linguistically and culturally isolated, have historically presented unique challenges to the Census Bureau; many are distrustful of government and reluctant to participate in a government count.

As chairs of the Congressional Tri-Caucus — a coalition of the Congressional Asian Pacific American, Black and Hispanic caucuses — we are committed to assisting the administration in its efforts to count all of our constituents and ensure an accurate census of traditionally undercounted populations.

The Congressional Tri-Caucus boasts more than 80 members in the 111th Congress, who represent the most diverse congressional districts in the country, including our own districts in Silicon Valley, New York City and Oakland. We are working closely with the Census Bureau to provide each of our members the tools needed for outreach to our constituencies across the country.

Social services at stake

There is much at stake in an accurate census. The decennial census provides data that determine the distribution of approximately $300 billion in federal funding each year, including funding for Medicaid, adoption assistance, substance abuse prevention and treatment, child and foster care, rehabilitation services, and vocational education.

States and localities use census data to plan public service projects including resources for hospitals, employment assistance, schools, highways, and police and fire departments. If our federal, state and local dollars are to be targeted appropriately to those communities that need them most, it is crucial that we do everything we can to have an accurate count in 2010.

Finally, policymakers throughout our nation, certainly members of Congress, use these data daily to make well-informed decisions affecting bread-and-butter issues in our communities.

Obama’s commitment to successful census evident in stimulus legislation

On behalf of our caucuses, we praise the $1 billion included in the second piece of economic stimulus legislation, and we are pleased with the administration’s support of this funding.

This funding will not only create additional temporary jobs, on top of the 1.4 million hires already expected across the country; it will also go a long way toward ensuring that all communities are counted. Funding will be used to increase the number of partnership specialists hired to conduct critical outreach to hard-to-count communities, increase the number of census enumerators, ensure their proper training to work effectively within all of our diverse communities, and provide adequate funding for advertising, marketing, promotions and partnership efforts.

This funding will instantly go toward job creation across the country in the next two years and will be crucial to ensuring an accurate count.

President Obama’s decisions to work closely with the Census Bureau’s director and to support $1 billion of census funding in the stimulus package clearly demonstrate his appreciation for an accurate count, particularly in traditionally undercounted communities.

Everyone must be counted, and we applaud President Obama’s determination to make sure that no one is left behind.

Reps. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Nydia M. Velazquez (D-N.Y.) are the chairman and chairwomen, respectively, of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

US Lawmakers, Commission Urge Obama to Focus on Sudan

Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

The Obama administration is being urged to quickly focus on the situation in Sudan and the ongoing suffering in Darfur. Key members of Congress renewed a call on Wednesday for the appointment of a presidential envoy for Sudan, while the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a set of recommendations for U.S. policy.

Among its nearly two dozen policy recommendations, the commission urges the administration to increase U.S. engagement on Sudan, particularly when it comes to the fragile Comprehensive Peace Agreement, or CPA.

A U.S. presidential envoy should be appointed as soon as possible, it says, to coordinate American efforts to speed up implementation of the agreement.

"Today, four years after the signing of the CPA, it is our conclusion that peace is in jeopardy. Key provisions of the CPA have not been enacted. And this is mostly due to the intransigence and, some would say, the duplicity of the president of Sudan,"said Commission Chairwoman, Felice Gaer.

The commission warns that unraveling of the CPA would also damage efforts to end the killing in Sudan's Darfur region.

It wants the Obama administration to enlist international support for peace in Sudan, including China and other nations with a major stake in access to Sudan's oil reserves.

Among its recommendations, the commission says the United States should encourage parties to the agreement to move ahead with national, Southern and state elections, and ensure that the results of a referendum in Southern Sudan to be held in 2011 are respected.

It also urges peaceful resolution of the issue of Abyei, a contested oil-rich region, and full implementation of power and wealth-sharing, human rights and other provisions of the CPA.

Democratic and Republican lawmakers in Washington appeared with commission members in support of the recommendations.

Democratic Representative Barbara Lee called for action to change the direction of events in Sudan. "With Khartoum now continuing to obstruct the deployment of peacekeeping troops, we need very bold action now to change the dynamic on the ground and bring an end to the violence," she said.

Republican Congressman Frank Wolf said President Obama should act within the next few weeks to appoint a special envoy who should have the same access and visibility as U.S envoys for the Middle East, and Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"And it should be the same credibility for that appointment where I would even say whereby they [should be] in the Rose Garden, in the Oval Office, or standing next to Secretary of State [Hillary] Clinton and the president," he said.

Republican Chris Smith warned against U.S. and international "fatigue," regarding the situation in Darfur and Sudan. "The pressure has to be ratcheted up. There has to be a point person," he said.

Prominent activist John Prendergast says a U.S. envoy should head a team like the one under the Bush administration that worked for conclusion of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and bring other countries along.

"And we need to bring China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other countries that are slowly, increasingly concerned with [Sudanese president Omar] Bashir and the liability that he represents to their investments and to their broader regional strategies, we need to bring those countries along in our strategy to bringing about change in Sudan," he said.

Among other recommendations, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom says the United States should work for the establishment of security guarantees for Southern Sudan to deter potential efforts by Khartoum to renew the North-South civil war.

It urges a range of steps to strengthen the rule of law and court system in the South, help improve the economy there, and expand U.S. private investment.

Barbara Lee: 'Renegade for Peace and Justice'

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

Three days after the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee was the only member of Congress who did not vote for giving President George Bush unrestrained authority to wage war against the attackers.

"I thought, 'Wait a minute, against who?'" Lee told the standing room audience at a noon discussion and book signing Monday at the Cultural Arts Center of Frederick County.

"And the right to invade any nation where they may be? This is crazy. Why so fast? Only Congress, according to Constitution, can declare war."

The California representative recently published her memoir, "Renegade for Peace & Justice: Congresswoman Barbara Lee Speaks for Me," and she recounted her personal and political story before a diverse crowd of clergy, political officials, activists, academics and citizens.

The event was sponsored by the Frederick Arts Council's News and Notables series, and the faith-based Season for Peace and Nonviolence project.

Lee continually related her experience as an African American, as a woman, as a mother and as a social worker to her early activism, as well as her current role as the new head of the Congressional Black Caucus.

"She linked the issue of poverty with the issue of sexism and racism, and all have to be confronted," said Hood professor Hoda Zaki, who teaches a course in African-American feminist thought and brought her class.

During an hour-long discussion and question-and-answer session, Lee spoke of the racism her pregnant mother faced when denied admittance to a hospital, and her own struggles raising her two children as a single mom. She recounted being labeled unpatriotic, and the death threats made against her life after her single dissenting vote.

"A number of my colleagues came up to me beforehand and told me, 'You can't do this' -- not because they disagreed with me, because they knew what the fallout would be, and they were concerned for me," Lee said. "If you look at the record that day, many said the same things I expressed."

Her father served 25 years in the military and her former chief of staff in Washington, Sandre Swanson, now a member of the California state legislature, lost his cousin, Wanda Green, an attendant on Flight 93 on Sept. 11.

"I'm not a pacifist -- I'm tough on terrorism," Lee said, explaining her decision. "Yet, we have a duty and responsibility to uphold the Constitution É and step back and assess what the consequences of our actions will be. Will we create more chaos, more anger, more danger for ourselves? Or will we secure our safety by capturing the terrorists?"

Lee addressed questions about fundraising, poverty, the historical role of racism and sexism in the U.S, the stimulus package, immigration, Shirley Chisholm, the Black Panther Party and political compromise in Washington.

"I knew she was the Lone Ranger, the only one who voted against sending our children to war, where good people were going to get killed," Shirley Grier, of Walkersville, said. "It takes a lot of courage to stand up and say 'no.'"

Is Congressional Black Caucus Up for the Challenge?

Sat, 07 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

You may have seen stories lately questioning the usefulness of Black History Month (click here, here and here) and pondering the relevancy of organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus.

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to hear a challenge to the Voting Rights Act and millions of people — disproportionately minority — face losing their homes to foreclosure, the caucus says it can make the case that it is needed more now than ever.

“The Congressional Black Caucus is as relevant today as it was when it was first organized back in 1971,” Rep. Barbara Lee , the new chairwoman of the caucus, said recently.

“What we have to determine now is how to move our people and make them a part of the democratic process as President-elect Obama called for during the campaign.”

Obama’s election, Lee said, “provides us a unique opportunity to enact legislation to fill the moral gaps in our society. We have to be bold in addressing the issues he has raised, from foreclosures and jobs to health care and education . . . . (and) confront the problems of poverty head-on.”

The black caucus has 43 members, including several who hold sway over plum committees in the House: founder John Conyers, D-Mich., chairs the House Judiciary Committee, while Charles B. Rangel , D-N.Y., heads one of the most powerful committees of all, Ways and Means.

Members of the CBC, as it’s known in these parts, also control 15 subcommittee chairmanships and just last month laid claim to perhaps one of its biggest victories to date when one of its own became the president of the United States.

The real question is whether the CBC will translate those leadership positions into policy successes.

Last year, CBC members were able to muster up enough support to push through legislation in the House that called for an official apology for slavery. It got nowhere in the Senate, though, where Obama was often absent because of the campaign and the major backers were two white senators: Republican Sam Brownback of Kansas and Democrat Tom Harkin of Iowa.

The CBC didn’t even fare that well in their effort to get their colleagues to do something about the foreclosure crisis that is wreaking havoc on communities they represent. And that was in a Congress run by Democrats — members of their own party.

With friends like these . . .

But this is a new year, with a new president and a new Congress. The CBC could end up with a much different track record.

“The 111th Congress will be a real test for the Black Caucus in terms of whether they can capitalize on their leadership success,” said Kate Carney Huston, a former American Political Science Association fellow whose research focuses on congressional caucuses. “With an African-American president and a friendlier Congress, this is perhaps their best chance.”

Yet even with a black president, the CBC is limited as to how much it can do — and in how much help it can expect from the West Wing.

As a group, the CBC might not have the kind of relationship with President Obama that it needs in order to get much of its agenda accomplished, said Ronald Walters, a deputy campaign manager for Jesse Jackson in 1984 and now director of the African American Leadership Center and a political science professor at the University of Maryland.

“While the majority whip (and former CBC chairman) Jim Clyburn has a relationship with Obama because he is a member of the leadership, I’m not sure that Clyburn, or any other member of the CBC for that matter, actually has Obama’s ear,” Walters said. “Certainly not as much as (Speaker) Nancy Pelosi does.”

The CBC not only lacks a close relationship with Obama, when it mattered during the Democratic primaries, a lot of the group’s members threw their support to his chief rival, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton .

They’ve got to have mixed feelings about the possibility that the black candidate they didn’t back may be able to move in areas where they are powerless.

Only a president, for instance, can restore prominence to the civil rights division at the Justice Department and heal racial wounds that have festered there. This week, Eric Holder moved into his office at the Justice Department — this country’s first African American attorney general.

Obama is also teeing up a White House Office on Urban Policy.

It is intended to address issues such as poverty, employment, education and housing — all priority issues for African-Americans in general and for the black caucus.

There are other issues that the CBC has worked on for years and may have to work on for years more, like health care, sentencing disparities and incarceration rates in black communities. It will be hard to move legislation dealing with any of those serious issues unless they’re also front-burner issues for Obama.

“The caucus can’t put the whole of its agenda on the president’s plate because he can not govern as a black president,” Walters said. “He is not just one person, he runs something called the presidency and that is an institution. That’s something a lot of African American leaders, a lot of people period, just don’t understand.”

When 13 black representatives formed the Congressional Black Caucus 40 years ago, Black History was recognized for a week, not a month. Its core mission was “to promote the public welfare through legislation designed to meet the needs of millions of neglected citizens.”

With this goal in mind, there is no doubt, especially given current socioeconomic conditions, that there is a need for a relevant CBC.

There is still a lot of work to do.

The question people should be asking is whether CBC members are up to the challenge.

Administration Plans to Bypass Commerce -- and Gregg -- on 2010 Census

Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

The director of the Census Bureau will report directly to the White House and not the secretary of Commerce, according to a senior White House official.

The decision came after black and Hispanic leaders raised questions about Commerce Secretary nominee Judd Gregg ’s commitment to funding the census.

Gregg, New Hampshire’s senior senator, voted in committee and on the floor for a 1995 Republican budget that envisioned the elimination of the Commerce Department. Of even more concern to black and Hispanic leaders, Gregg battled President Clinton over a request for “emergency” funding for the 2000 census.

“Secretary of Commerce-designate Judd Gregg ’s record raises serious questions about his willingness to ensure that the 2010 census produces the most accurate possible count of the nation’s population,” the National Association of Latino Elected Officials said in a release on Tuesday, the day Gregg was named to the post. “Policymakers and planners at all levels of government rely on these data to make important decisions about their services, such as the number of teachers that will be needed in their classrooms, the best places to build new roads, or the best way to provide job training.”

The selection of Republican Gregg for Commerce — a plum post often given out to a big fundraiser or personal friend in the president’s own party — left many Democrats scratching their heads and others fearful that Gregg might not defend favored agencies and programs with the department.

“Sen. Gregg’s record of previously voting to abolish the Commerce Department and his attempts to block President Bill Clinton’s efforts to secure adequate funding for the 2000 census raise troubling concerns regarding his commitment to the department’s core missions,” Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Barbara Lee , D-Calif., said Tuesday.

It was not immediately clear whether the White House plan to circumvent Gregg on Census Bureau matters would assuage lawmakers who raised questions about his nomination.

“We have no comment at this time,” a Lee spokesman said late Wednesday.

Gregg is expected to sail through the confirmation process, and a spokeswoman for him said earlier this week that the senator “has a strong record of working aggressively to preserve the policies of Commerce.”

CBC chair questions Gregg's views

Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) is questioning Judd Gregg’s appointment as commerce secretary, citing his opposition to census funding, a key issue for African-American members.

“Two of the most important responsibilities of the Commerce Department are to ensure that minority-owned businesses are fully integrated in our nation’s economic recovery and to conduct the decennial census,” wrote Lee, who stopped short of saying she’d urge the Senate to reject the New Hampshire Republican.

“In this light, Sen. Gregg’s record of previously voting to abolish the Commerce Department and his attempts to block President Bill Clinton’s efforts to secure adequate funding for the 2000 census raise troubling concerns regarding his commitment to the department’s core missions.”

The Obama administration is mulling over the idea of creating a mechanism to “dilute” Gregg’s direct control over the Census Bureau to alleviate such concerns, although nothing formal has been proposed, according to congressional Democrats.

Obama Reins in Wall Street Excess

Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

President Obama has taken an important step towards bringing fairness and a dose of reality to Wall Street. His decision to limit the annual salaries of top executives at financial firms that receive money through the bailout program to $500,000 per year sends a clear message to the corporate fat cats that we will not use tax dollars to subsidize huge bonuses or dividend payments to stock holders.

It is insensible that the heads of the financial firms that have relied on tax payer dollars to keep their companies afloat continue to receive perks and bonuses on the backs of hard working Americans. It is time that we start reinvesting our resources in the people of this country to provide pathways out of poverty and get people back to work.

In this same vain, I will be re-introducing the Income Equity Act which will limit the tax deductibility of the wages and total compensation packages of corporate executives to 25 times the wages of the lowest paid worker in the corporation. We should not allow the tax code to allow the deduction of massive executive pay packages. I look forward to working with my colleagues and President Obama to pass this legislation.

Rep. Lee Describes Beating Adversity at Book Event

Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) described overcoming adversity as an African-American woman early in her life during a discussion about her new book held Wednesday at the National Press Club.

Lee's memoir, "Renegade for Peace and Justice," details her struggles with domestic violence, segregation and subsisting on public assistance, all to become a member of Congress and the Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus. During her short talk, she elaborated on how her mother was denied entry to a local hospital in El Paso, Texas, when she was about to give birth, simply for being black.

She had to call Barbara's grandmother, who had fair skin since her father was a white Irish man, to tell the doctor that this in fact was her daughter. The doctors left Lee's mother on a gurney, she said, and instead of being delivered by Cesarean section, Lee was birthed by forceps.

"I will never want anybody to go through what my mother went through," Lee said. "It's important, I think, to do what you can to help others, and that's what I've tried to do throughout my life."

Lee took several questions, one of which was from conservative media watchdog group Accuracy in Media, who asked about her impressions of the first two weeks of President Barack Obama's Administration.

"I think he's doing a great job," she said. "I think he set some markers down in terms of Guantanamo, in terms of torture, in terms of getting out of this economic crisis. I think his agenda is one that a majority of Americans are embracing, most people are pleased with what he's done."

Black, Latino Groups Raise Concerns About Gregg and 2010 Census

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

The head of the Congressional Black Caucus and a group representing Latino government officials raised questions about Sen. Judd Gregg ’s fitness to lead the Commerce Department on the day President Obama nominated him for the post.

Black Caucus Chairwoman Barbara Lee , D-Calif., issued a statement Tuesday taking issue with the New Hampshire Republican’s 1995 votes for a GOP budget that assumed the elimination of the Commerce Department and subsequent efforts to hold down spending for the 2000 census.

“Sen. Gregg’s record of previously voting to abolish the Commerce Department and his attempts to block President Bill Clinton’s efforts to secure adequate funding for the 2000 census raise troubling concerns regarding his commitment to the department’s core missions,” Lee said. “As the Census Bureau prepares for another count in 2010, it is important to ensure the census is fully funded to guarantee a thorough and fair counting of all Americans.”

While Lee does not have a vote on the nomination — only the Senate has a say on that — the Black Caucus serves as the strongest voice in Congress for issues affecting African-Americans.

“I trust that Sen. Gregg’s confirmation process will allow for the detailed examination of his past record and future commitment to the mission of the Commerce Department,” she said.

There is only one African-American senator, newly appointed Illinois Democrat Roland W. Burris , who is second-to-last in seniority.

Later, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials weighed in.

“Secretary of Commerce-Designate Judd Gregg ’s record raises serious questions about his willingness to ensure that the 2010 Census produces the most accurate possible count of the nation’s population,” the group said in a news release.

“Policymakers and planners at all levels of government rely on these data to make important decisions about their services, such as the number of teachers that will be needed in their classrooms, the best places to build new roads, or the best way to provide job training.”

Sen. Carl Levin , D-Mich., defended Gregg, saying, “He’ll follow the administration’s policy.”

A spokeswoman for Gregg said the senator “has a strong record of working aggressively to preserve the policies of Commerce.”

“Over the course of his tenure as either chairman or ranking member, Senator Gregg helped boost overall funding levels for the Commerce Department by nearly 74%,” said spokeswoman Andrea Wuebker. “His leadership helped elevate the department’s status and its agencies such as NOAA, and he continues to be a strong advocate for the Commerce Department’s mission.”

In committee and on the Senate floor, Gregg voted for a non-binding Republican budget resolution that envisioned the abolition of the Commerce Department, a favorite target of conservatives who seek to pare the federal government.

In 1999, Gregg battled President Clinton over a White House request for “emergency” spending to fund the decennial head count — required by the Constitution — after a Supreme Court ruling forcing the bureau to use both sampling and a traditional head count.

Rep. Barbara Lee: Senator Gregg's nomination requires close scrutiny

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0800

As Congress and the Obama administration work together to move our nation toward economic recovery, the president's selection of Sen. Judd Gregg to lead to Commerce Department calls for thorough scrutiny.

With sweeping jurisdiction over a host of agencies charged with incubating American businesses at home and abroad, Sen. Gregg would play vital role in our nation's future economic health.

Two of the most important responsibilities of the Commerce Department are to ensure that minority-owned businesses are fully integrated in our nation's economic recovery and to conduct the decennial census.

In this light, Sen. Gregg's record of previously voting to abolish the Commerce Department and his attempts to block President Bill Clinton's efforts to secure adequate funding for the 2000 census raise troubling concerns.

As the Census Bureau prepares for the 2010 census it is important to ensure that this effort is fully funded in order to guarantee a thorough and fair counting of all Americans.

I look forward to hearing Sen. Gregg fully and completely explain his past positions and future commitment to the mission of the Commerce Department.

Barbara Lee touts economic stimulus for East Bay

Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:00:00 -0800

OAKLAND — The East Bay stands to benefit significantly from California's $32 billion share of the economic stimulus package approved by the House this week, Rep. Barbara Lee said Friday.

The Oakland Unified School District alone stands to get almost $45.4 million in 2009 for basic education, special education and construction, Lee, D-Oakland, said at a news conference outside the downtown Oakland federal building, which houses her district office. Projections show OUSD could get another $18.9 million in 2010.

There's money to help rehabilitate housing stock and prevent foreclosures, she said, which would help address a problem that has been at the recession's heart in the East Bay and beyond.

And Lee said her 9th Congressional District would get a cut of California's $330 million earmark for federal grants for law enforcement, including community policing, a high priority as the Oakland Police Department tries to move beyond its recent disarray and Tuesday's announcement that Chief Wayne Tucker is stepping down.

"We have to move forward, and he did what he thought was best for the city and for him personally" by resigning, she said of the embattled chief.

The chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus said she wasn't entirely satisfied with the $819 billion stimulus package approved Wednesday by the House. "I thought it should've been $1 trillion, and I thought the tax cuts were too deep," Lee said.

But she said she hopes the U.S. Senate, which will consider the package next week, will pass it unchanged and get it to President Barack Obama's desk as soon as possible. Any changes wrought by the Senate will have to be reconciled with the House's version in a conference committee before the bill is sent to the White House.

She balked at saying whether she believed Obama and House Democratic leaders gave up too early on a provision to expand state access to family-planning services for low-income Americans under Medicaid, given that item's omission still failed to bring a single Republican vote to the stimulus package.

"We had to work in a bipartisan way," she said, describing herself as "a staunch advocate of family planning" who'll work to ensure such access is provided soon anyway. "I'm confident that will be part of another bill we'll bring forward."

Obama "did everything he could," as did House Democratic leaders, to win Republican support for the bill, Lee said, noting GOP lawmakers' constituents are suffering too in this bad economy.

The $32 billion bound for California under the House version of the bill would include about $11.07 billion in Medicaid assistance; about $7.85 billion to help the state solve its budget crisis; about $5.55 billion for schools; about $2.8 billion for highways and bridges; and about $1.47 billion for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program.

Dems Question U.S. Efforts to Block Global AIDS-Prevention Measure

Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:00:00 -0800

Bush-era envoys to the United Nations are trying to block global efforts to promote HIV/AIDS-prevention programs such as needle exchanges, according to health and human rights advocates who supplied documents of the negotiations. The envoys’ opposition runs directly counter to the stated position of President Obama, who supports lifting a ban on clean-syringe programs that’s existed in the United States for 20 years.

The saga unfolds as the members of the United Nations are busy drafting a non-binding declaration of global drug-policy goals for the next decade. Although a number of countries — many in the European Union — are pushing hard to include language promoting “harm reduction measures,” including syringe-exchange programs shown to prevent needle-born illness, the U.S. representatives have already lobbied that provision out, according to health and human rights groups familiar with the negotiations.

The U.S. opposition is consistent with current federal policy, which prevents federal funding for needle exchange programs. But it remains curious because Obama supports a repeal of that ban.

The White House Website outlines Obama’s position directly, proclaiming that the president “supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users.”

The episode has attracted the attention of some congressional Democrats. In a Jan. 28 letter to U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.) cite “an apparent disconnect in U.S. policy” as it pertains to efforts to promote needle exchange to fight HIV/AIDS.

“We understand that the U.S. delegation in Vienna has been actively blocking the efforts of some of our closest allies — including the European Union — to incorporate in the declaration reference to harm reduction measures, such as needle exchange,” the Democrats wrote. They’re urging that the delegation “should immediately be given new instructions from the highest levels of the new Administration.”

In an op-ed published this week, Allan Clear, executive director of the Harm Reduction Coalition, an advocacy group, provided one explanation why the U.S. ban has extended to the UN declaration despite Obama’s opposition to it.

“Our current U.S. delegation is primarily made up of State Department bureaucrats soldiering in the war on drugs,” Clear wrote. “They promote policies that have had dramatic negative consequences (intended and unintended) on the lives of drug users, their families and their communities but very little impact on reducing drug supply, consumption or cultivation.”

In a Jan. 1 letter to Obama, a group of 65 health groups and human rights advocates echoed that description. “The negotiators for the outgoing US administration,” the groups wrote, “are defending positions that will inhibit essential public health interventions in the many parts of the world where HIV epidemics are driven by drug injection.”

There’s not much time for the Obama team to act. The official U.N. meeting to finalize the draft — dubbed the U.N. General Assembly Special Session on drugs — will take place on March 12 and 13.

The State Department did not return calls for comment.

The U.S. ban on federal funding for needle exchange programs went into effect in 1988 and has been renewed each year since then as part of the appropriations process. Supporters of the ban argue that needle exchanges encourage drug use, and therefore Washington has no business funding them. Many opponents also reject the thought that taxpayers should subsidize the habits of drug users. After all, they argue, criminals should be imprisoned, not treated with government gifts.

But health and human rights groups reject those claims, arguing that if the government can’t prevent the use of drugs, it should at least take steps to ensure that the process is safe.

Many members of the medical community support needle-exchange programs. In 1998, Donna Shalala, health secretary under the Clinton administration, commissioned a report finding that such programs help prevent needle-born diseases while doing little to encourage drug use.

At the time, The San Francisco Chronicle quoted Harold Varmus, then-director of the National Institutes of Health and an author of the study, as saying that, “An exhaustive review of the science indicates that needle exchange programs can be an effective component of the global effort to end the AIDS epidemic. Recent findings have strengthened the scientific evidence that needle exchange programs do not encourage the use of illegal drugs.”

No matter. Despite the report, the Clinton White House continued to deny federal funding for the syringe program, in effect extending the ban.

It seems poised to be extended overseas. A Jan. 15 draft version of the U.N. declaration includes language to “develop, review and strengthen” drug-treatment programs to include “harm reduction measures aiming at preventing and reducing the adverse health, social and economic consequences of drug use and dependence.” The U.S. representatives — along with those from Russia, Japan and Colombia — insisted the language be removed, according to John Walsh, senior associate for drug policy at the Washington Office on Latin America, a human-rights group.

Countries in support of harm reduction then moved the clause into a footnote. That, too, was rejected by the United States, Walsh said.

Supporters of the provision are wondering why the provision — which is non-binding — remains so controversial. “We find it hard to understand how the U.S. delegation could object to language which would not obligate any country to adopt particular policies with which it disagrees,” the House Democrats wrote in their letter to Rice.

Even if the language is nonbinding, Walsh said, including it is an important way to signal that there’s no stigma attached to those programs.

“By excluding [the language],” Walsh said, “it says that the conventions don’t permit it. It castigates it. It makes it seem that there’s something wrong with doing it.”

Waxman, Lee and Serrano have already reintroduced legislation this year to eliminate the U.S. ban on needle exchange programs. With Obama in the White House and the Democrats controlling larger majorities in both congressional chambers, advocates are hopeful for success in 2009.

“This year, we have reason to think it might get somewhere,” Walsh said.

Whether the same will be true on the global stage is yet to be seen.

Student groups host Congressional Black Caucus leader

Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:00:00 -0800

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., stressed the importance of service and community outreach Monday, at a book signing for her autobiography.

The Black Student Union, the Multicultural Student Services Center and the Williams House hosted the event in honor of the Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Lee, who is also the chairwoman of the Black Caucus for the 111th Congress, reflected upon her days as a student at Mills College as the basis for her career in politics.

As the president of her Black Student Union, Lee said she brought Shirley Chisholm to speak, a woman that inspired to her to work on her first grassroots campaign and become more actively involved in public service.

"With Barbara Lee's dedication to public, and the Williams' House focus being that area, we had to say yes when our advisor brought the event to us," said Brittany Thomas, a member of the Williams House.

While the event was meant to focus on the release of Lee's book, many members of the audience asked her opinion on foreign and domestic policy, including the war in Iraq, healthcare reform, the economic crisis and D.C. statehood.

"Barbara Lee has done so much work for college campuses and has worked particularly hard on the topic of D.C. statehood," said sophomore Samuel Collins Jr., "The issue of D.C. statehood is really important to me, especially in terms of taxation without representation, and it is my hope to see this achieved by the time I graduate."

Lee's final comments reached out to the young people in the audience. She said that the election of Barack Obama is a mandate to the youth to become more involved with their communities and with government.

Lee said,"The youth need to continue their involvement that they had during the election in order to continue the precedent set by that election."

Ten Dems Obama should watch out for

Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:00:00 -0800

Even if Democrats don’t agree with Barack Obama on everything, who among them would challenge a president with a 73 percent approval rating?

He’ll soon find out.

Sooner or later, the bonhomie of Obama’s Inauguration will dissipate — and the novelty of having a soul mate in the Oval Office will give way to intense internal debates over the extent and substance of Democratic change.

Either that, or some people will just get on Obama’s nerves.

The president’s friends might not become his enemies. But here are 10 Democrats — and some runners-up — who could soon find themselves on the White House Frenemies List:

1. Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) — Conyers, the outspoken chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, hasn’t been shy about pressuring Obama — vowing to proceed with investigations into the Bush administration’s sacking of eight U.S. attorneys and other potential violations of federal law. Obama has said he prefers to “look forward” and not rehash the past — but House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated she’s open to allowing Conyers to proceed. Remember: In the 110th Congress, Conyers had to be talked down from pushing for the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

2. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) — The incoming chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee forced Obama to apologize after he nominated Leon Panetta to head the CIA without consulting her first. Feinstein is not afraid to break with her party on thorny issues, as she did recently during the Roland Burris affair and last year when she essentially declared Hillary Clinton’s presidential run over before her candidate was ready to concede. Feinstein also may be positioning herself for a 2010 gubernatorial run, a potentially bigger factor for her than making Obama look good.

3. Vice President Joe Biden — Biden survived the campaign, the transition and even Inauguration Day without any Obama-embarrassing verbal gaffes. But on the first full day of the Obama presidency, Biden made a joke — on live TV — about Chief Justice John Roberts’ fumbling of Obama’s swearing-in. Obama, who had tried to smooth over the oath of office glitch, looked visibly unhappy with his VP, touching his arm in a sign that it was time to shut up and move on. If Biden can’t button it — and encourage his wife to do the same — expect to see Obama’s pinched-face look a little more often.

4. Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) — Waxman, who knocked off John Dingell to become chairman of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee, is no party maverick: He’s an enthusiastic Obama and Pelosi supporter with a long history of defending Democratic presidents, namely Bill Clinton. But he’s also among the House’s most aggressive proponents of addressing global warming fast, and he recently promised to act “quickly and decisively” in his capacity as committee chairman. The problem is that both Pelosi and Obama have a lot on their plates and want to ring up a series of legislative victories before addressing a controversial, technically complex issue that could create a stalemate. Plus, Waxman’s push for stronger emissions standards could alienate some Rust Belt members whose states depend on coal. Runner-up: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).

5. Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) — The new head of the Appropriations Committee is old school when it comes to legislative earmarks. This is the same guy, after all, who from 1998 to 2004 steered $1.4 billion to military projects in his state. That puts him at philosophical loggerheads with Obama, who ran against the culture of pork and influence peddling in Washington. “Inouye isn’t going to bend to accommodate” Obama, said a senior Democratic aide. Moreover, this beloved war hero — who stood up for fellow earmarker and former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) when the latter was convicted on federal fraud counts— is probably reflecting the views of many other Democrats. Said one Senate aide: “That anti-earmark stuff sells nationally, but earmarks are still great politics locally.” Runner-up: Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.).

6. Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) — Obama has carefully courted Boyd, one of the most influential of the pay-as-you-go Blue Dog Democrats — but an unprecedented congressional spending spree and the new administration’s commitment to throwing more aid at flailing banks will create inevitable tensions. Those tensions have been stoked by the new president’s waning commitment to repealing tax cuts for families earning $250,000 or more — a rollback backed by both the Dogs and Pelosi. Some Blue Dogs, many of them newly elected moderates responsible for expanding the Democratic majority in the House, have also shown a willingness to break with party leadership on national security issues — and 15 of them refused to pay Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee dues in 2007 over differences with antiwar Democrats. But with $1.2 trillion in government spending at hand and the worst economy in 75 years, budget hawks are not exactly in vogue in the Democratic Party, so Blue Dogs may be diminished. Runners-up: Reps. Heath Sh uler (D-N.C.) and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.).

7. Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) As chairman of the Finance Committee, Baucus has often infuriated liberals with his pro-business positions and his penchant for striking deals with Republican Chuck Grassley. If Obama chooses to govern from the middle, he could find a key ally in Baucus. But trying to enact the tax, health and trade policies he touted on the campaign could hit a roadblock if Baucus doesn’t give them his blessing.

8. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) — The head of the Congressional Black Caucus represents several potential fault lines between Obama and Hill Democrats. As a CBC leader with a lock on her Oakland district (and a solid relationship with Pelosi), she’s secure enough to buck the White House if she thinks that Obama is taking African-American support for granted. She is also a founder of the Out of Iraq and Progressive caucuses — and she stood up to Bill Clinton on his use of military force in Iraq and Serbia — so she won’t be shy in criticizing the administration if it tarries on withdrawing from Iraq. Runner-up: Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.).

9. Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) — Because none of his fellow Democrats ever know what he will do or say.

10. Michelle Obama — She’s glamorous, she’s on message, she’s the nation’s favorite mom — and now she has nowhere to go but down. The press, which helped savage Michelle Obama for her “proud of my country” remark during the campaign, has since built her into a 21st century Jackie O. With the spotlight shining so brightly on her now, any misstep by the first lady — a slip of the tongue, a too-frank statement, any disagreement with the administration’s positions — could reflect harshly on her husband.

A realization of King's dream

Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:00:00 -0800

Though I have heard the song many times, never have the words resonated with me as clearly as at this moment in time. Now just a few days away from an Obama presidency, I can feel the electricity of that new dawn and that new day "... of change that we have longed for and that we truly believe in. For the first time in a long time I am "feelin' good" about our future as we await the inauguration of Barack Obama as the first African-American and 44th president of these United States of America.

We are bearing witness to a monumental change. Nov. 4, 2008, marked a dramatic shift in paradigm for America and the global community with the election of Obama. There are many of us who thought we would never see such an event in our lifetime. We now see that through hard work, determination and faith, we can bring about the necessary change we desire.

As the newly elected chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, I know that my CBC colleagues would join me in saying that this is a particularly proud moment for us. To have one of our members elected to the highest office in the land is an achievement that will serve to inspire our members to be more diligent and committed in our efforts to make this wonderful nation even greater.

Sen. Obama's successful bid for the presidency is a transformative chapter in American history, a seminal moment that signals a significant shift in our nation's politics and priorities. It is an extraordinary event that illustrates to our neighbors abroad that America has made tremendous progress in breaking down racial barriers that have historically paralyzed our nation.

When Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke a generation ago of the dream he held for America, he envisioned exactly this type of moment, where a man was judged by his character, his intellect and his hard work — and not by the color of his skin or his race or his ancestry. Now, children of color everywhere can truly dream without limitations and actualize the true promise of this great land. When a young child of color aspires to one day be the president of the United States, we can assure them, "Yes, you can!"

For 21 months, Obama issued a clarion call for change, and the message clearly resonated with every group of voters — young, old, white, black, Latino, Asian, women and men and across party lines. His message of hope and change was a departure from the cynical tone of past elections, and it inspired millions of Americans who never participated in the election process to stand up and be counted for the very first time in their lives.

With President-elect Obama in office, we can now focus on returning this nation to its proudest national attributes: a respect for the rule of law, a promotion of and respect for internationally recognized human rights, and the effective use of diplomacy and international economic development to tackle poverty and provide opportunity — here and abroad — that will help build the foundation of peace and cooperation and still the momentum toward global strife and conflict.

As we celebrate Obama's achievements, we must remember that we too play an important part in his vision for change. We must become engaged citizens who are willing to stand up for what is right and just.

We have seen what can happen when Americans mobilize behind a dynamic candidate. Now we must channel that same energy toward addressing this country's most pressing needs, such as access to quality health care, education and economic empowerment.

This is our time, this is our task and this is our moment. We stand at the dawn of that new day. Let us enjoy this historic inaugural, but understand that we have much work to do to bring about the change that this country so desperately needs. I pledge to do everything within my power to help President-elect Obama reverse the damaging policies of the last eight years, and to positively move our nation into its remarkable third century — one unshackled from the burdens of our past and limited only by our capacity to dream a new future.

Barbara Lee is chair of the Congressional Black Caucus and represents California's 9th District.

Rep. Lee reflects on new administration

Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:00:00 -0800

This interview with Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, was conducted by staff writer Josh Richman.

Q: As chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, your caucus members chair four crucial House committees and have a role in House leadership even as the country's first African-American president takes office. How do you think this administration will affect your chairmanship and vice versa?

A: He is a former member of the Congressional Black Caucus, and so it's just so exciting and inspirational for him to be our president. I must say we've worked together on many, many issues and we will continue to do that. "... We intend to support and unify around our common agenda. We intend to make sure the foreclosure crisis is addressed so we can help those whose lives are being shattered by this tragedy.

When you look at President Obama's agenda and you look at ours, they're very similar. I know we're going to be there for him. He'll be the president, and we'll have to look at our priorities and how we can move forward together.

We have to make sure our overall national agenda is broad where it includes issues not only relating to the middle class but low-income communities and the poor — that's the role of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Q: What do you expect you'll be feeling and thinking as you watch the inauguration?

A: It's just quite a moment for me just to look back and see how he has transformed this country and spoke to the issues that this country cares about. He wouldn't be there if not for those who came before us "... those who sacrificed so we could have the right to vote, to register to vote and to run for public office. I'm excited about it, jubilant but also very humbled. I feel a debt of gratitude "... and I know there's a lot of work ahead.

Q: National issues aside, what are your top priorities for the 9th District and the Bay Area in the next two years?

A: Of course the whole green job industry, green job training. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I'm laser-focused on resources, how my district can benefit from the economic stimulus"... how to make sure our education receives the kind of federal focus it deserves.

And the occupation of Iraq, I'm never going to stop working to end that. "... I know that my district has been solidly against this occupation, and we're going to continue to fight to end it.

Q: Despite rhetoric from both sides of the aisle, you've always maintained that "earmark" isn't a dirty word, and you'd strive to bring home to your district whatever federal help it needs and deserves. Do you have any problem with new House rules requiring lawmakers to post earmark requests online for all to see?

A: I've always said as long as they're transparent, earmarks are a good thing. If there are members who don't want earmarks, they can give 'em to me! "... My community, I know, needs every federal dollar it can get.

I'm not going to back off of that — let them keep demagoguing it if they want to. I'll tell them to come to my community and see what we can accomplish with whatever federal dollars we can get. "... We pay taxes, we deserve some of our money back.

Q: You recently published a memoir, "Renegade for Peace and Justice," which contained some very personal revelations. Has having these experiences made public affected how you see your job, or how others seem to see you?

A: I've done some conversations with people at book signings, and it's been very interesting. I'm a very private person, but in writing a memoir there are some issues you have to discuss in order to be real. "... At some point in everyone's life, you say maybe I can inspire somebody, maybe they can learn some lessons.

Q: Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums recently said he wouldn't rule out accepting a job in the Obama administration, which some see as a possibility given his early, ardent support of Hillary Clinton, now the secretary of state designee, and later of Obama himself. Have you talked to the mayor, or to the Obama administration, about such a job offer?

A: No, I haven't.

Congress Aims to Take Back Constitutional War Powers

Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:00:00 -0800

As America anticipates the official arrival of the Obama presidency on January 20, the power grabs and ballooning executive privileges of the Bush administration may seem far behind us. However, staving off the normalization of those abuses has remained at the forefront of several Congress members' legislative agendas.

Congress took little initiative to rein in Bush's excesses throughout his administration, and now, some members worry that his vast expansion of executive powers could set a dangerous precedent for generations to come. Unless Congress formally rejects Bush's generous interpretation of the role of the president, they say, the system of checks and balances could be permanently disrupted. Foremost on the list is one of Bush's most blatant unilateral actions: his recent signing, with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, of the US-Iraq security pact without consulting Congress. The pact could keep US troops in Iraq until the end of 2011.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California) has introduced - and soon plans to reintroduce - a resolution that would delegitimize the Bush-Maliki security agreement in the eyes of Congress, according to a spokeswoman for Lee's office. It would also reaffirm Congress's role in the formation of war policy.

"[The security pact] is a seriously flawed agreement which illustrates perfectly the necessity of Congressional review and approval of any agreement concerning the United States Armed Forces and the security of Iraq," said Lee in a statement on the resolution. "An agreement to commit American troops to the defense and security of another country is a major commitment that must have the support of the American people, which can only be reflected by the Congress of the United States."

Bush presented the US-Iraq pact as a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), which does not need the approval of Congress. However, this "SOFA" goes beyond the scope of all previous SOFAs, in that it authorizes military operations. Under the Constitution, Congress has the sole power to wage war. Lee points out that the "SOFA" also subjects US military operations to the "approval of the Iraqi government" and places US contractors under the jurisdiction of Iraqi courts. Historically, the president has needed the Senate's ratification to place US troops under foreign control; Bush's action is a major breach, according to Lee.

Several bills have been introduced in Congress to address Bush's overstep in signing the pact, and a notable set of hearings in the House Foreign Affairs Committee investigated the topic. Yet, responding as it did to most of the Bush administration's power grabs, Congress ultimately let the "SOFA" designation get by.

"Congress and the media have generally accepted the Bush administration's categorizing of [the pact] as a SOFA," Steve Fox, director of the nonpartisan American Freedom Campaign, told Truthout. "To me, it demonstrates a complete failure on the part of Congress as an institution to defend its constitutional powers."

This complacency could cost future Congresses - and future generations of American people - quite a bit of leverage, according to Fox.

"A failure by Congress to signal its objection to this agreement will create a potentially irreversible shift in the balance of power to the executive branch," Fox said. "This lack of action will set a precedent with respect to what terms are allowed under a SOFA and, therefore, do not require Congressional approval. Perhaps, the Supreme Court might someday rule that the executive branch's power is not so extensive, but Congress should not create a precedent on its own that it someday needs the court to reverse. Congress must exert its power now."

Lee's resolution does not officially negate the Bush-Maliki pact. Even if it passed, the agreement would still be legally binding under international law, Berkeley Law Professor Oona Hathaway, who has testified at several hearings regarding the pact, told Truthout.

However, the bill would advocate that Congress use the legal means in its power to resist fulfilling the demands of the agreement, and to prevent the executive branch from sealing similarly broad-ranging agreements in the future without consulting Congress. Lee's resolution refers specifically to Congress's power of the purse, stating that "is neither legally nor morally bound or obligated to appropriate any of the funds necessary to carry out the terms of the agreement."

Additionally, the resolution calls for the House of Representatives to hold hearings examining the security pact before authorizing or funding it.

The prospect of withholding funding for the pact may face both political and legal barriers, according to Hathaway.

"It would place the United States into violation of its international legal obligations - and could lead to a constitutional crisis," Hathaway said. "In my view, a much better option is to step back from this agreement to think more generally about how the United States makes its international agreements."

Hathaway suggests that, in order to put the security pact on secure legal footing and enforce the involvement of Congress in confirming international treaties, Obama could submit the agreement to Congress for approval. The very act of consulting Congress could demonstrate an end to the Bush era of executive power abuse.

Another route might be an expansion of the Case Act, a law passed in the 1970s, which requires that the president notify Congress of any executive agreements he has concluded. Hathaway proposes that the law be revised and enhanced, increasing transparency and Congressional influence.

"I do not favor requiring every single executive agreement to be individually approved by Congress - that would be too cumbersome," Hathaway said. "But the current process is much too lax. I am hoping that Congress and the Obama State Department will put some energy into examining the variety of alternatives that exist in between these two extremes."

Meanwhile, Congresswoman Lee's office plans to continue to push for more Congressional involvement on Iraq in the new year, reassessing old legislation and perhaps introducing new bills aimed at withdrawal, according to her spokeswoman.

Last week, Sen. John Conyers and Congressman Bill Delahunt introduced another piece of legislation intended to reclaim Congress's role in checking executive authority. The plan calls for a national commission to investigate the Bush administration's potential war powers abuses.

"The American people deserve a complete and objective accounting of the many policies approved by President Bush as unreviewable war powers," Delahunt stated upon introducing the legislation.

Job Opening: One Voice Executive Director

Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:00:00 -0800

Position Title: Executive Director

Employed by: One Voice PAC

Reports to: Executive Committee of One Voice Board

Supervises: One Voice Staff and volunteers

Summary: Executive Director will direct and coordinate the development and implementation of the goals and activities of One Voice and be responsible for its financial strength & health. Responsibilities include fundraising from major donors, expanding and diversifying current donor base to include key constituents across the State and country, organizing fundraising events, managing other development activities, developing and implementing a systematic organizational structure, maintaining accurate and timely financial records, and planning budgets. The Executive Director is the spokesperson and public face of One Voice.

The One Voice Executive Director will be a recognized leader in the country for donor outreach, political pipeline development and progressive community organizing.

Duties and Responsibilities

Budget and Fundraising:

Develop, plan and implement short and long-term fundraising strategies.
Prepare the annual budget.
Supervise and/or prepare monthly budget reports.
Direct all fundraising, including but not limited to donor acquisition and renewal, fundraising events, major gift solicitation, direct mail and online fundraising.
Conduct major donor visits and calls.

Fiscal Management:

Supervise the financial management of the organization, including but not limited to budgeting, financial reporting and control of expenses.
Report financial health of organization to the Boards monthly.

Planning:

Work with the Board of Directors and Honorary Chair to develop and implement programs and policies.
Develop short and long-term strategic plans for the organization.
Create strategies for implementation of program goals.

Management and Administration:

Recruit, train and supervise staff & volunteers
Supervise or maintain organizational files, membership records, donor histories and mailing lists.
Hire and oversee work of contract employees when necessary.

Public Relations and Communications:

Effective spokesperson for One Voice
Primary representative of One Voice to the general public and the media.
Represent One Voice within coalitions.
Supervise and/or develop public information materials.
Develop and further relationships with community leaders and members of diverse communities.

Interact with Boards and Committees:

Develop a collegial working relationship with Board, Honorary Chair & any Committee members providing vision and leadership about issues and activities.
Assist the Boards and Honorary Chair's policy-making manner.
Keep Boards/Committees informed about organizational operations.
Assist in recruitment of new Board/Committee members.
Participate as needed in Board and Committee activities.

Exercise professional and personal competencies:

Show flexibility and creativity in relating the organization to the current needs of the community.
Exercise professionalism in written communication, in-person interactions and self-presentation.

Miscellaneous:

Work a flexible schedule as dictated by the needs of the organization, including nights and weekends.
Ability to travel nationwide.
Any other tasks as directed by or approved by the Boards.

Skills and Qualifications:

Education: A Master's Degree or equivalent experience in one of the following areas: government, political campaigns, public administration, business, social science, social work, law, project management, or a related field.

Other skills required:

Ability to fundraise from major donors, organize fundraising events, manage volunteers, mailings and other development activities.
Ability to work in a fast paced, entrepreneurial environment.
Ability to plan and think strategically and politically to promote One Voice.
Good oral and written skills.
Ability to expand and institutionalize what has been a volunteer led organization.
Ability to gather, analyze, and synthesize data and information.
Ability to motivate, organize, supervise, and work with staff and volunteers.
Ability to motivate, organize, and work with board members.
An understanding of national politics and federal campaign law

Salary: Commensurate with experience

To Apply: Please submit your resume, cover letter and references to chloe.drew@gmail.com

Deadline: February 15, 2009

Barbara Lee sworn in as caucus chairwoman

Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:00:00 -0800

Rep. Barbara Lee was sworn in as chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus at a ceremony Tuesday morning on Capitol Hill.

Lee, D-Oakland, takes the 41-member caucus' reins as its power seems ascendant. Members will lead the House Judiciary, Homeland Security, Oversight and Government Reform, and Ways and Means committees in the Congress; Rep. James Clyburn will be the majority whip; and all of them will work in tandem with the nation's first black president, Barack Obama, of whom Lee was an early and ardent supporter.

Lee said while being sworn in that she was thinking about all those who had made it possible: her constituents, her family, African-American leaders such as Shirley Chisholm and Ron Dellums, the caucus' founding members and so on. It was "a very humbling moment," she said.

The caucus' top priority remains "the economy and jobs, the economic stimulus and recovery package we have to put together," which will require expanding what the term "infrastructure" means, Lee said.

"Economic stimulus, infrastructure has got to be not only about building roads and bridges ... but also about building human capacity, the human structure necessary for a health care system that works, for schools that work," she said.

Lee has helped lead the Congressional Black Caucus for six years, first as whip and then as first vice chairwoman. Lee had wanted the chair in 2006 but bowed out to avoid a divisive race against Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick, D-Mich. This time, Lee's bid was unopposed — only the late Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, had been expressing interest in the post before her unexpected death in August — and the caucus elected her in November.

The Congressional Black Caucus was formed almost 40 years ago with 13 founding members. Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums was among those founders and was elected the caucus' chairman at the end of 1988 for the 101st Congress. Lee was a longtime Dellums aide, working her way up through his office's ranks until she was his chief of staff, before serving in the California Legislature and moving on to Congress.

Congressional Black Caucus Assesses Its Role Under a Black President

Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:00:00 -0800

WASHINGTON — These were supposed to be heady days for members of the Congressional Black Caucus, a time of celebration ahead of the inauguration of the first black president.

Instead, the contested appointment of Roland W. Burris to fill the Illinois Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama has added further discomfort to an already rough period for the Black Caucus. The refusal by Senate Democrats to seat Mr. Burris on Tuesday has also splintered the caucus and caused a dust storm of racial politics at a time when many Americans hoped Mr. Obama’s election was a sign that the country was moving beyond its racially troubled past.

For 40 years, the caucus has been the center of black power in Washington, the go-to group for anyone hoping to court the black population and the politicians who represent them. But as Mr. Obama prepares to take office, shifting power to the White House in ways both real and symbolic, caucus members have been wrestling with an unsettling reality: the new president can propel their agenda but he may also diminish their influence.

Some Black Caucus members now rank among the most influential leaders in the House, including Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, who is the majority whip, as well as the chairmen of three major committees. Some lawmakers insist the caucus will be more powerful during the Obama presidency.

The Black Caucus is going through an identity crisis. In recent weeks, leaders of the caucus found themselves defending the need for their group, composed of 41 House Democrats. It also is in the midst of an uneasy generational shift, as the old lions of the civil rights era begin to give way to a younger generation of black politicians who do not want to be pigeonholed by race.

But all that introspection seems quaint given some of the angry rhetoric that followed the appointment of Mr. Burris, a former state attorney general, by Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois. Mr. Blagojevich first offered the job to Representative Danny K. Davis, a prominent member of the caucus who turned it down.

Mr. Davis and several other caucus members, including Representatives Bobby L. Rush of Illinois and Donald M. Payne of New Jersey, and Donna M. C. Christensen, a delegate from the Virgin Islands, have urged Senate Democratic leaders to drop their refusal to seat Mr. Burris.

A number of other caucus leaders, including the incoming caucus chairwoman, Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California, have declined to comment on the situation. On Tuesday, Ms. Lee said the caucus had not met since the appointment of Mr. Burris and, with a wave of her hand, she declined to offer her view.

While Mr. Obama has said Mr. Burris should not be seated, many of his former colleagues on the caucus have so far preferred to remain silent.

Each year, a who’s who of American corporations give hundreds of thousands of dollars to the caucus political action committee and millions more to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, a separate nonprofit group that runs programs in education, health care and economic development. Those contributions have given rise to criticisms that the caucus has become too beholden to powerful interests.

Some black advocates and organizers said that Mr. Obama’s selection of a number of blacks to high-level positions, including Eric H. Holder Jr. as attorney general, Susan E. Rice as ambassador to the United Nations and Valerie Jarrett as senior adviser, makes it more likely that the new administration would supplant the caucus on black issues, or at least provide alternative levers of power.

“Nobody is confident of how to move in the presence of a black president,” said Glen Ford, executive editor of Black Agenda Report, an Internet-based political journal. “It has never happened before. How does one organize when the brother is in the White House?”

As the only black senator, Mr. Obama was a member of the caucus but attended meetings only occasionally. His age and relatively moderate politics put him in the right-leaning camp of the heavily liberal group. Caucus members clearly rejoice in Mr. Obama’s election; many can describe exactly when and why their tears started to flow on election night. But many members initially supported Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York over Mr. Obama. Already, there have been signs of unease.

As his first appointment, Mr. Obama selected Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois to be his chief of staff, opting for a white, Jewish centrist who has clashed at times with the more liberal members of the Black Caucus.

After Ms. Lee was elected as chairwoman of the caucus, she made clear that black lawmakers would not rely on Mr. Obama to champion the causes dear to the caucus.

“Certainly President-elect Obama is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus,” she said, “but I think it’s important to recognize that he’s the president of the country.”

While there are indications that Mr. Obama and the Black Caucus do not want to be viewed synonymously, he occasionally sends signals that he counts black Americans as an important constituency. After agreeing to postelection appearances on “60 Minutes” on CBS and with Barbara Walters on ABC, for instance, he gave his first print interview to Ebony magazine.

In interviews, some prominent black lawmakers said they expected the caucus to remind Mr. Obama of his roots.

“Barack Obama needs to hear from us,” Mr. Clyburn said. “And we need to be a sounding board for him.”

Aides to Mr. Obama say his focus on improving the economy is a prime example of his agenda being in harmony with that of the caucus, given the higher percentage of black Americans who are unemployed. But skeptics say addressing the broader economic problems is not the same as fixing the underlying reasons for higher black unemployment.

Former Representative J. C. Watts of Oklahoma, a black Republican who refused to join the caucus because of its traditional dominance by Democrats, said he expected that tensions between the group and Mr. Obama would be likely to emerge behind closed doors. Such strains, Mr. Watts predicted, will be likely to involve members of the old guard, like Mr. Clyburn, who as majority whip is the No. 3 Democrat in the House.

“I think Jim has a lot of influence with the C.B.C. members, he’ll have a big stick at the leadership table and he’ll carry a pretty decent size stick with the White House,” Mr. Watts said. “I’d love to be a fly on the wall, when they have some of those contentious issues, when you have Jim Clyburn and Rahm Emanuel trying to work through.”

Stress within the organization over its identity may also intensify in the coming weeks. Anh Cao, a newly elected Vietnamese-American Republican from a predominantly black district in Louisiana, has asked to join the caucus, which has repeatedly refused membership to nonblacks.

Some black Democrats predicted that their caucus would have more muscle than ever with Mr. Obama in the White House, and that there was enormous comfort in the prospect of a president who would understand their struggles.

Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, a founding member of the caucus, said, “As an African-American, we spend half of our time trying to explain to people why we need help and the stigma of slavery, and prejudice and discrimination.”

“If you have a president who knows all of this, then you go straight to the quick,” Mr. Rangel added. “We won’t get preferential treatment because we are black, but he will know who we are and what the struggle is and why our legislative agenda is there.”

Members of the caucus say they expect Mr. Obama first and foremost to be president, not the black president.

“I don’t think we are going to be walking up to him and saying, ‘Brother President,’ ” Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia said at a forum at Williams College in Massachusetts.

“Maybe some of us will have the desire to say ‘Brother President,’ ” Mr. Lewis said, “but we will respect him as Mr. President, and we will respect the office.”

5 steps to end genocide in Darfur

Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:00:00 -0800

We are tragically familiar with the numbers: 300,000 dead; 2.5 million displaced. We know the words too well: devils on horseback; refugee; orphan. We have heard the stories, too: villages burned from the air; militiamen who "sing while they rape."

We don't write today to rehearse the facts about Darfur - it is too late for that. In April 2007, we traveled to Darfur with nine other members of Congress to study the crisis firsthand; and through the media, millions of us have watched the genocide unfold. If ignorance ever excused inaction, that time is long gone.

But there is still a chance for vigorous American leadership to bring the conflict to an end. The United States cannot do it alone, but the prospects for peace are strengthened significantly by an incoming administration that has made Darfur a top foreign-policy priority. President-elect Barack Obama called the crisis "a collective stain on our national and human conscience." Vice President-elect Joe Biden has spoken just as bluntly: "Let's stop the bleeding. I think it's a moral imperative."

Unmistakable words like those can set the tone for foreign policy - but the Obama administration will need concrete plans to keep its pledge of strong action. That is why we, as part of a bipartisan group of legislators, have sent the new administration a Darfur White Paper. It consists of five sets of detailed recommendations to help stop the killing.

First, we must reinvigorate the peace process. Darfur needs a comprehensive political solution. The United States can help identify participants and urge them to the negotiating table, but that work is much more likely to succeed with the appointment of a full-time, senior-level envoy.

Second, it is essential to ensure continued humanitarian access. Humanitarian conditions in Darfur continue to erode: There are increasing food shortages and violence in Darfur's Internally Displaced Persons camps, and murder, theft, and vehicle hijacking is on the rise. The Obama administration should insist that peacekeepers establish police patrols at the camps. And it should press Khartoum to reduce the bureaucratic hurdles it has used to keep humanitarian organizations from delivering life-saving assistance.

Third, we must help the peacekeepers do their jobs. In 2007, the U.N. Security Council established a hybrid African Union/United Nations peacekeeping force for Darfur, yet less than half of the 26,000-strong force is in place. President-elect Obama should encourage foreign governments, particularly Arab states, to contribute more troops; help the peacekeeping force secure the two dozen helicopters it needs; urge peacekeepers to earn local trust by collaborating on vital infrastructure projects; and work with the United Nations to get the remaining troops in place.

Fourth, the Obama administration should engage the international community on Darfur. Next to the United States, no country has greater power to stop the genocide than China, whose $8 billion investment in Sudan's oil industry gives it both an economic interest in stability and the leverage to bring it about. The issue of China's responsibility must be raised at the highest diplomatic levels. Obama could make no better investment of political capital than building a coalition against genocide.

Fifth, the civil war between Sudan's North and South must not be allowed to flare again into violence. The United States must help implement the 2005 peace treaty that ended that bloody conflict. American diplomats must press for the complete disarmament of militias in Southern Sudan, anti-corruption programs to bring some semblance of good government, and strong rules allowing humanitarian access.

On the walls of Yad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust memorial, one can still read these heartrending words from the camps: "All of us dying here amidst the icy, arctic indifference of the nations, forgotten by life and the world." And today, in another language, from another side of the world, those same words are still audible.

Next month, it will be a new president's duty to answer them - and we look forward to helping him do so.

Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., serves as the House majority leader. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, and is the chair-elect for the Congressional Black Caucus.

State-of-the-Art Ferry to Serve Alameda

Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:00:00 -0800

The San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) christened the first of its fleet of ferries, Gemini, to enhance the region's emergency response capability and water transit network. Representative Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) and WETA board chair Charlene Haught Johnson performed the christening ceremony.

WETA will place Gemini into the Alameda-Oakland Ferry Service, which the Blue and Gold Fleet operates under a contract with the city of Alameda.

Gemini's exhaust is 85 percent cleaner than EPA emission standards for Tier II (2007) marine engines, and is 10 times cleaner than existing Bay Area ferries. In 2004, state legislation approved WETA's strict air emissions standard and its Regional Ferry Plan following completion of required environmental documents.

Significant emissions reductions are achieved by incorporating selective catalytic reduction and a blend of bio-diesel and ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. Two solar panels installed on the bridge deck will gauge the feasibility of solar power in the Bay's foggy conditions.

The catamaran's sleek hull design reduces fuel consumption and minimizes shoreline response to wake impacts. Other innovative measures include sonar for avoiding whale strikes and floating debris. Additionally, the U.S. Geological Service completed a three-year rafting bird study to enable WETA to operate the vessels with minimal impact on water birds for safety and security, the bridge was raised and eight-foot wide windows were installed to give the operator a 360-degree view.

WETA's 149-passenger vessel will be put into service on the Alameda/Oakland Ferry and Tiburon routes in January 2009 after modifications to the Alameda and Oakland docks. Gemini will also be available as a spare vessel in case of temporary disruption of transit service or damage to the Bay Area highways and bridges. Gemini and her future sister vessel, Pisces, were constructed with $16 million of funding from Bay Bridge tolls (Regional Measure 2) approved by Bay Area voters in 2004.

Gemini has room for 34 bicycles, 20 percent more capacity than similar size ferries on the Bay. A spigot and hose was installed for cyclists to wash sea spray off their bikes.

Gemini's interior design responds to Bay Area commuters' desire for convenience and comfort. Restrooms are ADA compliant. Passengers will have WiFi accessibility.

Engineer Mary Frances Culnane managed the Gemini's design and construction. Two Washington state boat builders, Ice Floe, Inc and Kvichak Marine Industries, built Gemini. Pacific Power in Washington State provided the propulsion system. Alameda's Bay Ship and Yacht Company performed a haul-out for hull cleaning and final survey.

WETA is expecting delivery of its next ferry, Pisces, in March 2009. In late 2009, two other vessels are scheduled for delivery. WETA's four new vessels will launch the South San Francisco-Oakland service in late 2010 and/or the Berkeley/Albany to San Francisco route.

WETA is a regional agency created by the State of California to develop and operate an environmentally responsible regional ferry system that connects communities, reduces congestion and provides an emergency response capability. A board of five members appointed by the governor and legislature governs WETA.

Can Bailouts Give CEOs an Incentive to Build the Middle Class?

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:00:00 -0800

Lawmakers opposing the automaker bailout have been insisting they stand on “free enterprise” principles. Companies in the private sector, these legislators pronounce, should not be begging the public sector for help. And if private enterprises should go under without that help, so be it.

“Companies fail every day and others take their place,” as Senator Richard Shelby, a bailout opponent from Alabama, has bluntly put it.

Politicos like Shelby paint the private and public sectors as two entirely separate spheres, the one bankrolled by taxpayers over here, the other pumped up by marketplace transactions over there. In reality, of course, no clear, clean “bright line” separates our private sector from our public. The two, day after day, waltz through modern economic life as an inseparable couple.

Government, at all levels, is endlessly interfacing with the private sector. Public bodies routinely procure goods and services from private businesses. Lawmakers, just as routinely, vote businesses a steady stream of subsidies and development grants. Indeed, sooner or later, virtually every major American business interacts significantly with the public sector, in some way, shape, or form.

This fall’s bailouts, taken from this perspective, amount to economic business as usual.

But the current bailouts, both those already in place and those in the offing, also amount to something else: a real opportunity, at long last, to leverage the power of our public purse on behalf of average Americans.

We Americans have been trying to do this leveraging for some time now. As a society, we recognized years ago — in the Great Depression — that tax dollars passed to the private sector, if spent unwisely, can make life appreciably worse for average households.

The bidding process for government contracts, for instance, “gives a natural advantage” to those bidders who pay their workers the least, as the Center for American Progress noted last week in a new report, Making Contracting Work for the United States. The less a business pays in wages, the lower a bid that business can offer.

Between 1931 and 1965, Congress would pass a series of laws designed to erase this “natural advantage.” These legislative actions required the businesses that seek our tax dollars to pay their workers the local “prevailing wage.”

Lawmakers back in those mid-20th century years understood, as Solicitor of Labor Charles Donahue observed over four decades ago, that “substandard wages must inevitably lead to substandard performance” — and leave the economy reeling from reduced worker “purchasing power.”

But the “prevailing wage” laws that officials like Donahue so prized have gone poorly enforced for years now. Taxpayer dollars, the new Center for American Progress study released last week documents, are gushing into companies that pay substandard wages and expose workers to unsafe working conditions.

One key reason: No existing federal contracting regulations put any real limits on the rewards that can go to executives at the top of the corporate ladder. Without these limits, the executives of companies that seek federal dollars have a powerful incentive to exploit their workers. The more they exploit workers, the greater their potential payoff.

Earlier this fall, in the opening weeks of the financial meltdown, lawmakers in Congress vowed that no top executives would get rich off the bailout they were preparing. But those lawmakers then passed legislation that did precious little to roll back rewards at the top.

In last week’s automaker bailout debate, many lawmakers seemed genuinely interested in making amends. They passed, in the House, an auto bailout that tightened controls on executive pay — by prohibiting any bailed-out automaker from “paying or accruing any bonus or incentive compensation” to their 25 top-paid employees.

Another provision in the House bailout banned any pay plan that would encourage the manipulation of an automaker’s reported earnings “to enhance the compensation” of any top executive.

Nice provisions, but vague. Lawmakers could be doing more. They could be using the bailout to set a specific executive compensation standard that could help reorient Corporate America’s entire approach to executive pay.

The current approach, as recent Wall Street and Detroit history has demonstrated, rewards executives for making decisions that fatten the short-term corporate bottom line at the expense of an enterprise’s long-term health and viability. Executives who rush into mergers, raid pension funds, downsize workforces, hoodwink consumers, and slash R&D can easily boost their corporate quarterly earnings enough to ensure themselves handsome windfalls.

Executives who actually try to improve their enterprises, on the other hand, may not even be around when the time-consuming work of building a better company from the bottom up — the employee training, the building of workplace trust, the product and consumer research — begins to bear fruit.

How could Congress structure bailouts to encourage executives to nurture long-term enterprise effectiveness? What could Congress do to discourage the destructive short-term executive behaviors that make for defective enterprises? Congress could start linking the rewards that go to executives at the corporate top to the well-being of workers at the corporate bottom.

Rep. Barbara Lee from California has already introduced legislation that offers a useful benchmark standard for doing just that. Her pending Income Equity Act would deny companies tax deductions on any executive pay that runs over 25 times the pay of a company’s lowest-paid worker.

Last year, the typical big-time U.S. CEO made 344 times the pay of average American workers.

Rep. Lee's ratio — a pay range that has roots deep in the research literature on enterprise effectiveness — could become our new bailout standard: No tax dollars to any enterprise where executives take home over 25 times the compensation of their workers.

With a standard this clear in place, top corporate executives would have a powerful incentive to pay their workers more — and an equally powerful incentive to exploit their workers less.

Former Stanford professor Steven Chu named energy secretary

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:00:00 -0800

President-elect Barack Obama has nominated Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Director Steven Chu to serve as Secretary of Energy, lab spokesman Lynn Yarris said today (Monday).

Word leaked last week that Obama would nominate Chu, but a news release from the Berkeley Lab today confirmed the news.

Chu was a Stanford University physics professor from 1987 to 2004, when he accepted the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory post. He chaired Stanford's Department of Physics from 1990 to 1993 and again from 1999 to 2001. Chu won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1997, with two other scientists, for his work in using lasers to cool atoms.

U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, applauded Chu's nomination.

"Steven Chu has been a leader in the development of renewable and carbon-neutral sources of energy in my district at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and he will bring a wealth of ideas and ingenuity to Washington," Lee said in a statement.

Chu, 60, was named director of the Berkeley lab on June 17, 2004, and assumed the post in August 2004.

He earned his doctorate from UC-Berkeley and has taught at both Berkeley and Stanford.

Berkeley Lab officials describe Chu as an outspoken advocate for scientific solutions to the problems of global warming.

Chu was instrumental in bringing to the Bay Area the Joint BioEnergy Institute, a $135 million bio-energy research center funded by the Department of Energy and operated by a multi-institutional partnership under the leadership of Berkeley Lab.

Chu also played a major role in the creation of the Energy Biosciences Institute, which is funded by a $500 million grant from the petroleum company BP.

UC-Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, who has known Chu for three decades since the two men worked at Bell Laboratories in the 1970s, released a statement praising Obama's selection.

"Steve Chu has been relentless about addressing the technical challenges of renewable energy in a deep way," Birgeneau said. "We will now have an energy policy that can mean the U.S. will have a chance of obtaining energy self-sufficiency through new technology."

Environmentally friendly vessel will provide commuter service to Tiburon

Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:00:00 -0800

The Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority and Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, among other area politicians, ushered in Friday the first environmentally friendly ferry in its fleet — enhancing the region's response capability in case of emergencies and improving its water transportation network.

Called Gemini, the 149-passenger vessel boasts green characteristics offering air that is 10 times cleaner than other area ferries, sonar technology to better protect marine life, lessen soil erosion and solar power.

"Gemini's innovative design and propulsion technology shows that the Bay Area is on the forefront of environmental innovation," said Charlene Haught Johnson, board of directors chair for WETA. "We responded to the concern of local communities for cleaner air and bay protection."

Gemini, complete with Wi-Fi and room for 34 bicycles, will be put into service on the Alameda/Oakland Ferry and Tiburon routes in January after area dock modifications are complete.

Lee said the Gemini will enhance Oakland's green initiative and "create more jobs."

"This is truly a transit option for Bay Area passengers," Lee said. "It's a win-win."

In case normal transit routes, highways and bridges are damaged from disasters such as fire or an earthquake, the Gemini will be available as a spare vessel.

"It's not a matter of if, but when a disaster could happen in the Bay Area," said Matthew Bettenhausen, director for the Governor's Office of Homeland Security. "Gemini adds to our capabilities to deal with emergency situations if a disaster were to happen."

Gemini and its sister vessel, Pisces, scheduled to be released in March, were constructed using $16 million — from the Proposed Ferry Expansion — moneys that were secured when Bay Area voters approved the Bay Bridge tolls, or Regional Measure 2, in March 2004.

Gemini was traditionally christened to ensure good fortune to the ship and its crew throughout the life of the vessel.

"For thousands of years we have gone to sea "... these boats will nurture and care for us through perilous seas and so we affectionately call them 'she,'" said Keith Whittemore, who works for a company that designs and constructs vessels. A crowd of about 30 chanted back: "To the sea, to the sailors before us, to Gemini."

Transit advocates hope to christen as many as 10 new passenger ferries and double ferry ridership from four million to 12 million commuters by 2025. New routes anticipated under the Proposed Ferry Expansion include trips from Berkeley to San Francisco, Antioch to San Francisco and Redwood City to San Francisco.

Rep. Lee shares personal tragedy in memoir

Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:00:00 -0800

There is the public Barbara Lee, who is best known for being the lone representative in the U.S. Congress to vote against giving President Bush a blank-check authorization to wage war after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Then, there is the private Barbara Lee who emerges in her newly released memoir, "Renegade for Peace and Justice."

The memoir, which spans Lee's childhood in segregated El Paso, Texas, through her fourth term as California's 9th district representative in the Congress, is a refreshingly frank self- examination by a public figure. "Renegade" shows how Lee's personal experiences and advocacy on behalf of social issues are so deeply interwoven.

Lee says she was at first reluctant to write a memoir, mostly because of the time commitment. But after her infamous war vote, whenever she was traveling around the country people kept asking her how she arrived at the decision.

Many of Lee's constituents and other Americans supported her stance. But conservatives vilified her as a traitor and some disturbed individuals even threatened her life. At one point, Lee had to have bodyguards on Capital Hill.

Lee finally decided to write her memoir at the prodding of her friend Helen Thomas, the legendary presidential reporter and Dean of the White House press corps.

"Helen said, 'You better do your own or someone else will,'" Lee said, during a recent reading at Marcus Books in Oakland. "I looked at what Rush Limbaugh and some of these people were saying about me and I said, 'I'm not going to let these other people say I'm this, that or the other.'"

The result is a deeply intimate portrait of the congresswoman's life. Some of the pull-no-punches revelations were shocking, even to members of Lee's family.

"In order to go the policy front, I had to do the personal," Lee said. "My sister read it and said it was shocking. 'When did this happen?'"

For the first time publicly, Lee talks about her terrifying experience as a battered woman, which later helped make her a strong advocate for legal protections for domestic violence victims.

Lee says her boyfriend beat her whenever she tried to leave him. He gave her LSD, which he'd told her was a tranquilizer. After she had a bad acid trip, he gave her Thorazine, a psychiatric drug used to control mood disorders. Lee says she had so many memory lapses as a result of the drugs that there are whole blocks of experiences that she doesn't remember. She left her two young sons with their grandparents because she didn't want to subject them to the constant violence.

"You would think after the beatings, being drugged and (his) lack of employment, I would have had enough and packed my bags," Lee writes. "But my willingness to stay is an example of the sick dependency that occurs between women and their abusers."

Lee was equally frank about her experience on welfare when she was a young single mother trying to raise two kids and go to college. While she was in the state Assembly and then-Gov. Pete Wilson wanted to cut welfare benefits by 25 percent, saying they would just "have less for a six-pack of beer," Lee took him on.

"I remembered those days sitting at the welfare office at 401 Broadway, trying to get MediCal and food stamps to feed my kids and keep them healthy," Lee writes. "This disdain and disrespect with which I was treated was demoralizing."

It is clearly Lee's personal experiences that have shaped her commitment to advocate for Americans struggling to get a leg up.

Lee was re-elected to her seat in November by 86 percent of the vote and will begin her 11th year in the House of Representatives. Lee was an early supporter of President-elect Barack Obama, and plans to run for leader of the Congressional Black Caucus.

I asked Lee how people's attitudes about her war vote have changed, now that the Iraq war has turned out to be such a disaster.

"It was some of the meanest stuff you'll ever see in your life," Lee said. "But people have changed and now they are sorry."

Barbara Lee helps release Darfur report to Obama

Wed, 10 Dec 2008 00:00:00 -0800

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, joined House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., today in releasing a report to President-elect Barack Obama on the House’ goals and recommendations in working towards peace in Darfur.

“It has been over five years since Congress declared that genocide was taking place in the Darfur region of Sudan,” Lee said in a statement issued later today. “With hundreds of thousands killed, deteriorating conditions and no end in sight, we felt it important to release this white paper outlining our recommendations for the incoming administration on addressing this genocide.”

“The U.S. must be leaders in the peace process in Darfur. President-elect Obama has already stated his commitment to addressing the genocide in Darfur, and we in Congress are prepared to work diligently with his administration towards a swift resolution to this dire situation.”

Hoyer, Lee and nine other House members from both sides of the aisle signed the white paper, which among other recommendations urges Obama to appoint a full-time, senior-level envoy to lead the charge on a new round of peace talks; to conduct an immediate assessment of the deteriorating humanitarian conditions in the region; and to coordinate with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon as soon as possible to give peacekeepers the authority and resources they need to save lives.

Lee’s been very active on Darfur; she pushed successfully for a law letting states to divest from companies doing business with the government of Sudan (she’d introduced it as H.R.180, though it was U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd’s similar S.2271 that was eventually signed into law), and her resolutions calling for action from the League of Arab States and China to use their leverage with Sudan to end the genocide both passed in the House. She has gone to Darfur three times, most recently with Hoyer in April 2007.

Building renamed in honor of Milk

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:00:00 -0800

A building on Treasure Island housing a federal program that trains at-risk youth now bares the name of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to win elective office in a major U.S. city who was assassinated 30 years ago.

The Treasure Island Job Corps Center renamed a campus building the Harvey Milk Memorial Administration Building last week in honor of Milk. It is the first federal building to be dedicated to an openly gay American.

At the November 25 dedication ceremony on the man-made island in the middle of the bay, a bronze bust of the gay rights pioneer similar to the one placed earlier this year inside City Hall was also unveiled.

"Our students are wearing buttons with one of Harvey Milk's famous quotes – 'Give 'em hope,'" said Brian Daher, San Francisco regional director for Job Corps. "It's very fitting because that's what we do at Job Corps – we provide hope through education and training to economically disadvantaged students who may not otherwise have that opportunity."

The job corps center serves 600 students from across the country ages 16 through 24, many of whom are underprivileged and minority youth. Several on hand for last week's unveiling said they had never heard of Milk but welcomed seeing his name added to their campus.

"It's cool. I think it is a really good thing for job corps," said Vice President of Student Government Sajata Poole, 18, from the Bronx in New York City. "His being a supervisor was a major accomplishment."

Milk's openly gay nephew, Stuart, works for the company that helps run the job corps center. He was on hand for the dedication with his mother, Audrey Milk, and called it a fitting tribute to his uncle.

"Youth really are the hope for tomorrow. Harvey saw that and recognized that early on," Stuart Milk told the 75 students on hand to witness the unveiling.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), who helped secure the funding to open the job corps center, attended the ceremony and called Milk "a great patriot."

She said Milk's willingness to stand up for what he believed was right would serve as a "wonderful example" for the job corps' students.

"Harvey Milk was all about opportunity for everybody. Sure, he made it better for the LGBT community, but he made it better for everybody," said Pelosi, who marveled that the bust looked just like Milk. "He was comfortable in his own skin and wanted everyone else to be so as well."

Joining Pelosi was Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Oakland). Recently named chair of the influential Congressional Black Caucus, Lee also co-chairs the newly formed LGBT Equality Caucus in Congress.

"Harvey's life embodied all of the good that the human spirit embodies. He was a person who wanted us to live up to our potential regardless of sexual orientation," said Lee. "Thanks to Harvey Milk we have moved forward so far for human justice."

Sculptor Jonah Hendrickson, whose firm Daub Firmin and Hendrickson Sculpture Group created the bust and donated it to the job corps center, said he hoped it would inspire the young trainees who attend the campus to achieve their dreams.

"I know Harvey wanted so deeply for young people to feel a sense of purpose and hope. I hope the trainees here are inspired by Harvey's actions and words and are encouraged," he said.

New Black Caucus chair signals more progressive agenda

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:00:00 -0800

WASHINGTON–In selecting Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., as its new chair, the Congressional Black Caucus chose one of its most progressive members who, days after Sept. 11, 2001, was the only person in Congress to vote against authorizing the use of force in Iraq.

Hailed as a hero among anti-war activists, she received numerous death threats for her vote against the war, forcing Capitol Hill police to provide special protection for her.

An early supporter of Barack Obama’s candidacy for the presidency–when many of her fellow Black Caucus members endorsed Obama's Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton–Lee remains one of the war’s strongest critics. She has pledged to continue to advocate on behalf of a progressive agenda that includes ending the war in Iraq.

“President-elect Obama has indicated that he wants to bring the troops home and we will work with him on that,” Lee said. “This war should have never been waged and it is good to have a president who has taken that position. We know that it will not happen overnight, but we know that it will get done.”

Lee was chosen last week to lead the 43- member Black Caucus which elects new officers for a two-year election cycle before each new Congress convenes in January.

Lee becomes the fifth woman to chair the CBC. Her immediate predecessor is Carolyn Kilpatrick, D-Mich. Others were former Rep. Cardiss Collins, D-Ill., Maxine Waters, D-Calif., and Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas.

Lee, 62, represents the cities of Oakland, Berkeley and the Castro Valley in northern California. The district has a plurality of whites (35 percent) with Blacks 26 percent, Latinos 18 percent and Asians 15 percent.

The district is considered to have one of the most liberal constituencies in the country, according to the 2008 edition of The Almanac of American Politics. Oakland is predominantly Black while Berkeley is predominantly white, very progressive and well-educated. The Castro Valley is 70 percent white with a more moderate population.

Lee was first elected to Congress in 1998 after winning a special election due to the retirement of Ronald Dellums, who is now mayor of Oakland. She has been easily re-elected ever since.

A proponent of creating a cabinet-level Department of Peace, Lee was one of 1000 American women nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by an organization called 1000 Women for the Nobel Peace Prize 2005. In addition to advocating for an end to the war in Iraq, she has also been a leader in the worldwide movement to stop genocide in Darfur, a region in the Sudan in Africa.

Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal lobbying group, has consistently given Lee a 90 percent rating while the NAACP rates her 100. The American Conservative Union has routinely rated her with a 0.

Lee said her election as chair comes at an exciting moment in American history. “It is very humbling and an honor to serve my colleagues,” she said. “I will work to make sure that the CBC will continue to be the ‘conscience of the Congress.’ With the election of Barack Obama as president, a former member of our caucus, this is a historic moment for us, and we have the chance to get things done.”

She said that even though Obama was a member of the CBC, she expected no special favors from him.

“We never anticipated any special regard or special relationship from President-elect Obama,” Lee told The Associated Press. “We are all members of Congress. We have many caucuses in this Congress. “All of our caucuses have a specific agenda. He has an agenda, and we all have to come together to make sure that there becomes a consensus agenda,” she added.

“I will work to make sure that the CBC will continue to be the ‘conscience of the Congress.’”

Other key issues on which Lee expects to work closely with the White House include advocating more aggressively to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and ending predatory lending.

The foreclosure crisis, she said, “hits women, children and people of color particularly hard,” and she will continue to fight “to keep people in their homes.”

“Foreclosures just don’t hurt the family that is being put out of their home, but it affects the whole community,” she said. “The property value of neighborhoods goes down, the way of life goes down and governments cannot collect taxes. If we can stop these unfair foreclosures and work to keep people in their homes and communities solvent, everyone will benefit.”

Lee expects to have an ally in Congress with her fellow San Francisco Bay colleague House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Also, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., another good friend and Lee ally, was elected last week to chair the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee.

And Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., a CBC member, is the House Majority Whip, which is third in line to the Speaker’s position.

CBC members will also chair key committees such as Judiciary (John Conyers, D-Mich.), Homeland Security (Bennie Thompson, D-Miss.), as well as Ways and Means (Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.), in addition to numerous subcommittees.

The Congressional Black Caucus claims 43 members with a possible reduction by one if Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich does not select an African American to replace Obama in the U.S. Senate. And a CBC member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., has made no secret of his interest in the job.

University of Louisville political science professor Dr. Dewey Clayton said that given that Obama is in the White House, Lee should do very well.

“I think she will be a chair that makes a difference because she speaks her mind, and that is very important,” Clayton said. “Lee is also helped by being in a strong Democratic majority, and she will be able to get things done without a lot of trouble. I remember the days when the Republicans were in the majority. “It was difficult to be chair of the CBC because you were basically a minority inside of a minority. Lee certainly won't have to deal with that.”

Clayton said that Lee should remember that the CBC of its early days is not the same as it is today.

“The CBC is very diverse, for you have liberals, moderates and some conservatives,” he said. “This is a natural consequence of having more members. And that is a good thing because Black America is not monolithic.”

Barbara Lee To Lead Congressional Black Caucus

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:00:00 -0800

Click here to listen to the interview

With a new term of Congress set to begin, the Congressional Black Caucus has also experienced a change of leadership.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who represents California's 9th congressional district in San Francisco's Bay Area, has been elected the group's new leader.

The 42-person caucus is on the rise; it boasts members who will head the House Judiciary, Homeland Security and Ways and Means committees in the next Congress. President-elect Barack Obama was a member before resigning his Senate.

Lee speaks with Farai Chideya about what the Caucus seeks to accomplish in an Obama administration and whether the group is prepared to confront the President-elect on key issues.

Barbara Lee to head Congressional Black Caucus

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:00:00 -0800

Rep. Barbara Lee was named chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus on Wednesday, giving the Oakland Democrat a high-profile platform to push her priorities, from increasing funding for HIV/AIDS to pushing for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

At a news conference on Capitol Hill, the outgoing chairwoman, Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick, D-Mich., handed over the wooden gavel and praised Lee as a "stalwart for human rights, global peace and social justice." Lee had considered challenging Kilpatrick for the job in 2006, but bowed out to avoid a divisive caucus fight.

"This is quite a moment for me," a jubilant Lee told reporters and fellow caucus members. "Now, we have an opportunity to really continue to lead and to really continue to be the conscience of the Congress."

As chairwoman during the 111th Congress that starts in January, Lee will take a lead role in pushing the agenda of the 43-member caucus - known by its acronym, CBC - which has historically been among the more powerful voting blocs in the House, with immense influence over legislation, appropriations and even presidential appointments.

Lee, who is stepping down as co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, is known for her fierce anti-war stands and represents one of the House's most liberal districts, including Oakland, Berkeley, Castro Valley and other parts of the East Bay. She was the only member of Congress to vote against the authorization of the use of force after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which she criticized as a "blank check."

Lee, 62, dodged questions about her agenda, saying she wants to wait until caucus members gather in January to decide the group's priorities. She also downplayed speculation that the caucus will have more clout under President-elect Barack Obama, a CBC member during his tenure in the Senate.

Noting Obama's pledge to be president of "the whole country," she said CBC will be just one of many House caucuses that will seek to influence Obama.

"We'll work together to support his agenda," she said.

CBC members praised Obama at the news conference for signaling that he plans to nominate Eric Holder, a former judge and federal prosecutor, as the nation's first African American attorney general. Holder, a former deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, earned Obama's trust overseeing his search for a vice presidential nominee earlier this year.

Lee is likely to have little trouble getting her calls to Obama returned. She was an early supporter of his presidential bid, even while other senior CBC members backed his primary rival, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Lee told reporters that she believes Obama remains committed to a rapid redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq.

"I know he wants to end it," she said. "He was against it from day one. ... We have to see how he wants to do it."

Barbara Lee to head Congressional Black Caucus

Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:00:00 -0800

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, was announced as chairwoman-elect of the Congressional Black Caucus at a Capitol Hill news conference Wednesday.

She takes the 42-member caucus' reins as its power seems ascendant. Members will lead the House Judiciary, Homeland Security and Ways and Means committees in the 111th Congress; another, Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., will be the majority whip; and all of them will work in tandem with the nation's first black president, Barack Obama, of whom Lee was an early and ardent supporter.

"We have many, many challenges, but those challenges do present historic opportunities," she said Wednesday. "When you look at the economy and the fact that millions of Americans' lives are in shambles due to the foreclosure crisis, that's the first priority for all of us."

Obama's approach to tempering the economic crisis reflects strategies the CBC has been pursuing for years, Lee said, and she said she's confident her caucus and other House Democrats will "be able to work together to reach consensus on a common agenda with the White House."

Lee said she also relishes working in her new role with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, even as Pelosi keeps striving to keep a somewhat fractious House Democratic Caucus in line.

"Of course, a Democratic Caucus is very democratic, we all have our points of view," Lee said. "But the Congressional Black Caucus has been called 'the conscience of the Congress,' and we're going to continue to be that and to help our Speaker."

Lee's bid to head the caucus was unopposed; only the late Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, had expressed interest in the job before she died in August. Lee has helped lead the CBC for six years, first as whip and then as first vice chair, and praised outgoing Chairwoman Carolyn Kilpatrick, D-Mich., Wednesday for doing "a phenomenal job in keeping our caucus together and for the many legislative victories achieved under her leadership." Lee had wanted the chair in 2006 but bowed out to avoid a divisive race against Kilpatrick.

Lee also Wednesday congratulated the caucus' other newly elected officers. Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., will be first vice chairman; Rep. Donna Christensen, D-Virgin Islands, will be second vice chairwoman; Rep. G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., will be secretary; and Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., will be the caucus' whip.

The Congressional Black Caucus was formed after the 1970 election with 13 members; Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums was among the founding members and led the caucus for the 101st Congress. Lee was a longtime Dellums aide, working her way up through his office's ranks until she was his chief of staff, before serving in the California Legislature and moving on to Congress herself.

Lee said it's "very humbling, an honor" to follow in Dellums' footsteps to the caucus' chair. Dellums "opened the door of opportunity" to her and other women of color when few served as Capitol Hill senior staffers, she said: "He really gave me a chance to break some glass ceilings."

She also paid tribute to Shirley Chisholm, who in 1968 was the first African-American woman elected to Congress and in 1972 was the first major-party African-American presidential candidate. "This is really about those who helped me and paved the way," Lee said.

Lee: No Iraq security deal without Congress' OK

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:00:00 -0800

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, isn’t happy with the U.S.-Iraq security agreement approved yesterday by the Iraqi Cabinet and now awaiting the Iraqi Parliament’s approval.

“Although a final version of the agreement reached by the Administration and the Government of Iraq has yet to be publicly announced and made available, reports of the content along with leaked copies of the agreement lead to the conclusion that this agreement will be unacceptable to the American people in its current form and should be rejected,” she said in a statement issued moments ago.

“For starters, the Bush agreement commits the United States to a timetable that could leave U.S. troops in Iraq until Dec. 31, 2011,” she said. “Aside from the fact that the America people are plainly fed up with this unnecessary war and occupation in Iraq and want to see it ended, occupying Iraq for three more years under the Bush plan would cost American taxpayers $360 billion based on current spending levels. That money obviously could be better spent digging our economy out of the ditch the policies of the Bush Administration has put it in.”

The proposal also undermines President-elect Barack Obama’s constitutional powers because subjecting U.S. military operations to the Iraqi government’s approval by giving operational control to “joint mobile operations command centers” controlled by a joint American-Iraqi committee, Lee said. “Throughout history, American troops have been placed under foreign control in peacekeeping operations only where authorized under treaties ratified by the Senate. No American president has ever before claimed the unilateral power to cede command of American troops to a foreign power.”

Lee noted her own H.R. 6846, the Iraq Security Agreement Act of 2008, would prohibit unilateral deployment of U.S. troops or spending taxpayer dollars to guarantee Iraq’s security without Congress’ prior approval. Vice President-elect Joe Biden introduced a similar Senate bill; Lee said Congress should act on them when it convenes this week.

Early signs are Obama has to guard his left

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 00:00:00 -0800

As he prepares to enter the ring of White House politics, President-elect Barack Obama might need to perfect that left jab just as much as his right hook.

Not only can the Democratic president-to-be expect the predictable shots from the conservative right, but eventually a pounding from the left if he doesn't deliver "change you can believe in" on issues that concern liberal voters - health care reform, an end to the war in Iraq, environmental protections and taking care of the economy and the housing crisis.

"We gave him a 24-hour honeymoon - and that was generous," joked Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the anti-war group CodePink, Thursday about the chances of Obama's election silencing protests for the foreseeable future. "We believe in celebrating and then moving on."

Her grassroots organization has wasted no time doing just that. On Thursday, CodePink members hit five consulates in San Francisco - those representing Bolivia, Venezuela, Syria, Cuba and Iran - delivering flowers, apple pies and cards with a message as much for the president-elect as for the leaders of those nations: "Yes We Can ... Live in Peace."

"We told them we are embracing Obama's message, and part of that is to push him," said Benjamin. "He's getting a lot of backlash on issues like direct talks with preconditions. But that is what the American people voted for - and we will hold him to that."

With just over two months until the new administration takes office and the transition in full force, Benjamin's words underscore the challenges facing a president whose historic campaign was bolstered by an unusual coalition that involved the activism, energy and money of unapologetic progressives like Benjamin as well as moderates and independents who are far more conservative.

Mainstream tack

And many political observers say that means Obama must tack toward the political mainstream to avoid miscalculations made by President Bill Clinton, who veered left and fired up the 1994 Republican backlash and its "Contract with America" - a GOP rebirth scenario Democrats don't want to see reprised.

Obama supporter Rep. Barbara Lee of Oakland, an icon to liberals because of her long-standing activism on issues such as AIDS/HIV and her opposition to the Iraq war, said that as Democrats celebrate the new president, they are also very aware of issues to be addressed.

"We know that the president-elect - and rightfully so - is going to work to unite the country, and we will have to see how he does that," said Lee. "I'm not saying it's going to be easy. If we really want change, you have got to do it differently, you have to accept the process of change and accept that his processes will be more inclusive."

But, she adds, "we're certainly not going to lose sight of our goals and our values. ... If you look at the progressive promise - 95 percent of what we advocated for, energy independence, infrastructure, health care reform - it's mainstream," she said.

'Symbolic victory'

At the Edmund G. "Pat" Brown Institute of Public Affairs' California Policy Issues Conference this week, Melina Abdullah, a professor of Pan-African studies at Cal State University Los Angeles, said that although she and millions of other Democrats sang "It's a New Day" when Obama was elected, "we need to be very clear ... this is a symbolic victory."

African Americans, particularly, who supported Obama "need to think about ... the fact that we are overrepresented in the prison population, that infant mortality in our community looks a lot like developing nations," and that jobs and economic opportunities are still lacking, she said.

"The only way that change can be substantive is if we push him," she said of Obama. "Push him on the issues that are important to us, ... so institutional racism, institutional oppression can really be eroded in eight years," she told a crowd of young activists and students at the conference, which was held in Los Angeles.

SEIU's agenda

Andy Stern, who heads the Service Employees International Union - the nation's largest union, with 2 million members - says that labor fully expects to push ahead on critical interests, such as health care reform.

Especially since SEIU kept a singular focus on the health care issue by spending millions of dollars on advertising that aided the Democrats' cause - even as tens of thousands of its members provided critical ground troops for his election, he noted.

"Most presidential elections, we are electing a transactional president, someone who comes in and has a set of priorities and bargains with the Congress and tries to find solutions," Stern said. "Every once in a while, we have a transformational president, who actually changes the rules. And that is the moment where we're at.

"This is not about transactional discussions with health care. This is about transforming the economy, to change the way we provide health care, to change the opportunities for people to get an education," he said.

"We say we will have a 21st century economy that can compete globally," Stern said. "We need a fundamental reworking of our economic theory - and it can't just be a little stimulus ... or to provide health care for children only. It is a moment where we have to transform the way we think."

Already, there have been complaints from the left regarding Obama's choice of Rep. Rahm Emanuel as his White House chief of staff. Some liberals have complained that Emanuel was too supportive of the Iraq war, too tied to Wall Street and too connected to entrenched interests to represent change - or the views of the left - in the White House, where he worked in the Clinton administration.

Dan Schnur, a former GOP strategist who now directs the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Urban Politics at the University of Southern California, said they may have reason to be concerned.

Perils of pull to left

"Rahm Emanuel ... understands the perils of a newly elected president who intends to govern from a centrist force and how that president can be pulled leftward," he told the Brown Institute conference Wednesday.

"Emanuel is one of the five smartest people in American politics. He has that experience, he's intelligent, he's tough as nails and he's one of the few people I know in Washington who would be willing to go down to Capitol Hill" and deliver the message to the left: "If you really want to help this president ... then give him some space to enact his agenda," Schnur said.

Emanuel's lore includes an incident in which he reportedly sent a dead fish wrapped in newspaper to an adversary, said Schnur.

If Obama is to succeed, he said, "my hope ... is that there is a steady stream of such deliveries from one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to another to help President Obama accomplish his agenda."

Veterans Honored in the Bay Area

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:00:00 -0800

HAYWARD, Calif. (KCBS) -- Bay Area veterans were honored in the Bay Area Tuesday.

The region's annual Veterans Day parade took place in Hayward, featuring Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, and three members of the Tuskegee Airmen, who were the country's first black military airmen.

The parade pays homage to those who have served their country.

Meanwhile, St. Anthony Foundation in San Francisco handed out gift bags to homeless veterans. They included socks, chocolate, energy bars, rain ponchos and tea, said Frances Aviani, foundation spokeswoman.

The event was designed to let veterans know of servics and government programs for which they may be eligible.

It's estimated that there are more than 2,000 homeless veterans in San Francisco, said Aviani.

On the peninsula, the non-profit organization Avenue of Flags held a Veterans Day observance and discussion of veteran entitlements at the Golden Gate National Cemetery's Chapel in San Bruno.

Speakers discussed how to access veteran entitlements and navigate through Veterans Affairs.

And in Lafayette Tuesday evening, anti-war protests were scheduled to hold a peace vigil on a Lafayette hillside where more than 4,000 crosses stand to memorialize soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bay Area congressional Democrats eagerly await Obama's arrival in the White House

Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:00:00 -0800

A Barack Obama presidency holds great promise for California's Democratic congressional delegation.

It virtually guarantees greater access to the White House for high-profile Californians such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and veteran Rep. George Miller of Martinez, the powerful chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor and one the speaker's top advisers.

"California will absolutely have a greater voice in the Obama White House through its congressional delegation," said Bruce Cain, director of the UC Berkeley Washington Center. "Having a Speaker from California who relies very heavily on her caucus and people like Miller, who hold very important committee chairmanships, will increase the state's influence."

In contrast, Miller describes his eight-year relationship with Republican President George W. Bush's administration as one of closed doors, unanswered calls and veto threats.

"We will be partners with the Obama administration," Miller said. "I've already spent a long time talking to his campaign advisers and, now, that will all accelerate. ... This is a great opportunity."

Miller's agenda includes reforms to his original education legislation, No Child Left Behind.

He also wants to do more to make college affordable, pass middle-class tax cuts, guarantee equal pay for women and invest federal dollars in transportation and infrastructure projects that will create jobs and stimulate the economy.

Unemployment continues to rise and more people lack not only jobs but health insurance, he said.

"When you talk to a cross section of economists, they tell us that we have no choice but to deal with these issues because everything will get worse for families if we don't," Miller said.

Not everyone views the Democrats' power trifecta — control of the presidency, House of Representatives and the Senate — with as much enthusiasm.

Eager Democrats could overwhelm Obama's presidency, warned California Republican Party Vice Chairman Tom Del Beccaro of Lafayette.

While Obama is unpacking his socks and figuring out how to run the White House, Democratic leaders "already know what they want and they are ready to go," Del Beccaro said.

"I think Obama will have a hard time constraining the agendas of the Nancy Pelosis and the George Millers, who will overreach into areas well beyond what the American public believed they would get when they voted for Obama," he added.

On the other hand, a dramatic leftward shift could help Republicans regain lost ground in the next congressional election, in 2010, when "the Democrats won't be able to blame the Republicans for the country's problems," Del Beccaro said.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, who's likely to be the next leader of the Congressional Black Caucus, said it's "a whole new ballgame" due not only to Obama's victory but also to nine new progressives elected to the House.

"Of course, one of the first priorities is an economic stimulus initiative," she said. "We've got to create jobs through infrastructure "... the green industry, the biotech industry."

She also noted Obama's support for a mortgage foreclosure moratorium, as proposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus — which she and Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Santa Rosa, have led for the past two years.

And beyond the economic issues, it's time to tackle energy independence, ending the occupation of Iraq and achieving affordable, accessible health care for all, Lee said.

"It's going to be hard; it's going to be a challenge — the last eight years under this administration have been pretty rough," Lee said. "But at least we have the political will in the White House now to get the job done."

House Strategics Forces Subcommittee Chairwoman and Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo, believes an Obama administration will make better use of the federal highway trust fund when Congress reauthorizes the national transportation spending plan next year.

"When we reauthorized the bill under Bush, we wanted to spend more out of the trust fund but his administration was using it to mask the size of the deficit to fund his tax cuts," Tauscher said. "Every $1 billion spent out of the trust fund creates 18,000 jobs in California."

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, said the economy will be "front and center," and everyone in the Bay Area delegation wants "to get us out of Iraq as soon as we can and cut down what we spend on those military adventures."

But as chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, Stark's personal priority will be "to shore up Medicare," he said. "We have to deal with paying the physicians more fairly and fixing the prescription-drug benefit."

He hopes this will help lay the groundwork for a universal health care plan that Congress can build according to guidelines set out by the Obama administration.

"I don't think it'll come rapidly, but I think we can spend the next two years trying to build a program we can afford and that will provide universal care."

In doing so, Stark said, it'll be nice to be working with "people who believe we should support this government program instead of trying to privatize it."

A Victory For Progressive Change

Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:00:00 -0800

All our hard work paid off in a big way last night, as a new era of progressive change was swept into office! Congratulations to President-elect Barack Obama; I cannot tell you how excited I am about his upcoming administration and what it will mean for the future of our country.

Given the current state of our economy and foreign policy, it will be vital for the Obama administration to get off to a fast start so we can immediately begin repairing the damages of the outgoing administration. That is why in addition to this needed change at the top of the ticket, the other remarkable development last night was the widening of the Democratic majorities in Congress.

These expanded majorities will be critical for helping pass Barack Obama's agenda into law so we can begin to restore the United States' standing in the world, reorient our foreign policy stance away from aggression and toward robust diplomacy and peace, and rejuvenate our economy to ensure that all Americans benefit from a rising tide, not just the executives at the top.

I also want to note the record voter participation we saw in last night's election, particularly from young people and minority communities who have been politically marginalized in the past. This increased involvement will provide added legitimacy to President-elect Obama's standing as a leader for all America -- at a time when we need it more than ever.

Thank you again to all of you who invested your time, money, and effort to help bring about last night's victory. It wouldn't have happened without you, and I look forward to working with the entire progressive community in the months to come as we turn our focus away from elections and toward governing so we can quickly get our nation back on track!

East Bay reacts to election of first African American president

Tue, 04 Nov 2008 00:00:00 -0800

OAKLAND — Cheering and honking car horns filled the air Tuesday night in downtown Oakland as U.S. Sen. Barack Obama clinched the race for the White House, becoming the nation's first African-American president-elect.

A crowd of all ages and all races packed into the Oakland Marriott's convention center, cheering as each state was called for the Democratic nominee, and losing itself in ecstatic celebration as the race was finally called.

"As a young person, I could not have ever conceived of this moment," said Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, a veteran of more than two and a half decades in Congress. "I think this is a momentous victory... for the human family."

At a block party on Broadway and 2nd Street, about 300 people
celebrated the historic win with live music, barbeque and spirited reaction.

"Obviously it's an unprecedented junction in the politics of this century," said Greg Vaughn, a 54-year-old Oakland man who grew up in Georgia. "It's been an inspiration for a whole generation. Not since the Civil Rights movement have you seen so many people of all ages in the political process — that's reflected in the high energy here.

"I think it will have some impact, but this country has a way to go," he said of the racial divide in America, "as evidenced by the reaction to an African American candidate... I'm talking about people on the grass roots level — a lot of people in exit polls bases their concerns on race, and that's problematic."

Ken Elamin, who gave age as "over 30," from San Francisco's Fillmore District, said it hasn't really sunk in yet.

"You've seen it transpire over the past two years," he said. On the issue of race, he said, "You did see that as a definite obstacle. Black people over time have had to overcome many obstacles. (Race) is always going to be an issue... (But I) never thought I'd see a black president."

Some decided to keep a cool head about the election.

"I don't expect change to happen immediately, it will probably happen in the next two to three years," David Robinson said. "But once the loopholes are closed, I know things will start to go right."

Frank Davis, a 35-year-old child psychiatrist from Oakland said he's tried to stay calm the last few weeks.

"With all the ups and downs, it's been like a rollercoaster ride, so I tried to stay kind of out of it. But in a day or two when it sinks in, I'll give over to it finally.

"The fundamental change we're going to see is hope... This isn't a one-night party. It's a long term deal. It's the next four years, and there's a lot of work to do," Davis said.

One woman bought 20 two-dollar bills and went around the party handing them
out, pointing out a black man "in a position of power, because he's seated" with the group signing the Declaration Of Independence on the back of the bill. Her name was Darnisha Wright, 37, of the San Francisco Martin Luther King Civic Committee.

"That's no mistake they printed one man with dark skin like that. That's John Hanson, and I'm spreading the word and proud to share these bills with people. I just want everybody to own one," she said.

"People don't realize the positive reaction that Obama receives all around the world, especially in Europe," Simone Harvey said. Harvey, who was born and raised in Switzerland, says that she feels like a citizen for the first time in this election. "He's going to change the way that the rest of the world looks at the United States."

The overall energy at the party was thrilled, with many people laughing and shouting and giving big hugs to everyone they saw.

"I'm overjoyed, I'm overwhelmed and ecstatic." Steve Hunt said. "I know there is a lot to be done, so the win is bittersweet, but the sweet definitely outweighs the bitter... Tomorrow I'm going to go into work, walk in the door like Kramer and do a cartwheel."

At an election night party at Geoffrey's Inner Circle in downtown Oakland, many called Obama's election a dream they'd thought unattainable.

"It just gives me a great deal of pride," said Donnell Dantzler, 38, of Hayward. "As an African-American you always question things that have never been done before."

People across the East Bay called it a tremendous step in American race relations that so many voters had been able to look beyond the color of a candidate's skin.

"If he was an African American and didn't have the integrity and qualifications that Obama has, I wouldn't vote for him," Lashawnta Rufus, 30, of Oakland, at a party at Everett & Jones restaurant near Jack London Square. "It's not about the color — if you are not a qualified candidate, you're not going to win."

Rufus spoke just before a deafening roar erupted at the restaurant as CNN reported Obama's win in Ohio.

"This is very emotional," is all Susie Grantham, 78, could muster as she wiped way tears. "I was hoping..." she added, as Sam Cooke's "A Change Is Gonna Come," played over loudspeakers. "This is unbelievable, amazing," Grantham's daughter Margerie Grantham added. "In our lifetime, how amazing is that?" the daughter added. "And we all made history," as the song changed to Stevie Wonder's "Signed, Sealed, Delivered, I'm Yours."

Obama campaign volunteers had worked right up until the last minute in the East Bay; the Northern California headquarters on Adeline Street in Berkeley was jammed with people on cell phones calling voters in Colorado and Iowa. Adam Stern, 49, of Berkeley, said it was his daughter who'd brought him there.

"She's 13, and she's been here half a dozen times in the last two weeks," he said. "I'm very motivated to keep working for Obama; my daughter is an inspiration to me. She actually recruited two of her best friends to join her on several of her visits here."

Sasha Stern paused between calls, phone still cocked by her ear, to disclose that she has placed about 350 to 400 calls by her estimation. "I've called New Mexico, Florida, Missouri, Colorado and Iowa," she says, before dialing the next Iowan.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, who was among Obama's early endorsers and later became his campaign's Western Regional Co-Chair, basked in the moment Tuesday night after months of trying to get out the vote.

"When they told us it was a dream... what did we say? SI SE PUEDE!" Lee told an exultant crowd at the Marriott just before U.S. Sen. John McCain gave his concession speech. "It's a night that has transformed the political landscape of our country. This has been a campaign of unity."

Contra Costa County Supervisor Federal Glover, waiting anxiously Tuesday night for results in the District 5 runoff, got emotional upon hearing Obama won the presidency.

"Oh my God, this is probably one of the most exciting moments in my life to see this step in our history take place," said the three-term African American supervisor. "It's amazing and just shows how far we've come as a country. I'm numb. I'm at a loss for words."

Glover said during his campaign he'd met a 96-year-old woman who used to eat at colored-only tables in restaurants.

"She just wanted to hold out and see this reality," he said. "For all people who've been through those struggles, it's something wonderful to see it become a reality."

Oakland training people for green-tech jobs

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Oakland officials kicked off a new training program Monday to turn underemployed workers into qualified candidates for jobs in the budding green-technology field.

A dozen construction apprentices who are part of the Oakland Green Jobs Corps attended a ceremony before they demonstrated solar panel installation at a West Oakland warehouse that has been their classroom for the past four months.

U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, and Mayor Ron Dellums were among the dignitaries to commend the green-jobs trainees and commit to making the training program a national model.

The job corps is a $750,000 collaboration between Laney College, the Cypress Mandela Training Center and Growth Sector Inc., a workforce development consultant in San Francisco.

The city of Oakland provided $250,000 for the program. Private companies and trade unions have also supported the effort, which will lead to 40 paid trainees securing jobs in green construction, energy efficiency and solar panel installation.

Leaders of the effort billed it as "green pathways out of poverty" because many of the participants come from poor backgrounds or were formerly in prison.

"This is an extraordinary effort ... that is elegant in its simplicity and embrace: You can fight pollution and poverty simultaneously," Dellums said, speaking to the trainees. "You are the trailblazers."

Lee vowed to get a bill to expand the Green Jobs Corps nationwide through Congress and onto the next president's desk. She said the bill would help cities such as Oakland, which face high unemployment, staggering school dropout rates and serious crime problems.

"We want the federal government to buy into what is happening in Oakland," Lee said, adding that her bill calls for establishing green grants, a green institute and alternative green academies to 10 cities.

Olivia Caldwell, a 27-year-old single mother from Oakland, said the Green Jobs Corps has given her a chance at a fresh start. Briefly imprisoned for petty theft, Caldwell said the program - where trainees learned the basics of construction, financial management and received help toward earning their diplomas - gave her a sense of purpose.

She hopes she can become a role model for her family and community.

"It's not for me, but for my daughter that I do this," said Caldwell who is looking forward to a job that pays $20 an hour after finishing training in four months. "I don't want to leave the world in disarray."

So far, five Bay Area companies have agreed to hire graduates from the program, officials said.

Officials celebrate going green in Oakland

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

OAKLAND — Mayor Ron Dellums and Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, were on hand in West Oakland on Monday to unveil the Oakland Green Jobs Corps, a new job-creation program officials are hoping to grow in Oakland and, potentially, across the United States.

The Green Jobs Corps aims to lift people out of poverty by giving them the training they need to jump into green-industry jobs. Dellums and others called the program a win-win in its ability to fight economic deprivation and global warming at the same time.

"This is a very elegant idea — elegant in its simplicity," Dellums said. "The simple idea is: fight pollution and fight poverty simultaneously. "... If you tie the unfinished business of poverty to the new challenges of global warming, you are not training and employing people for obsolescence. You are training them for the future."

The program — for now — is modest in its reach. It relies on $250,000 from the city to train 40 young adults for jobs with solar firms and green-construction contractors.

But officials said they hope to build on what has already been accomplished.

Dellums said he hopes Congress will include a green-industry component in an economic stimulus package federal lawmakers could put together after the Nov. 4 elections.

Lee, meantime, spoke on a bill she introduced Aug. 1 to boost green-job training and environmentally friendly development, and to establish a Metro Area Green Institute to benefit green initiatives in urban settings.

Lee said that even with everything going on in the financial world and in Washington, D.C., she's optimistic Congress will invest in a burgeoning economic sector.

"We want the federal government to buy in to what is taking place here in Oakland, Calif.," she said. "This is critical, because then, once the federal government buys in, I believe our nation can see that it can be done. It can be done. We must go green."

Lee pledged to work hard to get the legislation through the House and eventually signed into law.

Dellums said he was hopeful that U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., would sponsor similar legislation on the Senate side.

An aide to Boxer said the senator has sponsored a number of green initiatives and supports Lee's bill in concept, but has not introduced companion legislation at this point.

The Green Jobs Corps grew from a model developed by Raquel Pinderhughes of San Francisco State. It was subsequently championed by the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and the Oakland Apollo Alliance.

Dellums' office requested funding for the program, which was approved by a council committee in the summer. The $250,000 grant was given to a team made up of representatives from Laney College, the Cypress Mandela Training Center in West Oakland and a workforce-development organization, Growth Sector.

The program includes training in green construction techniques, solar installation and energy efficiency and a number of Bay Area businesses have signed on to help with the training and potentially hire people when they complete the program.

Elected leaders who attended Monday's event — Dellums; Lee; Assemblymembers Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, and Sandré Swanson, D-Alameda; Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson; and City Councilmembers Nancy Nadel (Downtown-West Oakland) and Jane Brunner (North Oakland) — praised the young men and women going through the program.

One participant, Olivia Caldwell, 27, of East Oakland, said she is learning a lot about construction, but that, to her, the program is about more than steady work. It's also about future generations.

"This is not just for me, but it's for my daughter," Caldwell said. "I don't want to leave the world in disarray. And by me being a future builder and learning how to build green, I'm giving back to my community and giving back to my world."

Bankruptcy reform provision could return next year

Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:00:00 -0700

If consumer groups and some legislators had their way, the $700 billion financial bailout bill would have included a provision to let federal bankruptcy judges lower payments on subprime mortgages to help homeowners who had fallen behind on their payments avoid foreclosure.

Still, it's possible that bankruptcy reform provision could get taken up by Congress next year, observers say. And while East Bay Democrats have indicated they would support the reform, any attempt to do so is likely to face strong opposition from Republicans and the powerful mortgage, home building and banking industries.

Supporters contend that letting bankruptcy judges lower interest rates and principal due on a homeowner's primary mortgage would help delinquent borrowers make payments and keep their homes, help stop the downward spiral of housing prices that hurts all homeowners and protect lenders from financial losses associated with foreclosure.

"Having a loan modified in lieu of foreclosure is a far preferred outcome for borrowers, for lenders, for neighbors and for taxpayers as well," said Paul Leonard, California director of the Center for Responsible Lending. The Center estimates if bankruptcy judges could modify existing loans, up to 600,000 homeowners nationwide, including up to 120,000 in California, would avoid foreclosure.

Opponents say it would force home lenders to charge higher interest rates and require larger down payments from future borrowers to make up for the uncertainty of having bankruptcy judges lower existing loan amounts to reflect current market values.

The bankruptcy reform provision, H.R. 3609, was supported by local representatives Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, George Miller, D-Martinez and Pete Stark, D-Fremont. All say they would support the bankruptcy reform legislation if it was reintroduced next year before a newly elected Congress.

"The Congresswoman is a strong supporter of bankruptcy reform and would certainly support any legislation along those lines," said Ricci Graham, Lee's deputy district director.

"If we don't do something about bankruptcy, I am not sure we can cure the underlying housing (problem)," Miller said.

Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio helped develop bi-partisan compromise language for H.R. 3609, which was narrowly approved last December by the House Judiciary Committee.

"We are going to keep fighting for it," he said. "I think we have a very good chance in the next Congress. I think it has a very good chance for passage in either an Obama or McCain administration."

Current bankruptcy law allows judges to modify mortgages on second homes but not on primary homes when a borrower files for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 13, which essentially sets up a court-approved plan for paying off bills to creditors.

The reform bill called for changing the law to let bankruptcy judges modify loans on a primary home. Modifications could only be considered for existing subprime and other non-traditional mortgages that started out with low rates before payments later increased. The loans had to taken out between Jan 1, 2000 and the date Congress passed the legislation.

Allowing bankruptcy judges to modify existing mortgages would force lenders to charge more for new loans, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.

"MBA will continue to oppose bankruptcy cramdown proposals if they are reconsidered in the future. Such a change to bankruptcy laws will increase mortgage rates for all borrowers going forward by at least a point and a half," said MBA spokesman John Mechem.

Supporters of bankruptcy reform dismiss that argument, pointing to the Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986, which allowed bankruptcy judges to modify family farm loans when agriculture was facing an economic crisis.

"Subsequent to those changes there was no noticeable increase in (borrowing) costs for financing family farms," said Leonard.

Comparing family farm mortgages to the subprime loans of the past few years doesn't make sense, said Dustin Hobbs, spokesman for the California Mortgage Bankers Association.

"It sounds like it was a much smaller number of loans. And it was not something that was in the midst of a world wide financial crisis," he said.

Barbara Lee: We're not getting enough HUD help

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0700

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has released a formula that determines funding levels for communities decimated by the foreclosure crisis, with an estimated $10.3 million directed to Alameda County and $8.2 million of that reserved for Oakland.

And Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, isn’t happy.

“Though I am pleased we were able to secure this much needed funding for our communities being devastated by the foreclosure crisis, I remain concerned about the overall California allocation,” she said in a release issued this aftenroon. “Several of my colleagues and I have written a letter to HUD Secretary Steve Preston calling for a review of the formula and asking that it be adjusted to recognize the devastating impact of the foreclosure crisis in the state of California.”

Under H.R. 3221, the Foreclosure Prevention Act signed into law July 30, HUD will disperse $3.92 billion in CDBG funding nationwide with $145 million in funding going to California; the money is to be used to buy and rehabilitate foreclosed properties that have been vacant for more than 90 days, as a means of restoring home values and reducing blight and crime in hard-hit neighborhoods.

Yet, Lee notes, California is slated to receive $12 million less of this CDBG funding than Florida.

Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, Assemblymember Sandré Swanson and Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson are on board with Lee’s call for a re-examination of the funding formula. (It’s not surprising to see all of them on the same page, as Lee, Swanson and Carson all worked for Dellums when he held the 9th Congressional District seat Lee now occupies.)

“With regards to the issue of foreclosures, anyone familiar with this crisis knows that the city of Oakland and the county of Alameda have been hit extremely hard,” Dellums said in Lee’s release. “Many of Oakland’s neighborhoods have been devastated by this crisis, and I join my colleagues in expressing our disappointment in what appears to be a fundamentally flawed and unfair formula.”

Said Carson: “California has the second highest foreclosure rate in the country, second only to Nevada. The HUD allocation of $2 million does not adequately address the needs of working families in our communities who are struggling to hold onto their property.”

And Swanson agreed time is of the essence “in dealing with long-vacant foreclosed properties. Increasing blight attracts crime, bringing down property values, and straining local police services that are often stretched too thin already. Given the incredibly high rate of foreclosures in the State, it is imperative that HUD reexamines its funding formula to ensure that California receives the funds it needs to properly address this crisis.”

Where will change come from?

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Yesterday, Congress and the administration were busy hammering out details on the federal bailout of the financial industry. Industry lobbyists were also on hand, no doubt, reminding lawmakers of the $2 billion dollars in campaign contributions they've given to their campaigns over the years.

Two miles up the road, though, at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's Annual Legislative Conference (one of the largest political gatherings of African-Americans in the country), people were coming up with a different solution to the crisis. Lawmakers and activists gathered in Washington yesterday to address the need for Fair Elections, or full public financing of elections. Instead of bailing out Wall Street, these leaders want to bail out the political system by making elections about voters and volunteers instead of dollars and big campaign donors.

My organization, along with the National Black Caucus of States Institute, the Fair Elections Now Coalition, and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) hosted a "brain trust" panel session at the conference to address the need for Fair Elections.

Moderated by William McNary, president of USAction, the event featured a wide range of political and civil rights leaders from California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass to Rev. Lennox Yearwood, president and CEO of the Hip Hop Caucus.

A packed house of over 100 people listened to elected officials and leading civil rights advocates yesterday discuss how public financing of elections levels the political playing field and opens up the political process to those without political connections or bottomless bank accounts.

"We keep ceding too many public decisions to private interests," said McNary. "Fair Elections strikes at the core of our democracy."

McNary then introduced Judge Wanda Bryant from the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Judge Bryant is a past participant in the state's judicial public financing program. She was able to compare the experience of running under both the private and publicly financed systems and she preferred the latter.

"Public financing allows us to raise small amounts of money from large groups of people," she said. "It allowed us to gain a lot of grassroots support."

Then, the audience got a visit from Rep. Lee, just off the Hill from bailout negotiations, who emphasized the barrier money places in the way of countless community leaders that want to run for office. "It's hard to run when it costs millions of dollars," she said.

There are millions of young people out there who would make great politicians, she said, "people who could change the world." Unfortunately, they don't have the money to make it happen.

Rep. Lee was followed by Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.), elected to office in Maryland running on a ticket of support for public financing and other reforms. She said that those elected under Fair Elections, "come into office in a different way." They protect the public interest, not special interests.

"Our public policy is being polluted by the money that's in the system," she continued.

Gary Winfield, a young politician from my home state of Connecticut, then discussed his experience as a first time candidate using the state's new Fair Elections system. Without Clean Elections, I wouldn't be here," he said.

Moving from first time candidate to legislative leadership, Speaker of the California Assembly Karen Bass spoke about the pressure put on her to raise millions of dollars to keep her caucus afloat.

The session then moved to activists organizing in communities across the country. Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers and current president of the Dolores Huerta Foundation, spoke. "Congress is not running the show," she said. "How can we be a democracy if we have no control?"

Fair Elections would engage more people in the political process than today's system of bundling and four-figure checks. "When an ordinary individual puts $5 into a campaign, they're invested."

Five dollars is, in many Fair Elections systems, the qualifying contribution amount candidates seek from their constituents.

Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP Washington Bureau, said that we will not get the policies we need until we get Fair Elections. "We've got to pass this bill," he said.

Rounding out the impressive panel was Rev. Lennox Yearwood, president and CEO of the Hip Hop Caucus. The Hip Hop Caucus works to get young people across the country engaged in politics and civil rights issues.

"Fair Elections is critical for our generation," Rev. Yearwood said. "This is our lunch counter moment."

Hearing all of these barrier breaking lawmakers and activists shine the light on the need for Fair Elections was truly inspiring. It was one of the strongest panels I've seen in my history of working on this issue.

We need to disconnect the tie between corporate lobbyists and big money contributors and their access and influence with our elected officials. Where does change come from? It comes from voices like those at the panel yesterday that recognize the need to dramatically alter the way Washington works.

Barbara Lee makes move for Black Caucus chair

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Rep. Barbara Lee might be running unopposed to lead the Congressional Black Caucus for the next Congress.

"I did send a letter to all my colleagues this week talking to them about why I want to be chair," Lee, D-Oakland, acknowledged Thursday. "But the election won't be until November, so we have a long way to go."

However the Hill, a Washington newspaper, reports that Lee's bid might be unopposed; only the late Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, had been expressing interest in the post before she died last month.

Lee said that her letter spoke of "confronting all of the challenges we have in this country" and having "a very clear agenda that speaks not only to the needs of the African-American community but also to the entire country." The caucus is "well-positioned" to do that, she said, having already established itself as "the conscience of the Congress" on issues such as expanding federal health-care insurance for children, combating HIV/AIDS and acting against genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.

Lee had wanted the post back in 2006 but bowed out to avoid a divisive race against Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick, D-Mich. When Democrats retook the House that November, the caucus' clout suddenly expanded; Lee noted Thursday that it now includes about five committee heads and more than three times that many subcommittee leaders.

She said that winning the post would mean a national spotlight for ideas born in her socio-economicallynd ethnically diverse 9th District, which includes Oakland, Berkeley and Castro Valley and some surrounding areas, just as she has tried to do in her past four years as co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

"I always look to home to see what can be taken to the national level," she said. "We have a very unique place in our country; our districts are very clear on what's needed in a political and policy agenda for our nation."

Neither Lee nor co-chairwoman Lynn Woolsey, D-Santa Rosa, will seek another term at the Progressive Caucus' helm. Woolsey on Thursday called Lee "a tremendous leader" with whom she has had "a perfect partnership. "... We have strengthened each other."

"What she will bring to the Black Caucus is what she brought to the Progressive Caucus, which is a style of inclusiveness that makes people feel they're involved, they're heard and they're respected," Woolsey said. "And at the same time, she has a spine as tough as steel."

Neither Kilpatrick nor caucus member William Lacy Clay, D-Mo. — whose father cofounded the caucus — returned messages Thursday.

Rep. Lee on path to get role as next CBC chairwoman

Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Rep. Barbara Lee, an ardent war opponent and early supporter of Barack Obama's presidential campaign, appears to have locked up the chairmanship of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) for the 111th Congress.

The official vote won't take place until after the elections in November, but several members say Lee (D-Calif.) is the only lawmaker running for the post.

Her ascension will also open the leadership of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. She and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) have been co-chairwomen of the group for four years. But they will not seek reelection next year, Woolsey said Wednesday. She said she and Lee are hoping that there is a two-member co-chairmanship for the next Congress as well.

"It's important for there to be some new people in the leadership," Woolsey said. Names that have emerged as potential contenders include Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.).

Lee ran against Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-Mich.) in 2006, but dropped out in August of that year, saying she didn't want a divisive race in a crucial election year for Democrats.

When Democrats took control of Congress that year, the power of the CBC grew exponentially.

The only other member who had expressed interest was Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio), who died suddenly in August.

Lee's supporters said she advanced within the caucus because she mixed fundraising ability with a keen grasp of policy.

"She brings knowledge of how to get things done," said Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.). "She knows how to work with leadership to bring forward the agenda."

Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) said he appreciated her "liberal but practical stances" on issues like the Iraq war. He also said that if Obama is elected, it will be helpful for the CBC to have an early supporter of hers at the helm. Lee is Obama's western regional co-chairwoman.

Some of her stances have been even more controversial. In 2001, in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, hers was the lone vote against war in Afghanistan.

She later named her political action committee "One Voice."

Lee formally announced her desire to be chairwoman in a letter to CBC colleagues this week.

"With your support, I hope to continue to 'Change Course, Confront Crises, and Continue the Legacy' of those who paved the way for each of us to have this incredible honor to serve and fight for equality, justice and peace for our African-American communities and for the entire nation," Lee wrote.

She also stressed her work on Iraq, the genocide in Darfur, the fight to end the HIV/AIDS pandemic and her help to focus the Congress on poverty elimination.

Lee's ascension would mark the third straight uncontested CBC leadership race. Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.), like Kilpatrick, was elected without opposition in 2004. Prior to that, however, the group struggled through two divisive races, one in which Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) fended off Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) and another in which Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) narrowly edged out Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.).

Reich says Wall Street solution must include more transparency

Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0700

OAKLAND — Calling the current proposal a "huge blank check," former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich said Saturday that the government must attach some strings if it allows a massive bailout of Wall Street institutions.

"I'm not against bailouts that are necessary and bailouts that have conditions on them," said Reich, speaking at the Oakland Museum of California about his concerns over an American economic system he said is becoming "capitalism on the upside and socialism on the downside."

The former Clinton administration official, now a professor at UC Berkeley and among a group of economic experts who regularly advise presidential candidate Barack Obama, placed much of the blame for the current crisis on "years and years of deregulation" under the Bush administration.

"That ideology, that set of approaches, has failed," Reich said. "To think there is a free market that exists in some state of nature, as some market fundamentalists do, is simply wrong."

In a wide-ranging public conversation with Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, Reich also said the Clinton administration he worked for shares some responsibility, particularly for the 1999 repeal of the Glass Steagall Act that had separated commercial banks from stockbrokers since 1933.

"It's a crisis of trust," he said, not just one of liquidity or solvency."

This week, Congress must vote on an emergency Bush plan that would pump as much as $700 billion into bailing out mortgage markets. Reich, preferring a solution such as a bankruptcy reorganization that keeps taxpayers out of the equation, said he worried that a failed bailout measure could spend trillions of taxpayer dollars yet lead to more overseas borrowing, send domestic interest rates soaring, drop the value of the dollar, raise the cost of borrowing abroad and ultimately lower the American standard of living.

Whatever solution is reached, he said, should be coupled with better regulations that discourage the "huge, irresponsible decisions" that led up to the current problem.

"When a lot of money is sloshing around, ... some really stupid things are going to happen," said Reich, describing some of the minimally regulated, careless financial practices of the past decade. "When interest rates go down so far and money is so easy to get access to, what you need is regulation and oversight."

He called for more disclosure, so that market participants can better know what they are buying and selling; minimal capital requirements, so that more reserves are in place before institutions can make bets; better rules against conflicts of interest; and protection against market manipulation, and especially short-selling, that can drive the entire system downward.

Lee, on a short break before returning to the Capitol, where the Bush administration has asked lawmakers to act quickly this week on the bailout plan, expressed agreement with much of what Reich said on Saturday.

On some fronts, she took the failed oversight arguments a step further, arguing that "some criminal charges should be brought forth" against Christopher Cox, the former Orange County congressman who heads the Securities and Exchange Commission. John McCain, the Republican candidate for president, has said he would fire Cox.

Both Lee and Reich, who say they are friends, spent much of their discussion promoting a "bottom-up" rather than a trickle-down approach to economic growth.

"We're trying to put FDR's legacy, his policies, front and center in this debate," Lee said.

While hesitating to compare the current crisis to the Great Depression, Reich said income inequality is greater now than it has been since just before the stock market crash of 1929. In 1980, he said, the top one percent took home eight percent of income; today, they take close to 20 percent.

Before the Depression, he said, "income had become so skewed toward the wealthy that there was not enough purchasing power by the vast middle classes."

Speaking to a supportive crowd at the Oakland Museum that cheered liberal causes and cackled at mentions of Republicans, Reich on several occasions mildly scolded his audience, saying the serious topic at hand "is not amusing."

"We are not sufficiently respectful of each other," he said.

Barbara Lee: No covert action in Iraq

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, yesterday introduced H.R. 6951, the “Transparent Actions over Covert Tactics in Iran Act of 2008” (“TACT in Iran Act” — ah, political acronyms!), which would bar the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense from providing covert or clandestine support, including military training or advice or equipment for military activities, for the purpose of overthrowing Iran’s government.

Lee says her bill “will send a loud message that the United States again recognizes the importance of diplomatic engagement and smart power as the preferred instruments for advancing American interests. Covert action by the United States to destabilize the Iranian regime would be reckless and contrary to both international law and U.S. interests.”

“My legislation will help repair the damage done to our nation’s reputation in the world by making it clear that it is not a policy of the United States to undermine or overthrow by covert or clandestine means the government of Iran,” she said.

The bill’s six original co-sponsors include Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, with whom Lee co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus. It has been referred to the House Armed Services and Intelligence committees.

Bay Area mayors band together for green future

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Mayors of the Bay Area's three largest cities vowed Wednesday to set aside provincial interests and back an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by building houses near rail lines and expanding employment in solar energy and green technology.

Meeting at Santa Clara University for a conference about going green and how it can be profitable, Mayors Ron Dellums of Oakland, Gavin Newsom of San Francisco and Chuck Reed of San Jose agreed to push for local laws to get people out of cars and onto public transit and encourage housing, commercial and job development near transit hubs.

"We all have deficits," Reed said. "It's not about spending money. It's about innovation."

The goals of the Clean and Green conference, hosted by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, also included the need for local and state green building standards, increasing renewable energy and the use of electric vehicles.

"Time is not on our side," Dellums said, adding that city and state leaders first must convince residents used to gas-guzzling cars and far-flung suburban living that it is in their interest and the interest of their children and grandchildren to reduce their carbon footprint.

One of the biggest impediments to accomplishing the mayors' ambitious agenda, Dellums said, "is getting people to understand there are no options. Either we do it or we do not survive."

Newsom said his city is switching much of its municipal fleet to biodiesel and electric vehicles as well as establishing green building standards in hopes of encouraging other cities to follow.

He has also proposed building urban wind farms in neighborhoods and harnessing wave energy from ocean tides off San Francisco's shoreline as alternatives to relying on carbon-based fuels.

Newsom and Dellums said the jobs created by the green economy - such as installing solar panels on buildings - must go to Bay Area residents, and local residents must be trained to be ready for hire.

"There are economic opportunities of enormous proportions here," Newsom said.

The mayors were joined on a panel by Kim Polese, CEO of Redwood City software company SpikeSource, who echoed Newsom's assessment.

"We have an opportunity to create a whole new economy," Polese said, citing $1.8 billion in venture capital money that flowed into the state last year alone to fund such efforts as turning algae into jet fuel and developing carbon-negative cement. "Business has a tremendous responsibility and a tremendous opportunity."

While some business leaders have said laws requiring reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are detrimental to the economy, Polese said such government mandates "open the floodgates to investment."

Dellums said he recently visited Washington to promote the city's efforts to expand green job training as private industry shifts to growth in that sector.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, have agreed to develop legislation to expand the concept of the Oakland Green Jobs Corps, a pilot project with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights that seeks to train 40 low-income residents for jobs in the green economy, Dellums said.

"We can fight pollution and poverty," Dellums said.

Lee's bill demands oversight of Iraq security pact

Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, on Tuesday introduced the Iraq Security Agreement Act of 2008, which would prohibit the President from unilaterally deploying U.S. armed forces or expending public funds to guarantee Iraq’s security without Congress’ prior approval. Her bill, H.R. 6846, matches a similar one introduced last month in the Senate by Democratic vice-presidential nomniee U.S. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.

“This bill puts Congress clearly on record in support of the bedrock principle that congressional involvement and approval is required before the President can enter into any agreement obligating the United States to the defense of Iraq from internal or external threats,” Lee said in her news release.

“An agreement to commit American troops to the defense and security of another country is not routine or typical or minor. It is a major commitment that must have the support of the American people, which can only be reflected by the Congress of the United States. My legislation ensures that the Congress has the final say in determining whether and under what conditions the United States will commit more blood and treasure to guarantee the security of the sovereign nation of Iraq.”

This bill codifies a Defense Authorization bill amendment offered by Lee and adopted earlier this year by a bipartisan majority in the House. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, is among the bill’s 10 cosponsors.

More Elderly Residents Facing Threat of Poverty

Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0700

For Gasner and other elderly residents, however, the road to old age may be rockier than expected.

According to Gasner, hard economic times, especially the rising price of gasoline and food, make it difficult for seniors to get many of the services they need.

The latest U.S. Census Bureau

report, released on Aug. 26, found that 8.4 percent of residents over 65 were living in poverty in 2007, a figure that U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, said she found troubling.

For some senior citizens like 70-year-old Berkeley resident Pablo Gasner, aging does not necessarily promise a life of leisure and rest.

Gasner, a low-income senior, rides his bike from the government-subsidized senior housing complex where he lives to the North Berkeley Senior Center every morning.

The center provides him with free classes, computer access and low-cost lunches. Although many seniors do not pay the $2.75 recommended lunch donation, Gasner says he is able to pay.

However, with only a small savings account and a monthly income of $328 from Social Security, he is unable to afford a good television, a car or a better bike to replace his old one, which was stolen just outside the center.

When he needs health care, Gasner goes to the UC Berkeley Suitcase Clinic or the Over 60 Health Center, which is covered by his Medicare.

"It is unconscionable to have so many of our elderly residents living at or beneath the poverty line, especially when you consider that they reside in a state that is among the wealthiest in the nation," Lee said in a statement.

She stressed the need for Congress to address the poverty problem among the elderly and to make sure that residents can be comfortable "in the twilight of their lives."

Lee is not the only one who is concerned with the issue of poverty and the elderly in the county.

"It's certainly a very serious situation, because older people in general are at elevated risk for a variety of health problems and other types of limitations," said William Satariano, a professor at the School of Public Health who teaches a course on aging. "When you overlay that with the problems of poverty, it just becomes a more serious situation."

Berkeley resident R.Y.H Wong, a volunteer at the center, said he has seen an increase in the number of low-income seniors frequenting the center, and that there are more elderly people living in poverty in Berkeley than in other cities in nearby counties like Marin.

According to the census, the poverty level for elderly residents in Alameda County is still less than the national average, which was 9.7 percent in 2007.

But the number of poor elderly residents may be higher than the census suggests.

Jenny Chung, program manager at the Insight Center for Community Economic Development, which publishes the California Elder Economic Security Standard Index, said the census does not accurately reflect the number of seniors dealing with poverty.

"The federal poverty level actually undercuts or underestimates the cost of living in Alameda County, and this is in large part because it doesn't vary by geographical differences in cost of living," Chung said.

Since Alameda County is one of the higher-cost areas in California, she added, even seniors who are well above the national poverty line can still be struggling.

In addition, many elderly residents living in poverty remain unaware of services available to them.

Gasner said he considers himself lucky to have found out the senior center, which provided him with information about low-cost housing and meal programs.

"I don't know how I would have found out unless I came here," he said.

Obama pledges to restore promise of the U.S.

Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0700

On the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's eloquent "I Have a Dream" speech, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama addressed the nation Thursday as the first African American major party presidential candidate, vowing to restore the promise of the United States as the "last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom ... and who yearn for a better future."

"America, we are better than the last eight years. We are a better country than this," said Obama, speaking to a crowd of 84,000 on the closing night of the Democratic National Convention at Invesco Field at Mile High as he accepted his party's nomination.

Obama's address to his party and his country aimed to evoke the slain civil rights leader's fabled call for justice and equality. The candidate delivered the address in a setting and scale that echoed the King speech before 250,000 at the Lincoln Memorial even as it held another touchstone for Democrats, recalling when John F. Kennedy met his party as a candidate in 1960 at the Los Angeles Coliseum.

Obama's address - one of the most eagerly anticipated speeches in a generation - was titled "America's Promise" and evoked his personal history as the son of "a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas ... who shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to."

Delivered four years after the keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in Boston that started his meteoric rise from rookie senator to presidential candidate, Obama's acceptance speech reprised his signature call for change. He also called for the country to return to leadership that can help it "come together as one American family."

"It is that promise that has always set this country apart, that through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams, but still come together as one American family - to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well," he told the crowd, which had erupted in deafening cheers and a sea of waving flags as he took the stage.

"Obama also delivered plenty of red meat, going on the attack against Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, even as he delivered details regarding his own agenda on issues ranging from the economy to taxes.

The spectacular setting underscored the opportunity for the Democratic Party, which used the exposure and national broadcast to bolster its tech credentials - and its fundraising base - by getting 30,000 voters around the country to text message the Democratic National Committee in support of Obama even before the speech started.

But with just days until the opening of the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., McCain's campaign derided the Democrats' choice of venue as evidence of Obama's out-of-touch elite celebrity, imperial tone and overly presumptive political audacity. They attacked the towering white colonnade that backed the podium, which appeared to evoke the White House or perhaps the Lincoln Memorial, as an over-the-top "Temple of Obama."

Obama, for his part, lauded McCain as an honored war hero, then launched into a tough attack, calling him a candidate who "likes to talk about judgment but, really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than 90 percent of the time?"

"I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a 10 percent chance on change," he said to cheers.

And on issues like health care, Social Security, the economy and education, "it's time for them to own their failure," he yelled, as Democrats erupted in support. "It's time for us to change America."

Obama aimed right at the GOP criticism of his candidacy as a tax-and-spend liberal, saying, "Listen now: I will cut taxes - cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families, because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."

On national security, an area where Republicans charge Democrats are weak, Obama brought cheers from the delegates by telling them, "We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country."

And reprising a theme from his landmark 2004 convention speech, Obama said, "Democrats and Republicans and independents ... have fought together and bled together and some have died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a red America or a blue America - they have served the United States of America."

In a clear shot at the Republican's campaign motto, Obama added, "So I've got news for you, John McCain ... we all put our country first."

Obama's speech capped months of stratospheric expectations regarding what was the speech of his political life.

Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown said that the level of expectation for Obama was so high because the candidate would have to compete not only with Michelle Obama, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Bill Clinton - who all delivered grand slam speeches this week - but with himself.

"It's like a hit record," he said. "You only have so many, and he has to bring that hit record again - the new version."

But Obama's speech held a bittersweet resonance for many in the audience - African Americans in particular - who said it represented a moment in American politics so long awaited and so deeply desired, but seemed so very unattainable.

Rep. Barbara Lee of Oakland - who witnessed Obama's address four years ago in Boston and predicted on the spot that he would someday be her party's presidential candidate - said that as an African American, watching an African American walk into presidential history Thursday has been "something I always dreamed of."

"I grew up in segregated Texas," said an emotional Lee. "You look at all those who came before us, and died for the right to vote," and died to get to this point, she said. Yes, "racism is alive and well in America ... but we also have to recognize that we're moving forward."

African Americans, and all Democrats, are painfully aware that from Thursday onward, "it's going to be a very tough campaign," with some tough attacks on Obama ahead, she said. But "here, I'm feeling (a) sense of optimism. When you see that Obama won in Iowa, in states where they said he'd never win - then you have to admit the country is changing. And we have to recognize the gains that we've made."

Black Democrats Bask in Moment Long Seen as Impossible Dream

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Many senior black Democrats, veterans of the civil rights struggles of the past several decades, can’t quite believe that Barack Obama , the son of a black Kenyan immigrant and a white mother from Kansas, is now their party’s nominee for president. It all seems too unreal to them.

“No, I never thought I would live to see it,” said 68-year-old James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, who as House majority whip is the highest-ranking African-American in Congress. “I thought it would happen one day, but I never thought I would live to see it. It will be a great thing to have lived to see it.”

“There is a sense of awe and pride,’’ said Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, a former civil rights worker for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. “I don’t know if we’ll be able to contain ourselves when he speaks Thursday night,’’ added Jackson Lee, 58.

She said her 82-year-old mother if floating on air: “She is besides herself. She is a daughter of the South who never had the opportunities that her own daughter had.”

Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York, 78, who was an early supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton ’s presidential bid, said that early on in the campaign for the 2008 nomination he didn’t think Obama could win. “As a matter of fact, it wasn’t until Iowa that it became a reality to me,” Rangel said. In January’s Iowa caucuses that kicked off the nominating campaign, Obama came in first, with John Edwards second and Clinton third.

Willie L. Brown Jr., the former mayor of San Francisco and California Assembly speaker, said, “As an African-American I am immensely proud.”

But Brown cautioned that Obama’s race — the country is about 12 percent black — could still hurt him in the fall campaign against Republican John McCain .

“I’m still skeptical he’ll become president because this is America and race is still a major component,” added Brown, who learned from bitter experience that even when polls show a black candidate leading, the result can be different on Election Day.

In the 1982 California governor’s race — in what has become known as the “Bradley Effect” — Tom Bradley, the black mayor of Los Angeles, went into the election with a polling lead, only to lose narrowly to Republican George Deukmejian. The reason for Bradley’s defeat, analysts have said ever since, is that some white voters will tell pollsters they plan to vote for a black candidate but don’t really intend to once they get inside the voting booth.

Brown said that the best way for an African-American candidate to win statewide or nationally is to over-achieve. “Obama has to make it clear that quality ought to be the basis on which people are elected and that color is secondary,” Brown said.

One cushion for Obama against such racial doubts is for the Democratic Party to register every black voter it can, since the Illinois senator is expected to benefit from a heavy and enthusiastic African-American vote. Jackson Lee estimated that in Harris County, which includes her hometown of Houston, there are still some unregistered eligible minority voters. She said the Obama campaign is working with other groups on a massive registration drive for the fall.

But Rev. Amos Brown, a delegate from San Francisco, said that in California black voter registration efforts are lagging. “It’s one thing to be excited and to celebrate, and another thing to be engaged and make the big effort,” he said.

Brown said that, in some states, a big effort in the minority community is needed to offset a return of the Bradley Effect. “You have to offset the negative, traditional voters,” he said.

Not all black leaders were so surprised by Obama’s climb to the top. “At the 2004 convention, after Barack’s keynote speech, I said to someone that he’d be the next nominee,” said Rep. Barbara Lee of California.

She said the fact that voters in states such as Iowa, where blacks constitute a tiny share of the population, were willing to vote for Obama for president shows how America has changed. “When Barack Obama can win in Iowa or other states he has won in, I think it is a tremendous testimony to how far we’ve come. But believe me, as an African-American and as a woman, I know how hard it is,” she added.

White leaders, too, realize the historic nature of Obama’s win.

Former White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta said that four decades ago he was a federal civil rights official sent to the South to integrate school districts. “To think that 40 years later we are nominating the first African-American for president of the United States in many ways tells me all the difficulties this country went through in really trying to make all people equal was worthwhile,” Panetta said.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland said he brought his 11-year-old grandson James Cleveland to Denver to witness the history in the making. “My expectations of this happening were not high,” he said. “To conceive of the story of Barack Obama is almost impossible,”

Rep. Barbara Lee Takes Active Role At Democratic Convention

Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Congressmember Barbara Lee is tough to keep up with. In a relentless pace, she often outruns even her staff. That staff can be seen here in Denver, scurrying behind this determined Alameda County congressional representative. She can be fiery and fierce when she needs to be, and she always plays to win.

Lee was a member of the California State Assembly and Senate and also worked as a staff member for then Rep. Ron Dellums, who retired in 1998, having served in the district since 1971. Lee was elected to Congress that same year and has been reelected every two years since. She typically wins with 85 percent of the vote in California’s 9th Congressional District. Lee is a member of the Appropriations Committee in Congress, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and First Vice Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

She met the Planet in the lobby of the Sheraton Hotel off 16th Street in downtown Denver. The hotel is the hub for California Democratic Party delegates (441 total delegates, not all of whom are staying at the Sheraton).

Daily Planet: So, what have you been doing at the convention so far?

Lee: I attend the breakfast every morning for the California delegation, and meet with the Black Caucus; there are town hall-style meetings as well and, of course, I attend floor sessions [each day between 3-9 p.m. at the Pepsi Center].

Planet: Anything different at this convention from four years ago?

Lee: Basically we are getting more [attention]. Delegates are more progressive. The country is becoming more progressive, or at least Democrats are.

Planet: How are things on the convention floor?

Lee: Michelle Obama defined herself. We have to define ourselves and not let the other side define who we are—Hillary couldn’t have done it better—and the healthcare part [of the party platform].

(Earlier there had been a major progressive victory on the language of healthcare in the party platform, according to Tim Carpenter, National Executive Director for Progressive Democrats of America, a group that works closely with Lee’s congressional office. Carpenter said the progressives achieved a real victory in a recent platform committee “fight.” In an interview Carpenter said that “‘Universal coverage’ was changed to ‘guaranteed healthcare for all, every man, woman and child.”)

Planet:So, what will be your agenda on January 20, 2009 when a President Obama is inaugurated?

ee:End the occupation of Iraq as quickly as possible—from day one we will work on that. Healthcare … let’s begin that one immediately, and working to reduce poverty. We’ve been working on an “Out of Poverty” caucus. Barak Obama is committed to cutting it [poverty] in half. I’m committed to this and I will push Obama on it.

Planet:And what specifically will you call for on Iraq? Obama committed to 16 months.

Lee:Sixteen months is much too long. No more money to prolong this war, no permanent bases and no occupation. The Progressive Caucus will lead on this issue.

Planet:Obama said he wants to take the troops out of Iraq and put them in Afghanistan.

ee:You know the global war on terror is a “notion”—we don’t even understand what it is about. The Taliban is reconstituted, they’re growing heroin. Military action is not going to make us more secure in our country. We need a more comprehensive approach because no one says we should not defend ourselves.”

Planet:And what about local issues, what are you working on there?

Lee:My job is to make sure I get as much money as I can shake loose for the needs of the communities in my district; federal money. Those issues are crime prevention, community policing, health clinics, a green job training program, and money for community colleges.

And just like that it was over. One of her aides grabbed her arm and as I rose to say goodbye that aide put herself between the congressmember and me. But by that time, though, she was already galloping away to the next town hall meeting, caucus or media interview.

Unity is the mantra for Hillary Clinton's speech

Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who in her unsuccessful run for president may have finally eclipsed her husband's star power, has three goals in her speech at the Democratic National Convention tonight: unity, unity and unity.

No moment in her long, brutal and historic primary campaign may be more laden with import than this address from the glitzy Denver podium. The woman who thought she would be - and pleaded that she should be - under those lights as the Democratic nominee must explain to her most ardent supporters why it is OK that she is not.

And she must, by any and all means, avert being blamed for the possibility of Sen. Barack Obama losing an election that many believe should be his in a landslide.

It is not hard to find lingering discontent among Clinton supporters, despite such overtures from Obama's campaign as a symbolic roll call vote Wednesday. The Obama and Clinton campaigns worked out a tentative pact Monday to limit the roll call Clinton had insisted on, possibly stopping with the vote of New York delegates, when Clinton would cast her own vote for Obama.

"This is California!" said Julie Wong, a Clinton delegate who said she was elected to vote for Clinton at the convention because Clinton won, so she is legally bound to do so unless released, as Clinton has promised to do. "She won California, and people are scared to wear Hillary buttons.

"If Barack Obama is my second choice, I think they should be happy with that and not try to beat me down," Wong said.

Taking bull by horns

Clinton made her Denver debut before the New York delegation Monday dressed in one of her trademark yellow pantsuits and took the bull by its horns.

Mocking Republican nominee John McCain's ad declaring that Clinton was "passed over" as Obama's vice presidential pick despite winning 18 million votes, Clinton stood before the crowd, declaring, as if anyone doubted it, "I'm Hillary Clinton."

With a dramatic pause that brought down the house, she said, "And I do not approve this message."

Maisha Everhart, a leading organizer for the Clinton campaign in California and a Bay Area Clinton delegate, said the feelings of alienation and anger between the Clinton and Obama camps are "real - no matter how much you try and deny it."

"A lot of supporters of Hillary are not totally convinced" about Obama's strength as a candidate, Everhart said. As a young African American organizer for Clinton, Everhart said, "My view is that Hillary stood for our community time and time again, and I will stand for her ... I will follow Sen. Clinton's lead."

Also Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi flashed with anger after being peppered with press questions about the Clintons.

Pelosi dismissed the Clinton obsession as "yesterday."

"What did I walk into - a time capsule?" Pelosi asked. "Our nomination is decided. To stay wallowing in all of this is not productive. ... We're talking about the nominee for the president of the United States to lead our country into the future. That's what this convention is about."

Pelosi acknowledged a need for complete reconciliation.

"Look, I get sad anytime a woman is not successful," Pelosi said, insisting that the point of Clinton's candidacy is that it has opened doors for women. "So let's not spoil it and let it stand in the way of what we must do in terms of public policy, to give these women and all Americans the opportunity they need."

The problem is polls showing Obama in a dead heat nationally with McCain, and McCain gaining traction in battleground states such as Colorado.

Nearly three months after Clinton conceded the nomination, polls indicate that about a fifth of her supporters still say they will vote for McCain. A fresh USA Today/Gallup poll taken last Thursday through Saturday, which includes Obama's tapping of Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware as his running mate, shows less than half of Clinton supporters fully backing Obama.

A new survey by Democracy Corps, a Democratic polling firm, found that Obama "has yet to close the deal with many white, working-class voters who normally vote Democratic." And it seems he hasn't closed that deal with die-hard Clintonites. The group 18 Million Voices/Rise Hillary Rise has organized a march in Denver today to "celebrate Sen. Clinton's achievements." The group is planning several marches today nationwide, including one in San Francisco.

Wong recalled other Democrats who fought bitterly for the nomination and lost, including the iconic Sen. Edward Kennedy, who was lionized at the convention Monday night. "They should create unity, not enforce unity," Wong said.

Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York expressed alarm at Obama's struggles in the polls, saying it "boggles the mind," adding that Clinton as much as anyone "knows we have to move on."

"We've got a very short time to get this campaign together," Slaughter said.

New York Obama delegate Debi Rose said she thinks Clinton will help pull the party together, "but I'm not comfortable with all her supporters. I think a good number of them will defect." Asked if Clinton will be blamed if Obama loses, Rose replied, "Absolutely."

Emotional recovery

Oakland Rep. Barbara Lee, Obama's first supporter in the House, recalled her own training as a psychiatric social worker. "I understand this process and what has to happen emotionally with people after they experience loss and anger," Lee said.

"I also know at end of the day everyone has to unify, women especially," Lee said. "I don't believe we can tolerate a John McCain as president, who is going to appoint Supreme Court justices that are going to erode Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to privacy. That's the bottom line for me and a lot of women."

Lee said the campaign will rest on a turnout effort. "I know he's going to win by making sure every vote is cast and every vote is counted," Lee said. "This is going to be a grassroots campaign, like it was in the primaries. We have a lot of work to do. It's not going to be easy."

A Conversation with Rep. Barbara Lee at IAC

Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0700

The International AIDS Conference has a history of welcoming world leaders, including presidents and kings, greeting delegates and saluting "them" for their efforts to eradicate HIV. Year after year, one elected official has bypassed the flashing lights and cameras of the opening ceremony and joined the ranks as one of "us," contributing energetically as a presenter, moderator, spokesperson and HIV visionary all week.

Once again, Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) is the sole member of the U.S. Congress to attend the International AIDS Conference. On Tuesday, I caught up with Rep. Lee to learn how her involvement builds progressive momentum globally and in the U.S.

"I saw that there was a void when I when to Congress so I started participating to get a good handle on what strategies and what policies the United States should mount."

Hers is a simple operating plan. Rep. Lee connects the House of Representatives to major themes of the epidemic, building bi-partisan support for critical issues such as comprehensive sex education, family planning and the U.S. travel ban, whose repeal she successfully engineered in the new PEPFAR bill.

"When I was in Toronto, it dawned on me that we should have one of these great conferences in my district in Oakland. Then someone reminded me, ‘you can't do that Barbara, there's a travel ban.' So I went back to Congress, wrote and introduced a resolution that would lift the travel ban. I'm proud to say that in the PEPFAR bill that President Bush signed into law, that travel ban was repealed. Now we need to implement the regulations, which we're working on."

Representative Lee understands the complicated obstacles that thwart effective HIV prevention, though not all of her recommendations are embraced. Support for family planning is absent from the new PEPFAR-a painful irony in the city that gave the global gag rule the name "Mexico City Policy."

"That is something that was left out of PEPFAR and we couldn't negotiate it with the other side. Hopefully when there is another President we can go back to the drawing board and fix that. It's absolutely essential that we have coordination between HIV/AIDS initiatives and family planning. I want to repeal the Global Gag Rule that does not allow organizations to receive federal funding to provide full reproductive health counseling, including abortion counseling. It is a shame and disgrace and does a disservice to women, harming millions of women throughout the world."

Domestically, Rep. Lee is aghast at infection rates in the African-American community including those in her Oakland, California district. She laments Congress's failure to adequately fund the Minority AIDS Initiative and was not surprised at the CDC's revised surveillance figures or the recent Black AIDS Institute report, "Left Behind."

"There's been a severe undercount. The Black AIDS Institute knew this, I knew this, members of Congress knew this. BAI is calling for a domestic PEPFAR and I fully agree with them. They want 1.3 billion to begin. I think we need billions and billions and billions more."

Of course, to be effective, that level of funding will require another sweeping policy change, an end to the abstinence-only-until-marriage programs favored by the administration. Rep. Lee has led the charge against abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and wrote a bill to allow states to devise evidence-based HIV and AIDS education.

"The Responsible Education about Life [REAL] Act, be for REAL, that's my bill, has more than 100 co-sponsors. That bill would in essence allow states to use federal funding to teach comprehensive sex education in public schools, to teach young people how to prevent the transmission of HIV and AIDS and also how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. It's got to happen."

"Hopefully with a new president we'll be able to push that policy forward."

A Thank You to Congresswoman Barbara Lee

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0700

As I was looking thorough the massive International AIDS Conference booklet, full of sessions taking place at the conference and trying to decide which session I wanted to attend, I saw that Congresswoman Barbara Lee was one of the speakers at the session about travel restrictions on people living with HIV. Barbara Lee is well known for being an activist in the sexual and reproductive rights movement--more specifically an advocate for sexual and reproductive rights of young people in the United States and abroad.

During her speech, Rep. Lee talked about how Congress removed the travel restriction for people with living with HIV; however, the Department of Health and Human Services has yet to lift its restriction. Hopefully, the ban will be lifted completely before the end of President Bush's term. When I posed a question during the session as to what we, young people, should demand of our next president, Congresswoman Lee, without any hesitation, came up with a very comprehensive list of demands that included: the repeal of the global gag rule, integration of family planning services and comprehensive sexual education into PEPFAR, removal of the prostitution pledge, and finding an effective way to address gender violence. She also did not forget the domestic policy reforms that included defunding abstinence-only programs, authorization of the REAL Act, support for clean needle exchange programs, and the creation of a domestic PEPFAR. In other words, she listed everything I, as an advocate for the sexual and reproductive health of young people, have been working towards for almost three years now.

It's comforting to have a policy maker speak out and advocate on behalf of vulnerable youth. After having been disappointed by President Clinton's failure to mention young people in his keynote speech and Ban Ki-moon's failure to make a commitment to youth during his visit to the Youth Pavilion, I was comforted to know that youth are not alone as long as we have policy makers such as Congresswoman Barbara Lee on our side. So, I want to take this opportunity to thank her, once again, for doing such amazing work with policy in Congress and for not being afraid to speak out on issues concerning the sexual and reproductive health of young people.

Barbara Lee: We need a domestic war on AIDS

Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, is the only member of Congress attending the 17th Annual International AIDS Conference, now in progress in Mexico City.

Lee coauthored the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) back in 2003, as well as the recent reauthorization which puts $48 billion toward helping millions of people living with and affected by HIV/AIDS around the world. She told me this afternoon she wishes progress in fighting the disease here in the United States would be so successful.

New figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show the number of cases reported annually in the U.S. is as high as 56,300, far exceeding old estimate of 40,000. And according to a new report from the Black Aids Institute, if Black America were its own country it would rank 16th worldwide in the number of people infected, more than in Botswana, Côte d’Ivoire, Lesotho or Swaziland.

“It’s time for a domestic PEPFAR,” she told me today, the conference’s hustle and bustle audible behind her voice on her cell phone. “We’re talking about minimally $1.3 billion, and I’m saying we need billions more.”

See more of what Lee said about what we’ve done so far, and what we need to do, after the jump…

Lee noted that Alameda County declared a state of emergency over HIV/AIDS in the black community way back in 1999, the same year that federal funding first kicked in for the Minority AIDS Initiative. But it has been hard at times to get Congress to focus on the crisis; Lee hopes the new CDC numbers, which “confirm everything that we’ve been saying from day one,” will put an end to that.

Although she has been at every International AIDS Conference since her election to the House, she said, “this is the first time now… that there’s been international focus on what’s happening in America, hopefully this is a turning point.”

Massive prevention and education campaigns; abundant treatment as part of a universal health care system; repealing the 20-year-old ban on federal funding for needle-exchange programs; and removing the abstinence-only caveat on federal funding for sex education (as Lee has authored a bill to do) are among the measures Lee urges.

“We can’t keep our heads in the sand,” she said. “We’ve got to move forward and deal with this head-on.”

Now that Congress (as part of the PEPFAR reauthorization) has partially lifted the federal ban on foreign visitors and immigrants who are HIV-positive, Lee said she’s pressuring the International AIDS Society to hold a future conference right here in Oakland, so scientists, medical professionals, activists, NGOs and political leaders from around the world can observe how local government, the faith community and other entities have come together to fight the disease, and so those local groups can hear some input directly from the world’s foremost authorities on the issue.

Kate Krauss, spokeswoman for Physicians for Human Rights’ Health Action AIDS Campaign, told me her organization bestowed an award upon Lee this morning, with doctors from around the world giving the lawmaker a standing ovation.

“There are a lot of fans of Barbara Lee at this conference,” Krauss said. “We gave her an award for her courage and her steadfastness in leading the fight against AIDS.”

Lee and her staff – particularly aide Christos Tsentas – “worked night and day to pass the PEPFAR legislation,” she added. “They deserve a lot of credit.”

Black AIDS Institute CEO Phill Wilson also presented Lee with an award today, honoring her leadership in trying to link the domestic epidemic with the global epidemic. “There have been very few members of Congress who have been able to advocate for the very real need to take a leadership role on the global front, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, while being painfully aware of the devastating effect AIDS is having on the African American community domestically,” he said in a news release.

Policymakers Call for New National AIDS Strategy for the United States

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 00:00:00 -0700

The Centers for Disease Control released a report indicating that the number of new people infected by HIV in the United States is much higher than previously estimated -- 40% HIGHER. Previous figures estimated new infections at 40,000 per year, now the CDC says the number of new cases of HIV infection is closer to 56,000 per year. The CDC says the new data suggests a stable epidemic -- but that the numbers are still unacceptably high, with a steady increase in infection rates among gay and bisexual men. On today's newscast, we hear from California Representative Barbara Lee and Paul Zeitz, who works with the Global AIDS Alliance Fund, about a new national AIDS strategy for the United States.

Click here to listen to the interview

Lee backs bill to ease pot laws

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

20:21 PDT San Francisco -- Two Bay Area congresswomen joined a half-dozen fellow House members Wednesday in proposing to end federal prosecution for marijuana possession.

The proposal, unveiled at a Washington, D.C., news conference, would eliminate federal criminal penalties for adults who possess up to 100 grams of marijuana -- about 3.5 ounces -- or give an ounce of pot to someone else without charge.

While the government shouldn't encourage marijuana use, it should allow people to ''make their own choices as long as they are not impinging on the rights, freedom or property of others,'' said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., lead author of the bill, HR 5843.

This is the first marijuana decriminalization measure introduced in Congress since 1978, said the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. The organization said 830,000 Americans were arrested on marijuana charges in 2006, 88 percent of them for personal possession and use.

Co-sponsors of the legislation include Reps. Barbara Lee of Oakland, Zoe Lofgren of San Jose, four other Democrats and one Republican, Ron Paul of Texas. CNN quoted Lee as calling government policy on marijuana ''inhumane'' and ''immoral'' and as saying she has many constituents who are harassed or arrested for using or growing medical marijuana.

California, in a 1996 voter initiative, was the first of 12 states to legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Federal law, however, classifies marijuana among the most dangerous drugs, with no legitimate use, and the government has won Supreme Court rulings allowing federal agents to shut down medical marijuana dispensaries and prosecute patients and their suppliers. Both those cases originated in Oakland.

On its Web site, the Drug Enforcement Administration declares: ''Legalization of marijuana, no matter how it begins, will come at the expense of our children and public safety. It will create dependency and treatment issues, and open the door to use of other drugs, impaired health, delinquent behavior, and drugged drivers.''

Lee praises Bush for signing new global AIDS law

Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

President Bush was flanked by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, and Annette Lantos -- widow of the late House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo -- yesterday as he signed the H.R. 5501, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008.

''As one of the original co-authors of not only this bill but the original legislation in 2003, it has been a tremendous bipartisan effort to get to this day,'' Lee, a co-author of the bill, said in a statement issued shortly afterward. ''This bill is the latest in a long string of bipartisan initiatives on global HIV/AIDS that have been born out of a willingness to work together and put the United States on the right side of history when it comes to this global pandemic. Despite his failings on so many critical issues, the President deserves recognition for working with Congress to enact this important legislation.''

The new law authorizes a $48 billion increase to the program, which Lee said will make it possible to prevent 12 million new HIV infections globally; provide treatment for at least 3 million individuals with HIV/AIDS; treat 450,000 children; and ensure care for 12 million individuals, including 5 million orphans and vulnerable children in communities affected by HIV/AIDS. Lee said she’ll use her seat on the House Appropriations Committee and its Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs to ''ensure we meet the funding commitments and targets we set out in this important new law.''

The law also removes the statutory ban on travel and immigration for people living with HIV/AIDS. ''It’s far past time we got rid of this shameful policy,'' Lee said. ''I’m glad we were able to remove the statutory ban and pass this bill less than three before the International AIDS Conference in Mexico City.''

Fighting AIDS pandemic abroad...and at home

Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Today President Bush signs bipartisan legislation reauthorizing and expanding the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). It is a landmark achievement that will save millions of people from certain death and prevent millions of new HIV infections in the developing world. Sadly, our commitment to fighting AIDS globally has not extended to the fight against AIDS here at home.

As our government has dramatically scaled up funding for AIDS relief overseas, it has simultaneously cut real spending for domestic HIV prevention and care initiatives.

A new report by the Black AIDS Institute, aptly titled "Left Behind!," provides startling evidence that, while we excel at fighting AIDS overseas, we have not sufficiently addressed the growing epidemic among African Americans within our own borders. The report compares African American HIV rates in Detroit, New Orleans and Washington, D.C., with countries such as South Africa, Haiti and Tanzania, and concludes that Black America is confronting the epidemic without enough support from the federal government.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that more than half a million African Americans are HIV-positive. African Americans are eight times more likely than white Americans to contract HIV, and they fare more poorly when infected, due to late diagnoses and lack of health services. While treatment has made AIDS a chronic manageable condition for people with quality health care, one study found that HIV-positive blacks are 2.5 more likely to die than HIV-positive whites.

This observation prompted the Black AIDS Institute to ask a thought-provoking question: How would the United States react to this epidemic if Black America were a separate country? The conclusion: If Black America existed outside our borders, it would be a prime candidate for U.S. aid.

Despite the efforts of me and my colleagues, the response to our own AIDS epidemic has been woefully inadequate. Although African American communities and leaders are now mobilized on AIDS, the federal government has not committed the necessary funding and focus to fight AIDS in America, let alone AIDS in Black America. Sadly, the United States would probably deny its own application for AIDS relief; because our response does not even meet the minimum standards we set for other nations. PEPFAR beneficiary countries, for example, must have a national AIDS strategy in place. Three decades into our own epidemic, the United States has no such strategy. Disturbingly, we are also one of just 40 countries worldwide that fails to report our progress in fighting HIV/AIDS to the United Nations. These failures threaten not only the health of our own citizens, but our credibility abroad as well.

It's past time our government stopped turning a blind eye to our national AIDS epidemic. Far greater support is needed for community responses to the epidemic in Black America, especially through the Minority AIDS Initiative, which was created by U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters when she chaired the Congressional Black Caucus. We must develop a national AIDS strategy and fund HIV prevention initiatives designed for African Americans.

HIV/AIDS is not just a foreign policy issue. If we wish to show real global leadership on AIDS, then we must keep our commitments abroad and take care of our epidemic here at home.

AIDS in America

AIDS is the No. 1 killer of young African American women and the No. 2 killer of young African American men.

If Black America were a separate country, it would rank:

16th worldwide in the number of people with HIV (ahead of Botswana, Côte d'Ivoire, Lesotho or Swaziland).

On par with many African nations for HIV infection rates (although most sub-Saharan nations have general HIV prevalence rates higher than the 2-3 percent found across Black America).

Source: Black AIDS Institute

Citizens-to-be attend Oakland workshop

Sun, 27 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Dozens of East Bay residents filed into a vacant storefront in Oakland's Fruitvale district Saturday to begin the often long and daunting process of becoming U.S. citizens.

Miguel and Andrea Morales of Oakland listened intently to speakers at the Citizenship Opening Ceremony. The couple learned that the government will leave no stone unturned in reviewing their backgrounds as part of the naturalization process, which can take from several months to several years.

The Moraleses arrived in the United States eight years ago from their native Honduras in search of opportunity and better-paying jobs.

U.S. citizenship experts explained that they will be subject to criminal background checks, fingerprinting and photographing, that they must have had their green cards for at least five years before applying, and that they are expected to read, write and speak basic English.

Miguel Morales, 55, said he was feeling upbeat about meeting all the requirements and one day taking the oath of allegiance to the United States.

"This is a necessary step to better jobs and the right to vote," he said as he clutched a folder full of information about the path ahead of him. Morales said he would one day like to work for the City of Oakland.

Representatives from legal aid groups helped Morales and other residents attending Saturday's workshop complete paperwork and provided coaching for interviews with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Fresno residents Jose Luis and Maria Leyva, a construction worker and teacher's aide who became U.S. citizens last month, made the trek to Oakland Saturday to receive a special recognition from Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, who co-sponsored Saturday's event with the Unity Council, an Oakland nonprofit that works with the East Bay immigrant community.

The Leyvas, who are originally from Mexico, have lived in the United States for 30 years but only recently decided to apply for citizenship.

Their U.S.-born children are grown. Their daughter attends UC Berkeley and their son is working full time. Most of their family members live in the United States.

The Leyvas said their concerns about not being able to navigate the labyrinth of prerequisites for naturalization held them back from applying for citizenship sooner.

But they studied at home, tutored each other and turned to their daughter for help.

"I'm very happy," said Maria Leyva, 51. "In my country, I never voted. This year, if God allows it to be, will be my first time voting."

The couple said they are also hoping their new citizenship will protect them from raids that have shaken immigrant communities in the Bay Area and nationwide.

Lee applauded the Leyvas' choice to become U.S. citizens.

"Today is a big day," Lee said. "They'll be able to participate fully now in the democratic processes such as voting and being able to engage in the benefits this country provides."

Lee also decried the raids that have swept the nation and said she is working to revise guidelines for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers so that future crackdowns will not target law-abiding residents who are not citizens.

"The ICE raids have been horrific," she said. "My hope is we'll be able to develop some regulations that will protect law-abiding members of our communities while permitting agents to do their job where cause and the law allow them."

Oakland Congresswoman Touts Aids legislation

Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KCBS) -- A Bay Area congresswoman has helped usher through important legislation to combat HIV-AIDS. The bill creates the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS relief, or PEPFAR. A co-sponsor is congresswoman Barbara Lee of Oakland.

"We've pulled together a bi-partisan coalition and we were able to pass a $48 billion bill to help millions of people living with, and affected by HIV-AIDS," said Lee.

Lee says the reauthorized bill will help millions of people living with HIV-AIDS, prevent 12 million new infections, and train 140,000 health care professionals.

"We were also able to finally lift the travel ban, which has been in place for many, many years, which would not allow individuals living with HIV-AIDS to come into the United States," said Lee.

Congresswoman Lee says she's confident the president will sign the HIV-AIDS relief bill into law.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee Promotes Passport

Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, introduced legislation today that would make September National Passport Month because she said less than 23 percent of Americans have passports.

The resolution calls on President Bush to urge state and federal entities to observe the month with ceremonies and educate people on the benefits of international travel.

"Traveling abroad promotes understanding and goodwill,'' Lee stated. "When people connect with other people, it opens the doors to increased peace, tolerance and acceptance.''

Congress OKs $48B for global AIDS fight

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House voted Thursday to triple money to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis around the world, giving new life and new punch to a program credited with saving or prolonging millions of lives in Africa alone.

The 303-115 vote sends the global AIDS bill to President Bush for his signature. Bush, who first floated the idea of a campaign against the scourge of AIDS in his 2003 State of the Union speech, supports the five-year, $48 billion plan.

Passage of the bill culminated a rare instance of cooperation between the White House and the Democratic-controlled Congress. It was "born out of a willingness to work together and put the United States on the right side of history when it comes to this global pandemic," said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., a leader on the issue.

The current $15 billion act, which expires at the end of September, has helped bring lifesaving anti-retroviral drugs to some 1.7 million people and supported care for nearly 7 million. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, known as PEPFAR, has won plaudits from some of Bush's harshest critics both in Congress and around the world. Both Democrats and Republicans hailed it as one of the most significant accomplishments of the Bush presidency.

The United States, said Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, "has given hope to millions infected with the HIV virus, which just a few years ago was tantamount to a death sentence."

According to a study by UNAIDS and the Kaiser Family Foundation, the United States provided one-fifth of AIDS funding from all sources — governments, international aid groups and the private sector — in 2007. About 40 percent of the $4.9 billion disbursed in 2007 from the G-8 countries, Europe and other donor governments came from the United States.

The legislation approves spending of $5 billion for malaria and $4 billion for tuberculosis, the leading cause of death for people with AIDS. It authorizes spending of up to $2 billion next year for the international Global Fund to Fight AIDS. The measure also provides $2 billion, on top of the $48 billion, for American Indian water, health and law enforcement programs.

While some GOP conservatives questioned the sharp spending increase, others said the U.S. aid had important security as well as moral implications and gave a needed boost to America's reputation abroad.

The pandemic, said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., top Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, "is leaving a trail of poverty, despondency and death which has destabilized societies and undermined the security of entire regions." The program has enhanced the U.S. image around the world, she said. "Even in the most remote areas of Kenya or Haiti, for example, people know about the PEPFAR program."

PEPFAR has focused on nations in sub-Saharan Africa that have been devastated by AIDS, but it has also provided assistance in the Caribbean and other areas hit by the pandemic now affecting some 33 million worldwide. Even with advances in treating the disease, there are still about 7,000 new HIV infections every day around the world.

The new bill, like the current law, states that 10 percent of funds should be allocated for orphans and vulnerable children. It sets as a goal preventing 12 million new HIV infections, treating more than 2 million with anti-retroviral drugs, supporting care for 12 million people infected with HIV/AIDS and training at least 140,000 new health care workers and paraprofessionals.

It increases attention on women and girls, including stressing the importance of preventing gender-based violence.

Pamela W. Barnes, president and CEO of the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, applauded the bill's target of reaching 80 percent of HIV-positive pregnant women with services needed to prevent transmission to their children. "We are still only reaching 34 percent of pregnant, HIV-positive mothers with the medicine they need to keep their babies HIV-free," she said.

The final product took months of compromise: Democrats took out a provision in the existing act requiring that one-third of prevention funds be spent on abstinence education but allowed for reports to Congress if abstinence and fidelity spending falls below certain levels. Conservatives won "conscience clause" assurances that religious groups would not be forced to participate in programs to which they morally object.

Bush, who originally proposed doubling the program to $30 billion, first balked at but later accepted the $50 billion bill that passed the House in April. The Senate diverted $2 billion of the $50 billion to Indian programs and inserted a provision that more than half of funds for AIDS programs go for treatment and care.

The Senate also attached a measure, welcomed by AIDS advocacy groups, that ends a two-decade-old U.S. policy that has made it nearly impossible for HIV-positive people to get visas to this country as immigrants, students or tourists.

The bill is named after former House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairmen Henry Hyde, R-Ill., and Tom Lantos, D-Calif., who wrote the 2003 bill. Hyde died last November, and Lantos died in February as he was working on the new bill.

Congressional Briefs: Lee Calls for Pay Equity for Women

Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

July 22, 2008, 3 a.m. -- Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) joined Lilly Ledbetter and several members of Congress in calling for immediate action on the ''The Paycheck Fairness Act and the ''Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act.''

For every dollar men earned in 2006, women earned 77 cents. The wage gap is most severe for women of color. Of full-time workers, African American women's median weekly earnings ($429) were only 64 percent of the earnings of white men ($669) in the year 2000. In one year, the average African American woman earns approximately $12,000 less than the average white man does. Over a 35-year career, this adds up to $420,000.

''We have made strides in closing the wage gap between women and men, but as these numbers indicate, we still have a very long way to go,'' said Lee. ''It is absolutely unconscionable and inexcusable that women and especially minority women earn a fraction of what men earn for the same job. We must put an end to this unfair treatment and workplace discrimination and we must redouble our efforts to do it.''

The Supreme Court delivered a blow to the fight against workplace discrimination for women, and all American workers, when it ruled on Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. one year ago that workers are barred from filing pay discrimination claims more than 180 days after an employer first decides to discriminate, even when the discrimination continues.

''Lilly Ledbetter stands for women all over this country and symbolizes our fight for justice in pay and our efforts to end the discrimination which is still far too prevalent in this country. Let's stand up for all the Lilly Ledbetter's out there and all the women who deserve equity and fairness in the workplace by making the Paycheck Fairness Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act the law of the land,'' said Lee.

Rep. John Lewis Applauds House Override of President's Medicare Veto

Rep. John Lewis issued the following statement after the U.S. House of Representatives voted to override President Bush's veto of H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008.

''By overriding the President's veto today,'' Lewis said, ''the U.S. House of Representatives took a first step, among others that must follow, to preserve, protect, and improve the Medicare system. As representatives of the people, we have a moral obligation to do what is right, what is fair, and what is just. We must not cut payments to physicians. We must defend access to healthcare for seniors, the disabled, and others beneficiaries of Medicare. While we are spending billions of taxpayer dollars in Iraq for little gain, we could be using those valuable resources to secure the lives of millions of Americans. I applaud the work of my colleagues today who came together in a bi-partisan fashion to take a stand for the people of this nation.

''At issue has been an increase in Medicare reimbursements to physicians. Many doctors have been providing service to Medicare patients while risking their own financial solvency due to recent cuts in government reimbursements. Without this increase, thousands of seniors and disabled Americans would have lost access to medical care. The bill increases payments to doctors by 1.1 percent and stops a mandated 10.6 percent cut in payments. This legislation is fully funded primarily through reductions in overpayments to the Medicare Advantage Indirect Medical Education program and adjustments in the fee-for-service program.

''The bill also includes aspects of two pieces of legislation Rep. Lewis introduced, H.R. 1193, the Kidney Care and Quality Education Act, which addresses issues related to end stage renal disease, and H.R. 552, the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, the fourth leading cause of death in the United States.''

Norton Bill Seeks to Extend the U.S. Parole Commission

As part of her continuing oversight begun last year of District Code felons, ex-offenders and parolees under federal jurisdiction, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) testified at a hearing late last week for her bill to extend the U.S. Parole Commission for three years beyond its current expiration date of November 1, 2008. Currently, the Parole Commission has oversight of more than 9,000 D.C. offenders, and more than 2,000 more federal felons. However, Norton sharply criticized the refusal of the Justice Department to agree to permanent authorization of ''this federal agency with a vital continuing federal mission.'' Besides the inefficient and counterproductive use of congressional time, Norton said the coming deadline had disrupted the work of the commission and put public safety at risk. Next year, she will again seek a permanent reauthorization of the Commission.

Also, at Norton's request, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security heard testimony from a D.C. resident, Horace Crenshaw, who was re-incarcerated and lost years of ''good time,'' which then added to his years on parole. However, following his second infraction, the Parole Board used a sanction procedure that included drug rehabilitation, allowing him to keep his job. Norton is working on a bill to bring the U.S. Parole Commission's procedures in line with best practices.

Full article text

American dream becomes a nightmare for millions of people

Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif) says that with a recession caused by the Iraq War, increasing debt, rising gas and food prices, foreclosures and unemployment, the American dream has become a nightmare.

Click here for the full audio clip

US ban on visitors with HIV could end soon

Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

WASHINGTON (AP) — A two-decade ban on people with HIV visiting or immigrating to the United States may end soon through a Senate bill aimed at fighting AIDS and other diseases in Africa and other poor areas of the world.

The U.S. is one of a dozen countries — including Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Russia — that ban travel and immigration for HIV-positive people.

Even China, said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., recently changed that policy, deciding it was "time to move beyond an antiquated, knee-jerk reaction" to people with HIV.

"There's no excuse for a law that stigmatizes a particular disease," Kerry said Tuesday at a speech to the Center for Strategic & International Studies HIV/AIDS Task Force. Even people with avian flu or the Ebola virus have an easier time than those with HIV when it come to applying for visas, he said.

Kerry and Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., are trying to repeal the ban, first implemented in 1987 and confirmed by Congress in 1993. The two have attached their measure to legislation — which the Senate may pass this week — that would provide $50 billion over the next five years to fight AIDS and other diseases in Africa and other poor areas.

Foreign citizens, students and tourists can apply for a difficult-to-obtain special waiver for short-term visits, but an HIV-positive person has little chance of obtaining permanent residency.

Under current law, HIV is the only medical condition explicitly listed under immigration law. The Kerry-Smith provision would make HIV equivalent to other communicable diseases where medical and public health experts at the Health and Human Services Department — not consular officials at U.S. embassies — determine eligibility for admission.

Those with HIV seeking legal permanent residency would still have to demonstrate they have the resources to live in this country and would not become a "public charge."

The HIV ban was "adopted during a time of widespread fear and ignorance about the HIV virus," said Allison Herwitt, legislative director of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay and lesbian civil rights group.

Among the consequences, experts on HIV and AIDS who are themselves infected have been unable to attend conferences in the U.S. Students and refugees in the country who may be at risk of infection have been reluctant to seek testing or treatment.

"Health care professionals, researchers and other exceptionally talented people have been blocked from the United States," some 160 health and AIDS groups said recently in a letter urging Congress to end the current policy. "Since 1993, the International Conference on AIDS has not been held on U.S. soil due to this policy."

Herwitt said some HIV-positive people seeking visas lie on their applications and then don't bring their medications. "It's not only wrongheaded and discriminatory, but can also cause people to not tell the truth."

Both President George H.W. Bush and President Clinton sought to ease the policy and in 2006 the current President Bush asked the Homeland Security Department to streamline the waiver process. Congress so far has not gone along.

There's still opposition.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., may offer an amendment to eliminate the Kerry-Smith provision from the Senate bill. Sessions cited Congressional Budget Office estimates that the new immigrants coming in under the relaxed policy could cost the government more than $80 million over a 10-year period. "Most people just don't want to talk about that."

Sessions said the Health and Human Services Department already has considerable flexibility to grant entry visas.

The measure would offset the costs of new immigrants by raising the price of applying for a visitor's visa by $1 for three years and then $2 for the next five years.

The House version of the Africa AIDs bill does not have the travel and immigration provision, but advocates said it will be included in the final version of the bill that goes to the president.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., is sponsoring companion legislation in the House.

The Africa AIDS bill is S. 2731.

Barbara Lee leads foreclosure tour in Oakland

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

OAKLAND — Berta Berrayo is trying to hang on to the quaint East Oakland home that represents her American dream.

Sitting on her front porch Saturday, decorated with a U.S. flag and a statue of the Virgin Mary, Berrayo shared with Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, and a crowd of others her plight as a working mother and recent foreclosure victim.

"We have to find a solution to the foreclosure crisis,'' said Berrayo, who was a first-time home buyer when she made the purchase four years ago. "The banks don't want to negotiate with us or our community.''

Lee was in her district this weekend to take a bus foreclosure tour around Oakland, which is among the 20 U.S. cities with the most number of houses in foreclosure.

She was joined by City Council members Desley Brooks, Eastmont-Seminary, and Larry Reid, Elmhurst-East Oakland. Their districts have about 400 bank-owned homes and are at the epicenter of the foreclosure crisis.

The tour was organized by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, which advocates for low- and moderate-income families. Representatives from the Urban Strategies Council and the Department of Housing and Urban Development also participated in the event. Junious Williams, CEO of the Urban Strategies Council, said the foreclosure crisis is the "tipping point" for neighborhoods that already have a lot of problems.

"The American dream is turning into a nightmare, and unfortunately the federal government hasn't done enough to help,'' Lee said. "The impact extends beyond the personal tragedies of families "...there's massive suffering in our country and our communities.''

California led the nation with 68,666 foreclosure filings in June.

Lee is supporting a package of legislation to help those who have been affected by the subprime mortgage crisis.

"The numbers are shameful, and we need to send a loud message to the White House that the president must sign a bill that will be a long-term fix," she said.

Lee hopes to leverage $5.4 million of federal neighborhood revitalization funding to her district to rehabilitate and resell vacant properties.

This year, about 3,800 subprime loans will reset in Alameda County, according to data collected by ACORN.

On Tuesday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB1137 into law.

It requires mortgage lenders to talk with homeowners before foreclosing, gives tenants more time to vacate foreclosed properties and requires owners to maintain foreclosed properties to prevent neighborhood blight.

"Some people are living alone on a block of foreclosed homes,'' said Brooks. "There is a diminution in the quality of life, and we need to change that.''

Rep. Lee Tackles Oakland's Foreclosure Crises

Sun, 13 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

(San Francisco, CA) Representative Barbara Lee joined others on a tour Saturday of properties facing foreclosure in Oakland. As Sherry Hu reports, she, along with others, are trying to help homeowners in financial distress.

Click here to watch the Sherry Hu report

Dems want Bush to heed Iraq's withdrawal timetable

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Calls by Iraqi leaders for a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from the country could reopen the Iraq debate in Congress.

Three of the most ardent opponents of the Iraq war, Reps. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), introduced legislation late Wednesday calling on President Bush to heed Iraq’s demands.

The resolution by calls on Bush to "Respect Iraq's sovereignty and redeploy our military if asked to do so by the Government of Iraq."

It would also ask Bush to present redeployment plans to Congress.

The Iraq debate in Congress was largely put to rest for the year in June when Congress passed an Iraq emergency spending bill funding the war several months into the term of the next president.

But on Monday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki suggested for the first time that a timetable be set for the withdrawal of troops under an agreement being negotiated with the United States.

The three lawmakers also wrote a letter to President Bush, and another to al-Maliki. The letter to al-Maliki says that they "support the sovereign right of the Government of Iraq to insist that any security agreement between the United States and Iraq include a timetable for the complete redeployment of U.S. armed forces and military contractors out of Iraq."

Kucinich pursues Bush's impeachment, again

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, once again put the impeachment of President George W. Bush on the House floor today, and Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland again voiced her support:

    "As a co-sponsor of Congressman Kucinich’s previous articles of impeachment, I want to commend his ongoing efforts to hold this President accountable for his abuses.

    The lifeblood of any democracy is the trust the people have in their political leaders and institutions. When leaders abuse that trust, they imperil their country by breaking the ties that bind the people to their government. And nowhere is that trust more essential than when it comes to deciding whether to go to war.

    As President of the United States and Commander in Chief of our nation's military forces, George W. Bush’s record is replete with abusing this trust with the purpose of enabling a war of choice. His actions will have a lasting effect on the heart and soul of our nation and the very fiber of democracy.

    His war of choice has caused incalculable damage to our country, and the damage is exacerbated daily by his continuance in office. His breach of the public trust and misleading the nation into a disastrous war in Iraq warrants his impeachment and removal from office.

    This article of impeachment introduced today provides a compelling exposé of the President’s abuse of the public trust in his fateful and calamitous decision to launch an unnecessary war in Iraq. I strongly support it."

Kucinich last month had introduced 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush; they were sent to the House Judiciary Committee, where they died without hearing or action. Today he introduced just one article, based on "Deceiving Congress with Fabricated Threats of Iraq WMDs to Fraudulently Obtain Support for an Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq."

House Speaker Nancy "Off the Table" Pelosi, D-San Francisco, somewhat surprisingly told reporters at her weekly briefing this morning that it's "a Judiciary Committee matter. And I believe you will see some attention being paid to it by the Judiciary Committee. Not necessarily taking up the articles of impeachment, because that would have to be voted on the floor, but to have some hearings on the subject."

Foreclosure Notice Legislation Signed Into Law

Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

OAKLAND (BCN) ― Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger came to Oakland Tuesday to sign a bill authored by state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata that requires lenders to contact homeowners and explore restructuring options before initiating the foreclosure process.

Schwarzenegger and Perata, D-Oakland, said the bill, SB 1137, will provide tenants with double the amount of time now afforded to them to move from a foreclosed property, and will prevent California's neighborhoods from becoming run-down by requiring owners to maintain foreclosed properties.

At a news conference at The Unity Council on Fruitvale Avenue, Schwarzenegger said, "Foreclosures not only devastate families, they hurt neighborhoods and depress our economy and our budget."

He said, "I am proud to announce that we are giving Californians one more tool to help them stay in their homes - without government subsidies."

According to Schwarzenegger's office, the Department of Corporations announced last week that the number of loan modifications in California increased significantly in the months of April and May compared to January.

Schwarzenegger said that means state action to work with lenders is helping Californians find more workable loans and keep their homes.

Perata and Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums joined Schwarzenegger at the news conference at the Unity Council, which is a community advocacy, social service delivery and economic development group for Oakland's Fruitvale district.

The Oakland City Council recently passed a resolution urging Schwarzenegger to sign Perata's bill.

In a related development, U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, said Tuesday that she will tour Oakland neighborhoods on Saturday to assess the foreclosure crisis and discuss legislative efforts at the federal level to address the problem.

Lee said she will be joined by Oakland City Council members Larry Reid and Desley Brooks, as well as representatives from the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), Urban Strategies and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

What Peace with Iran Could Look Like

Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

These conversations are about getting to know one another. You can discuss anything you like—we just ask that you be respectful. Our volunteers are… people like you who want to find out more about someone in another country.

With those words printed on the back of a miniature cardboard, a declaration of peace was made. On June 10, on the west terrace of the Cannon House Office Building in Washington, DC, three white tables manned by interpreters stood ready to connect curious Americans and eager Iranians in sometimes awkward, occasionally halting, decidedly scintillating conversations.

As part of a larger grassroots diplomatic initiative entitled “It’s Time to Talk to Iran,” the discussions were preceded by a press conference whereby politicians and activists advocated “a diplomatic surge for peace and reconciliation.” Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA), her usually calm features tensed with determination, thundered, “It is time to put an end to [an American-Iranian policy marked by threats and fear-mongering]… The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King said that ‘we must learn to live together as brothers or we will surely perish together as fools.’ It is time to talk to Iran. All it takes to begin is one ‘Hello.’” Others seconded Rep. Lee’s sentiments, alternately describing diplomatic engagement with Iran as a “mission of mercy” to unfortunate Iranian citizens.

Underlying these passionate statements was the premise that engaging Iran militarily would represent a devastating political, economic, and humanitarian loss for the United States preceded by a “tragic series of lost opportunities.” According to former Georgia representative and current Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr, American “strategic and tactical interests” in the Middle East could not bear the loss of benefits from a better relationship with Iran. However, two questions lingered: what kind of “strategic and tactical” significance did Iran actually have and what could grassroots diplomacy do in an escalating conflict of hard rhetoric?

In reality, Iran’s geographic location and considerable oil resources make it paramount to America’s interests. Nearly 40 percent of the world’s oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz—a narrow Persian Gulf waterway on Iran’s western coast—on a daily basis. In the event of an American military attack, the Iranian government could easily blockade this strait, interrupting the flow of oil. Oil and natural gas comprise 80 percent of Iranian exports. For the U.S. that suffers from rising oil prices, antagonizing a potential source of much needed relief would be tantamount to curing athlete’s foot by amputating the patient’s feet. Renewed relations with Iran open up the possibility of an increased supply of oil resulting from American-Iranian trade, which could lower prices and replenish the amount of disposable income available to the average American.

Although current sanctions do not include oil, the fact remains that the Iranian government has a persistent fear of enforced regime change at America’s hands. As long as that apprehension exists, a potential Iranian-American oil trade will never materialize. Representative Lee’s bill, the Iran Nuclear Nonproliferation Act (HR 770) attempts to mitigate those fears by blocking the use of funds for regime change. However, this latest round of sanctions does not complement the message that this pending piece of legislation is trying to send.

From a diplomatic perspective, improved American-Iranian relations could also translate into a more stable Iraq and Afghanistan. Prior to the mutual mistrust that the Bush and Ahmadinejad administrations seemed to have settled into, Iran was actually a central player in efforts to stabilize Afghanistan. For example, Iranian-American cooperation predominated in both meetings of the United Nations-sponsored 6+2 Group on Afghanistan in the late 1990s and in the 2002 Bonn meetings to develop the incipient Hamid Karzai government in the wake of the Taliban’s overthrow. On the ground in Afghanistan, Iran even supported ground forces and helped negotiate the Northern Alliance. Unfortunately, these overtures were later repelled by Iran’s inclusion in the “Axis of Evil.”

In Iraq, the supplanting of Saddam Hussein’s authoritarian Sunni regime with a coalition of Shiite parties favorable to Tehran has complicated American efforts to win hearts and minds and made the overall political atmosphere more amenable to Iranian meddling, which has manifested itself in alleged funding of Shiite militia groups bent on guerilla campaigns against American troops. A new spirit of cooperation in Iran and America’s mutual support for the Al-Maliki administration could help reduce the ethnic and sectarian schisms in Iraq by depriving many of these militias of their financial support and ideological rationale for attacking American soldiers.

Technically, sanctions are proving to be diplomatically ineffectual. To counteract strategies to undercut its nuclear program, Tehran has waged a diplomatic offensive aimed at Russia, China, and its neighbors in the Middle East. Iran’s readiness to share its oil exports with diplomatically receptive and energy-hungry nations has generated hesitation on the part of the Chinese and the Russians—two prominent members of the UN Security Council—to engage in sanctions against the Ahmadinejad administration. The December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concluding that Iran ceased its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2003 has further exacerbated Russia and China’s reluctance to actively support sanctions.

Iran’s support for Hezbollah has proven its spoiler potential in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Although “the precise extent of coordination between Tehran and Hezbollah” remains uncertain, “circumstantial evidence” exist showing Iran ordered Hezbollah to launch a 2006 incursion into Israeli territory that prompted a protracted military strike. Continued Iranian patronage of Hezbollah ensures a prolonged risk to Israeli welfare. If a military strike was launched against Iran, Tehran could use its considerable influence over Hezbollah to retaliate with a proxy attack on Israel. Given Iran’s newfound respect in the Arab world, American aggression could also prompt terror attacks against U.S. citizens, not to mention whatever conventional force Iran could shore up to respond in kind.

Amidst all these nightmare scenarios, one can only marvel at the audacity of grassroots diplomacy activists. How can such small initiatives like the “Talk to Iran” campaign reverse the tide of mistrust and missed opportunities plaguing American-Iranian relations? According to Carah Ong of the Center for Nonproliferation and Arms Control, the answer lies in humanization of those who have been demonized. “The whole point of these actions,” she says, “is to put a human face on the other [and amplify] the voices of those who say we need diplomacy. If the people [remain] silent, then governments continue what they are doing.” In contrast to the vitriol that has characterized American-Iranian relations since the 1950s, the “Talk to Iran” campaign relies on direct communication as a means of reversing stereotypes created by media exaggeration and political rhetoric. Telephone calls between American and Iranian citizens are arranged as a means of creating friendships and “replacing caricatures with real people.”

Another purpose of cultural diplomatic campaigns like “Talk to Iran” is to complement official and Track Two diplomacy methods used by mid-level and elite sectors of American and Iranian society. In a March 20, 2008 joint article for the New York Review of Books, former UN Ambassador Thomas Pickering, MIT nonproliferation specialist Jim Walsh, and William Luers revealed that a series of secret meetings between “former American diplomats and regional experts and Iranian academics and policy advisers” over five years had produced a proposal to conduct Iran’s nuclear enrichment program within an international consortium. Under this multilateral effort, Iran would choose other nations to participate in the management and operation of its nuclear facilities. No work would be pursued outside the arrangement, nor could Iran produce highly enriched uranium or processed plutonium. Instead, Iran would commit to a light water reactor program that required small levels of enriched uranium, not enough to build a weapon. All parties would contribute financially and share in the revenues.

In the larger scheme of things, cultural diplomacy would help encourage such a policy and official initiatives calling for restraint in American-Iranian policy by inspiring ordinary Americans and Iranians to agitate for better communication and working relations in increasing numbers. As cultural peace evolved into economic peace, a rapprochement in political relations could result. As such, peace with Iran would resemble a large multilevel initiative encompassing all sectors of American and Iranian society beginning with calls for peace from the bottom up.

Unfortunately, that vision remains a pipe dream. Despite a May 13, 2008 proposal from Iran’s Ambassador to the UN endorsing the consortium plan, the European Union, Britain, and the U.S. are “intensifying financial pressure” against Iran by freezing its largest commercial bank’s overseas assets. The inevitable result of this latest pressure move is that Iran will most likely “shift its trade from Europe to Asia.” For a region that is suffering from the perception of fuel shortages, the loss of a potential fuel source may prove to be a significant barrier that will fail to produce the desired effect of compliance, as Iran can “use its windfall oil revenue and pay further costs to import through smaller banks.”

Mandela finally dropped from US terror watch list

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0700

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States has removed former South African president Nelson Mandela and his African National Congress from a three-decade old immigration watch list for possible terrorists, the White House said Tuesday.

In time for the anti-apartheid leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner's 90th birthday on July 18, President George W. Bush signed a bill Tuesday which effectively ended a system in which Mandela had to get special certification from the US secretary of state that he is not a terrorist in order to visit the United States.

Now Mandela and members of the ANC will be able to simply apply for visas to travel to the United States, the State Department said.

"Today the United States finally has removed from its legal code a vestige of that time of collective insults against human dignity," said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, one of the bill's supporters.

"The label of 'terrorist' will no longer be affixed to associates of the ANC -- among them one of the world's great heroes, Nelson Mandela. Our country stands with those who struggled to bring the reprehensible system of apartheid to an end," Berman said.

The measure authorizes US officials "to determine that provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act that render aliens inadmissible due to terrorist or criminal activities would not apply with respect to activities undertaken in association with the African National Congress in opposition to apartheid rule in South Africa."

Mandela won the Nobel peace price in 1993, and was president of South Africa from 1994 to 1999.

The measure ensures "that there aren't any extra hoops for either a distinguished individual, like former President Mandela, or other members of the African National Congress to get a US visa," said State Department spokesman Tom Casey.

He explained that the original purpose of the law, introduced during the 1980s while Ronald Reagan was president, was to fight terrorism. "So we're pleased that we could make this correction to what is otherwise a good and important piece of legislation," he said.

In April, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged a Senate committee to remove the restrictions on the ANC party, calling it a "rather embarrassing matter that I still have to waive in my own counterpart, the foreign minister of South Africa, not to mention the great leader Nelson Mandela."

When a similar bill passed the House of Representatives last month, Barbara Lee, a California Democrat who co-sponsored it, said she was "especially pleased we are taking this important step to finally right this inexcusable wrong."

Lee and others said the legislation was anachronistic and wrongfully labeled heroes and freedom fighters as terrorists.

Lee recalled that under the original legislation ANC officials could travel to United Nations headquarters in New York but not to Washington or other parts of the United States.

The United States has "moved closer at last to removing the great shame of dishonoring this great leader by including him on our government's terror watch list," Senator John Kerry said after the bill was passed in Congress Friday.

Barbara Lee helps get Mandela off terrorist list

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Didja know Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress were still on the United States’ list of organizations considered to be terrorists?

But not for long. Congress has sent a bill, H.R. 5690, to President Bush’s desk that would take them off the list. Among the bill’s co-sponsors is Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, whose office says she’s been working hard with House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, D-North Hollywood, to get it passed. Inclusion on the list has meant that Mandela and members of the ANC have had to obtain a visa waiver under the Immigration and Nationality Act in order to enter the United States.

“Despite his legacy as a hero of the anti-apartheid movement, Nelson Mandela’s receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993, and his election as President of South Africa in 1994, Nelson Mandela continues to be included on the United States terrorist watch list due to his leadership and participation with the African National Congress,” Lee said on the House floor last night.

Bay Area Congresswoman Angered by New Surveillance Rules

Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0700

WASHINGTON (KCBS/AP) _ The House on Friday easily approved a compromise bill setting new electronic surveillance rules that effectively shield telecommunications companies from lawsuits arising from the government's terrorism-era warrantless eavesdropping on phone and computer lines in this country.

The bill, which was passed on a 293-129 vote, does more than just protect the telecoms. The update to the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is an attempt to balance privacy rights with the government's responsibility to protect the country against attack, taking into account changes in telecommunications technologies.

"This bill, though imperfect, protects both," said Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., and a former member of the House intelligence committee.

President Bush praised the bill Friday. "It will help our intelligence professionals learn enemies' plans for new attacks," he said in a statement before television cameras a few hours before the vote.

The House's passage of the FISA Amendment bill marks the beginning of the end to a monthslong standoff between Democrats and Republicans about the rules for government wiretapping inside the United States. The Senate was expected to pass the bill with a large margin, perhaps as soon as next week, before Congress takes a break during the week of the Fourth of July.

Bay Area Congresswoman Barbara Lee says she’s angered that Democrats voted with Republicans on this bill.

”The Bush Administration is going to get immunity for some illegal activities it’s conducted,” said Lee. “It’s a very dangerous slippery slope that we’re on.”

The government eavesdropped on American phone and computer lines for almost six years after the Sept. 11 attacks without permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the special panel established for that purpose under the 1978 law. Some 40 lawsuits have been filed against the telecommunications companies by groups and individuals who think the Bush administration illegally monitored their phone calls or e-mails.

The White House had threatened to veto any surveillance bill that did not also shield the companies.

The compromise bill directs a federal district court to review certifications from the attorney general saying the telecommunications companies received presidential orders telling them wiretaps were needed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack. If the paperwork were deemed in order, the judge would dismiss the lawsuit.

It would also require the inspectors general of the Justice Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies to investigate the wiretapping program, with a report due in a year.

Critics of the bill say dismissal is a foregone conclusion.

"These provisions turn the judiciary into the administration's rubber stamp," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. She opposes the bill.

Opponents of immunity believe civil lawsuits are the only way the full extent of the wiretapping program will ever be revealed.

Key senators voiced strong opposition to the compromise, although they're unlikely to have the votes to either defeat or filibuster the bill. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, condemned the immunity deal. He said that nothing in the new bill would prevent the government from once again wiretapping domestic phone and computer lines without court permission.

Specter said the problem is constitutional: The White House may still assert that the president's Article II powers as commander in chief supersede statutes that would limit him actions.

"Only the courts can decide that issue and this proposal dodges it," Specter said.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi of California disputed that, saying FISA would from now on be the authority for the government to conduct electronic surveillance.

"There is no inherent authority of the president to do whatever he wants. This is a democracy, not a monarchy," she said.

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president, said in a statement that the compromise accepted by the House was an improvement over the bill he had opposed last year.

"Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the president's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over," Obama said. "It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay."

Some civil liberties and privacy groups are also opposing the bill. They object not only to the immunity provision but to what they consider the weakening of the FISA court's oversight of government eavesdropping. For example, the government can initiate a wiretap without court permission if "important intelligence" would otherwise be lost. It has a week to file the request for approval with the court, and the court has 30 days to act on it. But if the court objects to how the government is carrying out the wiretap, it could be weeks before those methods are changed or stopped.

"What we have here is the opportunity for the government to commit mass untargeted surveillance," said Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee.

Opponents also contend the privacy of Americans who communicate with people overseas is not adequately protected. The bill would allow the government to tap the foreigner's calls without court approval, and critics contend that innocent American conversations can be swept up in that.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendment bill also would:

_Require FISA court permission to wiretap Americans who are overseas.

_Prohibit targeting a foreigner to secretly eavesdrop, without court approval, on an American's calls or e-mails.

_Require the government to protect American information or conversations that are collected when in communications with targeted foreigners.

_Allow the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.

_Allow eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.

_Prohibits the president from superseding surveillance rules in the future.

Dems Vent Opposition To Surveillance In Today's FISA Debate

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0700

The House is now voting on changes to the new federal surveillance law.

There were plenty of Democrats speaking out against it during the hour-long debate.

"This bill scares me to death and I urge a no-vote," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), co-chair of the House's Progressive Caucus.

She compared the bill to the era of former FBI head J. Edgar Hoover. "We already remember how Dr. [Martin Luther] King and his family were the victims of the government's most shameless wiretapping. We must never go down this road again."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), gave the bill a lukewarm endorsement, saying the bill many supported was "not an option."

She said the real decision was between this "compromise" bill and the one the Senate has passed, which offered even broader surveillance powers and more protection for telecom companies. "That is the comparison, the contrast, that we have to make today."

"I'm not asking anybody to vote for this bill. I just wanted you to know why I was," Pelosi told the House. "Difficult decisions for all of us. ... I respect every point that was expressed on this floor today. ... The knowledge, the sincerity, the passion and intelligence of those who supported and who don't support this bill have been very valuable in making this bill better."

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) pointed to a constitutional concern.

"The grant of retro-active immunity is inconsistent with our basic principles. We are breaking with a very proud tradition and intervening in a pending court decision in an effort to reach a preordained legal outcome. This is a bad precedent," he said.

Republicans without exception spoke in favor of the bill, often citing the dangers of terrorism.

"This bill will prove that we have the ability to monitor the conversations of al Qaeda overseas," said Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) "It's not the Mona Lisa, but it's not a bad paint job."

Rep. Dennis Kucinch (D-OH) spoke briefly. "These blanket wiretaps make it impossible to know whose calls are being intercepted by the National Security Agency."

Barbara Lee wins DNC seat

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, was elected yesterday at the California Democratic Party’s executive board meeting to serve as one of the state’s 19 Democratic National Committee members; she’ll start a four-year term (2008-2012) after this August’s DNC convention in Denver.

Lee issued a news release promising to bring her commitment to progressive values and coalition building to the DNC so California Democrats have a voice in the national dialogue.

“I am extremely excited at the opportunity to represent California as a member of the DNC,” she said. “It’s truly an honor to have the support of California’s Democratic E-Board. “As a lifelong progressive grassroots activist, I will work to advance the progressive values and vision of the California party members at the national level. It is time for the DNC to re-orient the Democratic Party in the true tradition of democratic values.”

As a member of Congress, Lee already was a superdelegate to this year’s convention, and was the first California House member to endorse presidential candidate Barack Obama, but this DNC seat ensures she’ll have a role in shaping Democratic Party platforms and policies for years to come. A total of 38 candidates campaigned for California’s 19 delegate seats on the DNC.

Federal Stance 'to Negatively Impact School Children'

Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0700

OAKLAND, Calif. (June 16, 2008) — While the private school bus contractor set is applauding a stand made by the feds to curb unfair competition by transit agencies, Congresswoman Barbara Lee says banning public transit agencies from providing supplemental school transportation service will harm students who would otherwise be forced to find alternative means of transportation to school.

Despite a U.S. District Court ruling earlier this year in Rochester, N.Y., that upheld the local transit agency’s right to perform exclusive school service, albeit with some necessary modifications, the Federal Transit Administration announced this spring plans to enforce tripper service rules elsewhere throughout the nation. But recent media reports throughout the country have cited concern from parents and school systems alike, such as those in the 9th Congressional District served by Lee, a Democrat, regarding how the proposed policy change on what does and does not constitute legal school tripper service will impact students.

Aside from Rochester, transit agencies can accommodate students as long as the service does not conflict with existing transit routes or the ability of the general fare-paying public to take advantage of them, a provision the school bus industry points out is consistent with the original 1973 federal law. Transit agencies may also legally provide modified or additional school service if no private company in the area is able to offer yellow buses, a stumbling block in the Rochester case.

Lee argues that students in largely urban, lower income areas like those of Oakland and neighboring cities will see their ability to get a good education hindered if the transit option is taken away from them, especially when and if school bus service is also unavailable.

“I am concerned with the Federal Transit Administration’s proposed policy regarding school bus service, and its potential to negatively impact school children in my district,” says Lee in a statement, adding she will share her concerns with the FTA via comments on the federal register docket. “Instead of looking for ways to make it more difficult for kids to get to school, the FTA should be expanding transportation options for students.”

The Friendship Offensive

Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Peace activists on Capitol Hill hope to stave off war with Iran through cross-cultural contact between ordinary citizens

As George W. Bush focused his final presidential visit to Europe on Iran’s nuclear program, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus joined a group of peace activists on Capitol Hill at an event designed to foster dialogue between everyday Iranians and Americans.

On Tuesday afternoon, the activist groups Enough Fear and Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran set up a phone bank outside the Cannon House office building, inviting activists, reporters, and passersby to speak with people in Iran. Leaders of the two groups seek to build lasting person-to-person ties between Iranians and Americans in the hope of building sentiment against a military confrontation between the two nations.

“The main idea is that if more people in this country have friends in Iran the two countries are less likely to go to war,” explained Nick Jehlen, co-founder of Enough Fear. “It’s as simple as that.” The event, called “Time to Talk to Iran”, was Jehlen’s brainchild.

Jehlen invited every member of Congress to attend this week’s event, but only five, all from the House of Representatives, participated: Lynne Woolsey and Barbara Lee, both California Democrats, joined Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, and Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas. All are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which Woolsey and Lee co-chair. Ron Paul, the Republican presidential contender from of Texas, crossed the aisle to appear with the congresswomen.

Barbara Lee has long advocated person-to-person contact as the solution to the current stand-off with Iranian leaders over their nuclear program, which President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice contend is a precursor to weapons development. In January, Lee, who also sits on the foreign affairs committee, introduced the Iran Diplomatic Accountability Act of 2008, which, she told the gathering, “directs the president to appoint a high-level envoy empowered to seek to conduct direct, unconditional, bilateral negotiations with Iran for the purpose of easing tensions and normalizing relations between the United States and Iran.” Her legislation has idled in committee for the last six months with 14 cosponsors. Proposals in both houses of Congress intended to block the administration from using force against Iran have similarly stalled.

The Washington, D.C., event marked the third staging of a “Time To Talk” event. The first took place in Boston in November 2007, and the second in New York in January. “Having congresspeople here [at a ‘Time to Talk’ event] is really an aberration for us,” Jehlen explained. “If we can facilitate dialogue between members of the American and Iranian governments in the future, we’d like to.”

At each staging, a bank of four or five old-fashioned red desk phones takes center stage, though the phones are actually fed through hand-held wireless devices. The set-up is designed to resemble the crisis lines that connected officials in Washington with their Moscow counterparts during tense moments in the Cold War. About 50 people — including students and Code Pink activists — braved wilting heat and humidity to participate in Tuesday’s event. Many relied on interpreters, young volunteers fluent in both English and Farsi, who joined them on the line.

The conversations tended to be brief, and were often beset by technical problems. But they were substantive, too. Friendly chats quickly developed from exchanges of simple pleasantries (How’s the weather? What do you do?) into earnest discussions about the deteriorating political situation between the two countries.

The organizers put me on the line with Morteza Rassul-Shirazi, a 60-year-old engineer in Tehran who agreed to speak on the record with an American reporter. The connection was poor (the line dropped twice), but Shirazi, along with many of his peers, he said, is concerned that U.S.-Iran hostilities could mushroom into a violent conflict. “We should not talk about war at all,” he told me. “Instead, we should try to show Americans that we are peaceful people.”

Rassul-Shirazi and his friends and family in Tehran are understandably nervous. Visiting with European leaders this week, Bush sent mixed signals, focusing his early remarks on rallying European support for sanctions on Iran if it did not agree to stop enriching uranium, leading some to speculated that he was backing off from earlier saber-rattling. Then, before he left the continent, he added, “All options are on the table.”

These latest remarks capped off several weeks of escalating anti-Iran rhetoric from the administration. In a last week’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at the White House, Bush said, “It is very important for the world to take the Iranian threat seriously.” Speaking this week in Europe, Secretary Rice accused the Iranian regime of evading international oversight, saying,”I think that no one is of a mind to allow them to stall very much longer.”

A December National Intelligence Estimate found that the Iranian government suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. Iran does, however, continue to pursue a uranium enrichment program, which its leaders contend is for use in peaceful projects, such as energy production.

Rep. Lee lashes out against ICE

Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0700

OAKLAND — Pledging to "take them on big-time," Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, sharply criticized the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency Friday and declared she would push for measures to reduce the fear she said agents have caused East Bay immigrant families.

The Oakland Democrat told a packed North Oakland church that she wants to "ensure that ICE is following the rules and that those rules are well-known and publicized — especially when it comes to actions at schools, hospitals, religious centers and other critical community institutions."

Her comments followed a furor in Oakland and Berkeley last month when federal operations to arrest illegal immigrants, which ICE says were routine, caused panic because agents were seen in the vicinity of public schools.

ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice said the sightings that caused panic "turned out to be entirely erroneous. It's very unfortunate that some people in positions of authority perpetuated those rumors."

But the circumstances surrounding those and other arrests continued to invite condemnation and confusion from local officials this month.

Noel Gallo, an Oakland school board member, told Lee Friday that he believed ICE agents "purposefully" parked near the Stonehurst Elementary School on May 6. And he argued that it was not in dispute that last year at Melrose Elementary School, ICE agents followed a parent toward the principal's office and later escorted her out of the school.

"I am concerned that these intimidation tactics are, quite frankly, inhumane," Lee said. "Some, I think, could be politically motivated. And they are all, I think, totally unacceptable."

What remains unclear is whether ICE has the sort of rules about sensitive locations that Lee said she wants to make sure are followed.

ICE's predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, had a written policy expressly stating that the service "attempt to avoid apprehension of persons and to tightly control investigative operations on the premises of schools, places of worship, funerals and other religious ceremonies," according to copies of agency memorandums from the 1990s.

But Kice said that past policies were not necessarily transferred to ICE when it formed under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003.

"We're a new agency," Kice said. "We have a completely new mission. We have established operating procedures."

Declining to speak about internal policies, Kice said that the agency's publicly stated policy "is that we conduct enforcement at appropriate times and appropriate places." She also said the agency tries to avoid interaction with third parties that could jeopardize the safety of agents or their targets.

Kice said that ICE's Northern California fugitive operations division arrested 2,121 illegal immigrants between Oct. 1 and May 31. Of those, 1,471 were considered fugitives, or people who have ignored a prior deportation order. Another 167 were not fugitives but had criminal charges. And the remaining 583 were in the country illegally and were picked up in the course of the operations.

Lee became the latest Bay Area lawmaker to lambaste the 5-year-old immigration agency in recent weeks, although it was not immediately clear how she would go about introducing any changes to current policy.

Last month, Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, invited San Rafael educators to testify at a congressional hearing about the impacts that Marin County immigration raids have had on local schools. At the same time, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, has been leading an inquiry into ICE's medical treatment of detainees.

Lee said she has raised her concerns with the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, which this week proposed a draft $4.8 billion budget for ICE in the coming fiscal year, which is $60 million more than what was requested by the Bush administration. Of that, $800 million would be allotted to efforts focused on identifying and deporting dangerous criminals. Legislators also added a clause to the proposal that would force ICE to cancel contracts with private detention facilities that receive poor audits.

Barbara Lee talks to Iranians

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0700

The Congressional Progressive Caucus, of which Rep. Barbara Lee is co-chairwoman, and the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran held a news conference on Capitol Hill today urging dialogue between ordinary Americans and ordinary Iranians as a means of heading off what they say is the Bush Administration’s drumbeat for war with Iran. Lee, D-Oakland, and others used a row of 60’s-era red “hotline” telephones to talk directly to average Iranians in Tehran.

“We have been down this road before and Americans have learned a simple truth from five hard and bitter years in Iraq: No unjust war ever produced a just and lasting peace! It has not worked in Iraq. It will not work in Iran,” she said. One of the important first steps we should take is to have direct, comprehensive, and unconditional bilateral talks with Iran.”

Lee’s H.R. 5056, introduced in January and now backed by 14 cosponsors, would do exactly that.

Progressives Push Obama On Weapons Waste

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Would Barack Obama do anything to cut the Pentagon's $700 billion dollar budget? It's a question that wasn't exactly a hot topic during the primary season, but is now being pursued by key, liberal Obama supporters.

The Hill reports that the Black Leadership Forum and League of United Latin American Citizens wrote a letter to Obama urging him to take on wasteful weapons program like the F-35 joint strike fighter and the ballistic missile defense program. Congress's progressive caucus has also gotten into the act with Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Ca.), the caucus co-chair, calling for an Obama presidency to end "Cold-War era weapons systems." Lee wants the money spent on domestic programs like health care.

Between spending on weapons and wars, the Pentagon's budget has nearly doubled under the Bush administration. Some progressive Obama supporters have also been quietly critical of his calls to increase the number of marines by almost 100,000.

Obama hasn't said much in the way of redirecting weapons money for social welfare programs. It will be interesting to see if the push makes its way into the general election campaign.

Left presses Obama to cut defens

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who wrapped his party’s presidential nomination just this week, is already besieged by liberal constituencies demanding that he cut military spending to boost social programs.

Two influential liberal groups have sent the presumptive Democratic nominee a letter pressing him to support cuts to defense programs to pay for universal preschool, relief for Americans facing foreclosure on their homes and expanded benefits for military veterans.

The demands carry weight because the groups, the Black Leadership Forum and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), represent two constituencies that are important to Obama’s political strategy: blacks and Hispanics.

Their calls for defense cuts have drawn the support of leading House liberals, many of whom gave Obama crucial support early in his contest against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

The groups have also called on presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) to support the cuts. There is less pressure on McCain, however, because fellow Republicans have kept quiet on the issue. McCain also expects little support from black voters.

But McCain could feel some discomfort because his campaign views Hispanics as a crucial voting bloc. His support for shifting emphasis from defense to social programs could help him appeal to that group. The calls of liberal groups and lawmakers come at a particularly awkward time for Obama.

Since clinching the party’s nomination on Tuesday, Obama has already tacked to the right on security issues in preparation for the general election. During a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Wednesday, Obama proposed sanctions on Iran that analysts viewed as far tougher than what he suggested before.

Now Obama must balance tough talk on national security with the desires of many Democrats to slim American military power.

Liberal groups and lawmakers have targeted the Department of Defense’s largest acquisition program: the Joint Strike Fighter program, which will provide more than 2,000 aircraft to the Navy, Marines and Air Force.

The Black Leadership Forum and LULAC wrote that cutting the program “would free up $1 trillion in the federal budget.”

“America could fund years of universal healthcare at $120 [billion] a year; we could fund universal preschool with $35 billion.”

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said the rapid growth of defense spending compared to domestic spending in recent years is “outrageous.” She wants to slim defense programs and boost education and healthcare funding.

Lee and other House liberals would like to see about $60 billion in defense spending cuts. Specifically, they want to steer money away from what they call “Cold War-era” weapons systems, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Liberals have also called for cuts to the ballistic missile defense program, the F/A-22 Raptor, the V-22 Osprey and the DDG 1000 Zumwalt Class Destroyer.

“This is one of many issues the caucus will be talking about to him,” Lee said of plans to press Obama on defense budget cuts. “I’m definitely going to present this.”

Obama’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

House liberals have talked about cuts to defense programs for years, said Lee. But Republicans controlled Congress for most of the Bush administration and complaints about defense spending have gone largely unheard.

The rise of Obama, who surged to victory with the support of the Democratic Party’s most liberal voters and his criticism of the Iraq war, gives House progressives new hope.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), the other co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has endorsed the Black Leadership Forum’s and LULAC’s calls for defense program cuts.

“Yes, I will support that call,” said Woolsey.

“There are cuts to [weapons] systems that would be more valuable on the domestic front,” she said.

Woolsey said having a strong national defense was important but that the next president of the United States should recognize the difference between what is needed for defense and for acting like a “bully” abroad.

From 2000 to 2008 the budget from the Department of Defense has soared from $290 billion to $481 billion, according to Steven Kosiak, vice president for budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a nonpartisan group.

This growth does not include supplemental spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Total U.S. military spending in 2008 is expected to approach $700 billion.

Meanwhile, discretionary spending for domestic programs has barely grown, according to the estimate of a prominent left-leaning think tank.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that domestic discretionary spending per American increased only 0.3 percent from 2001 to 2008 when adjusted for inflation. That means that spending on a variety of welfare, education, and healthcare programs funded through the annual appropriations process has remained flat.

By contrast, defense and security spending per American has gone up more than 8 percent between 2001 and 2008.

Rep. Raúl Grijalva, a Hispanic Democrat from Arizona, said he would support a review of defense programs that he considers outdated. Many House liberals believe some of the Defense Department’s biggest weapons programs are no longer needed at a time when adversaries in Iraq and Afghanistan have killed thousands of Americans with relatively simple weaponry.

“I think we should re-evaluate programs to see if savings can be used for domestic priorities,” said Grijalva.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) said he would advise the next president to reassess spending on programs “created to fight an enemy that no longer exists.”

“If I were advising the administration, it would be at the top of my list,” he said.

The Antiwar Plank

Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Democrats were clearly seen as running on an antiwar platform in 2006, and they won big, grabbing control of both houses of Congress. The lesson should have been clear: when the party defines itself as antiwar, it wins. But after a year and a half of wrangling between Congressional Democrats and the Bush Administration over Iraq, that definition has blurred. So now, even as Democrats are poised to nominate a candidate who opposed attacking Iraq, key Congressional supporters of the likely nominee, Senator Barack Obama, and his chief challenger, Senator Hillary Clinton, are working together to craft a platform that bluntly positions the Democrats as the party that will bring the troops home and change the policies that sent them to the Middle East. So far, fifty House members, all superdelegates, have signed a letter endorsing the antiwar language.

"On the issues of Iraq and foreign policy, Democrats can't be vague or fuzzy," argue Representatives Barbara Lee, an Obama backer; Jim McGovern, a Clinton backer; and Sam Farr, uncommitted until after the primaries, in an open letter to delegates to the Democratic National Convention. The "Democratic Platform that will be ratified at the Convention in Denver will form our core statement of principles as a party for the next four years, principles that we will unite around in both the general election and beyond," they add. "With only months remaining before we unite as a party in August, it is critical that we take action now to ensure that a clear statement is made in our platform: we will end the war in Iraq; the Republican Party will not."

These influential superdelegates agreed, even while the presidential race divided them, to unite to support platform language that calls for: "an end to the war in Iraq by initiating the safe and secure withdrawal of all US combat forces, leaving no permanent military bases behind; a robust diplomatic surge in the Middle East and beyond that includes negotiations with the Iranian government without preconditions that make sitting down to talk impossible; an end to the use of torture and the closure of our prison at Guantánamo Bay."

Party platforms are often dismissed as meaningless. But presidential candidates and Congressional leaders do not treat them as such, and neither should antiwar activists. In writing the platform the relationship between the candidate and the party base is defined, and the message for the fall campaign is framed. Four years ago, after Democratic convention delegates finalized an agenda for the party's campaign, Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. dismissed it as "a cautious platform." The chair of the party's platform committee, Representative Rosa DeLauro, said simply, "It reflects John Kerry." That was the problem. The platform's "transparent vagaries on Iraq"--to quote antiwar activist Tom Hayden--signaled a tepid approach to the war debate that ceded vital ground to the Republicans. When Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich supporters attempted to add antiwar language to the platform, Kerry's man, former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, rushed in to block them and bragged, "We didn't give up anything." Nor did they gain anything, as the results of that fall's election demonstrated.

The House members who want strong antiwar language in this year's platform aren't trying to push Obama around; roughly half are Obama backers. Rather, they suggest, they are prodding the party to do what is necessary to prevail in November. "The Democratic Party needs this," says Barbara Lee. "It will give the nominee the foundation and the [appeal to the] base to move forward and win."

Will the platform process be flexible enough to accept what these superdelegates are offering? Perhaps. The closeness of this year's nominating contest and the fact that the process will be led by backers of Obama, Clinton and John Edwards guarantees a more diverse platform committee, one that will be disinclined to rubber-stamp cautious language produced by consultants. The Win Without War coalition is mounting a campaign to get superdelegates to back the antiwar planks--and it will deliver petitions supporting it to regional platform hearings this summer and at the convention--while Progressive Democrats of America is working closely with Jim McGovern, who is likely to emerge as an outspoken grassroots supporter of the move. Says McGovern of the Democrats, "We need to demonstrate that we get it, and the platform is the place to do that."

Lee to be a Vice Chair of LGBT Equality Caucus

Wed, 04 Jun 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, today announced she’ll be one of 20 vice-chairs of Congress’ new, bi-partisan Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality Caucus.

“I am so proud to be a part of the LGBT Equality Caucus, and I want to thank our great leaders and Co-Chairs, Tammy Baldwin and Barney Frank, for their critical leadership in fighting for equality for all,” Lee said at a Capitol Hill news conference. “As a Californian, I am proud to say that our great state is helping lead the fight for equality. But despite some of the progress being made, this caucus and its members are here today because we understand that much more needs to be done to ensure the human rights for LGBT people at home and abroad.

“We understand that we must and will push our colleagues and our country to put an end to the discriminatory laws that still undermine the equality we seek for LGBT people,” she continued. “We will work to educate and legislate and to ensure the equality that people deserve regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. We believe we can and will make great progress in our efforts because we know that the fight for equality is the fight for justice and that this fight is one we will win.”

Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose, also is among this new caucus’ vice chairs. And among the two-and-a-half-dozen members are Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto; Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose; Pete Stark, D-Fremont; Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo; and Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma.

Bush administration threatens defence authorisation bill with veto

Thu, 29 May 2008 00:00:00 -0700

The United States House of Representatives passed an annual defence authorisation bill on 22 May that prompted the White House to respond with a sweeping veto threat.

The bill authorises USD601.4 billion for US defence spending in Fiscal Year 2009 (FY09), including USD70 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for a 3.9 per cent pay rise for US military personnel.

However, the White House threatened to veto the legislation if it included several types of measures, such as provisions that would limit the Bush administration's latitude in setting future Iraq policy.

"The administration strongly opposes any amendment that would attempt to determine the legal effect or content of diplomatic agreements with Iraq before they are negotiated," the White House said in a 22 May statement of administration policy.

Despite the veto threat, House of Representatives lawmakers included measures designed to prevent the Bush administration from sidelining Congress or the next administration as it attempts to set the future course of US-Iraq diplomatic relations.

The Bush administration is currently in the process of negotiating a long-term security agreement with the Iraqi government. Normally such agreements do not require congressional consent.

However, the Iraqi government has said that any agreement negotiated between the US and Iraq must be approved by the Iraqi parliament, and language included in the House of Representatives legislation would require the US Congress to do the same.

Barbara Lee, a Democratic representative from California, successfully introduced the language, which would require Congress to authorise any status of forces agreement that would obligate the US to defend Iraq. "If prior review and approval is good enough for the Iraqi parliament, it is essential for the Congress," said Lee in a 22 May statement.

Left Turn?

Sat, 10 May 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Liberals in Congress believe that 2009 could be their best year since the New Deal.

On the afternoon of April 9, the ballroom of Washington's Willard Hotel belonged to Bernie Sanders. The independent senator from Vermont with Einsteinian hair and an admiration for Scandinavian-style socialism stood before a few hundred like-minded liberal activists who had convened to contemplate the legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal on its 75th anniversary.

The grassroots organizers, political strategists, and students at the event had spent nearly as much time in the hours before Sanders's speech bashing President Bush's two terms as they did celebrating FDR's four. So a couple of stabs from the Brooklyn-accented Sanders elicited roars of laughter from the crowd.

"I don't know where the hell they got this word from, 'robust,' " Sanders said, referring to a term Bush commonly uses to describe the economy. "It's always 'robust.' And 'strong fundamentals,' and 'sound'--all this crap." The liberals laughed. Sanders then explained his opposition to Bush's new Office of Management and Budget director, Jim Nussle: "I want somebody at OMB who can, at the very least, explain the reality of American life to the president." The liberals laughed even harder.

But in wrapping up his 10-minute pitch, Sanders urged the crowd to look past the Bush presidency. "The disgust for right-wing extremism and the Bush administration is very apparent," he said. "Our job is, now, to give the American people a progressive alternative." He admonished the Democratic Party to start "forgetting about their campaign contributors" and fight for national health care, tax increases on the wealthy, cuts in military spending, and an end to the Iraq war. "We need to galvanize the American people to demand radical changes in the way we do business," Sanders implored.

As the November elections draw closer, such heady talk is increasingly common among congressional liberals--or progressives, as many of them prefer to be called. From rank-and-file freshmen to committee chairmen, the Left is forecasting big electoral wins followed by major legislative action in 2009. "If you get a Democratic House, Senate, and president, you will see positive public policy changes that will outstrip anything since the New Deal," House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., boldly predicted on April 24.

Many potential obstacles loom. Democrats may not win big in November. Moderates and conservatives in their caucus may organize opposition against proposals that would be unpopular in Republican-leaning territory represented by Democratic lawmakers. Progressives may fail to develop a clear political strategy and attract enough public support to get their proposals signed into law over GOP objections. Or they may keep their ambitions in check out of fear that an overreaching agenda could backfire on Democrats in subsequent elections. But, at the moment, optimism rules the liberal ranks.

"I'm looking forward to November," Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., a key liberal on the House Rules Committee, said. "If things turn out the right way, this could be the beginning of a time of great transformation."

A Bush Backlash

The progressives' optimism is fueled by poll after poll showing that the American public favors their policy positions.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., co-chairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the liberal bloc in the House, points out that most Americans want U.S. troops out of Iraq. "The elected members of Congress are not listening to the public," Woolsey said. "The public wants us to leave, but it doesn't know how it wants us to leave. That's our job."

In addition, surveys show that most Americans disapprove of the country's direction and of Bush's performance. The public trusts Democrats more than Republicans to deal with the economy and health care. Stan Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, has pointed out that the number of Americans who agree with the statement "Government should care for those who can't care for themselves" rose from 57 percent in 1994, when Republicans won control of Congress, to 69 percent in 2007, when Democrats took over.

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, who ousted GOP Sen. Mike DeWine in 2006, said the election results that year proved that the country is moving in a progressive direction. "All the seats that went from Republican to Democrat in the Senate were people running on progressive economic issues--on alternative energy, on raising the minimum wage, on a different trade policy," Brown said.

At numerous gatherings this year, liberal activists have promoted the view that a national backlash is brewing against the Bush administration and 12 years of Republican control of Congress--a force that will carry a Democrat into the White House and more Democrats into the House and Senate. The economic downturn increases public support for government activism, liberals say.

Andrea Batista Schlesinger, executive director of the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, a progressive group based in New York City, said that Congress appears increasingly willing to intervene in the financial markets. "There's a pretty unprecedented opportunity to drive a progressive agenda in Congress," she said.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., the other co-chairwoman of the Progressive Caucus, said that people "are really sick and tired" of the agenda that Bush pursued during the past eight years. "The alternative of that is a strong progressive agenda that enacts universal health care, and brings the troops home, and looks at how we cut poverty in half," Lee said. "Just the opposite of what the Bush administration is and has been is the progressive agenda."

Similarly, Brown said that progressives hope to correct the negative consequences of past policy steps that limited the government's reach. "It's clear that so much of what's brought on the economic problems now are because we've done tax cuts for the rich and we've deregulated the whole financial structure," Brown said. "Look at what we have with the economy, with oil prices, the problems with the airlines. It's all been around deregulation and seeing the wealthy get wealthier and the middle class shrinking."

In Frank's view, the nation's economic woes are on par with the problems that led to the two major liberal legislative programs in the first half of the 20th century--the progressive reforms, including antitrust laws, under Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, and the New Deal under FDR. The first era of government activism resulted from the rise of giant industrial corporations; the second from the crash of the stock market and the Great Depression.

At an April 24 Christian Science Monitor breakfast, Frank said that once Democrats gain full control of Washington, they'll usher in a new era of government activism to respond to the unregulated securitization of debt that led to the subprime mortgage crisis and other problems facing the economy. He also predicted a variety of other progressive initiatives.

"You'll see expansions in health care," Frank said. "I think you'll see an increase in the rights to join unions. You'll see increased regulation. You're going to see the updated [Securities and Exchange Commission], the updated [National Labor Relations Board], an updated Medicare.... We'll get back to the business of building affordable housing. I think you'll see substantial activity."

During debate on the congressional budget resolution each year, progressives lay out their priorities by proposing an alternative plan. This year, they proposed cutting funds for the Iraq war and for the Pentagon in general, and their budget assumed that many of the tax cuts approved during Bush's first term would expire. Progressives would redirect that money--hundreds of billions of dollars--to domestic infrastructure and anti-poverty programs. By contrast, the Democratic budget that the House approved in March assumed continued war funding, matched Bush's proposed Pentagon increases, and provided less domestic spending than the progressives' proposal.

"We believe in global peace and security, but we don't believe in a defense budget that allows the Halliburtons of the world and other defense contractors to take money--and then we never know what happened to the money," Lee said.

Congress must be more assertive in overseeing foreign policy and national security, Woolsey added. "We are not just a cheering section or a booing section," she said. She also argued for a clear commitment to multilateralism and international agreements. "We need a bold policy where we're working with other nations, to understand we all depend on each other," she said. And, although she conceded that some call the sentiment corny, Woolsey added: "We have to have world peace."

On the domestic front, Sanders is one of several lawmakers who are framing the progressive agenda around the middle class. He has been regularly reading constituents' letters on the Senate floor as part of a campaign he calls "the collapse of the middle class" that seeks to highlight the struggles of working Americans to deal with the rising costs of health care, education, food, housing, and energy.

Progressives should focus on statistics that show the concentration of wealth among the richest Americans and the decline of real incomes for working families, Sanders said. "Class warfare has been waged for years in this country, and all the evidence suggests that the wealthy are winning," he told National Journal. "It's time for the Congress to begin to stand with the middle class and take on very powerful and wealthy interests."

Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government-Sponsored Enterprises, told the same crowd that Sanders addressed on April 9 that his discussions with Wall Street leaders have left him worried that the country could be headed into a depression that would require a New Deal-sized government response. Congress is already resurrecting New Deal programs, he said, as a first step toward confronting the housing market's problems.

"All we're doing is going into the basket and saying, 'Damn, what did they do in '32, what did they do in '34, what did they do in '36,' and we're pulling them out, dusting them off, giving them a paint job, correcting the fenders a bit, and we're using them," Kanjorski said. "To get us through the horrendous problems we may have over the next several years, we've got to make these old programs work, and we've got to be as inventive as hell."

Reality Check

It is notable that when progressives allude to history, they don't mention the Great Society, even though President Johnson and his Democratic supermajorities in the House and Senate in the mid-1960s enacted the most recent, large-scale liberal legislative program, including the establishment of Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, food stamps, public housing, and other anti-poverty programs, plus the passage of landmark civil-rights laws.

Although most of the Great Society programs remain intact--and highly popular with the American people--many lawmakers remember the backlash that helped to spawn the Reagan revolution in 1980. Republicans, for their parts, aren't shy about recalling the 1960s.

Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., who served as Bush's Housing and Urban Development secretary, said he opposed many of the housing market fixes that congressional Democrats are advancing this year, because he fears that they might turn into permanent government programs. "Having some experience at HUD, we still have a lot of Great Society programs that are inefficient, that don't accomplish much, but that have been there and continue to be there just because they've always been there," Martinez said.

Concerns about government effectiveness aren't confined to Republicans. Greenberg, the Democratic pollster, has warned his partisans that Americans want to see government cut wasteful spending and "listen to the people" before spending more money on health care, education, energy and other domestic initiatives. More than 60 percent of Americans agree with the statement, "When something is run by the government, it is usually inefficient and wasteful."

Republicans contend that Americans are more interested in controlling government spending than in creating more government programs. Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif., who has introduced a constitutional amendment that would limit increases in federal spending to growth in the gross domestic product, said that even with more people relying on government programs such as unemployment insurance during recessions, Americans are still concerned about spending. "I don't think that people necessarily want more government spending at this time," Campbell said, "particularly the majority of people who are paying taxes."

Much of the progressive agenda depends on increased revenue from the expiration of Bush's first-term tax cuts. Democrats contend that they are going to let taxes rise on the wealthy only, but Republicans counter that taxes will increase for most Americans. And when Democrats argue that the public wants a more activist government, Republicans point to the European countries that enacted many of the progressives' ideas in the past but are now rolling back taxes and regulations to increase their competitiveness in the global economy.

"Americans want an economy that works," Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said. "Europe is rejecting that Big Government involvement. They're lowering their taxes.... We need to lower our corporate income tax rate to make our businesses more competitive."

As chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Ensign has the job of maintaining GOP strength in the Senate. That task becomes especially important if Democrats manage to win the White House and increase their House majority. As long as Republicans control at least 41 Senate seats, they can block legislation by filibustering, a maneuver that requires 60 votes to overcome.

Ensign's opponent, Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chairman, faces long odds in capturing the nine Senate seats necessary to raise his party's 51-49 majority to a filibuster-proof 60-40. So even if progressives enjoy significant electoral victories elsewhere, it's still likely that their grand legislative dreams would face a tough road next year in the Senate. They would probably need votes from moderate Republican senators to advance legislation.

The liberals' challenge is illustrated by the failure of several of their key proposals to get the required 60 Senate votes during this Congress. In April, legislation backed by women's rights groups that would have overturned a Supreme Court decision limiting pay discrimination lawsuits fell three votes short of that filibuster-proof majority. Last fall, a bill granting the District of Columbia a voting member of Congress also fell three votes short. A union-backed bill aimed at making it easier for workers to organize would need eight more Senate supporters to clear that chamber next year.

Even with larger Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, progressives would still face obstacles in persuading all of their fellow party members to back their proposals. Their ideas for cutting defense spending would be particularly unpopular among hawkish Democrats, especially in the Senate, where Sanders is the only member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Progressives are a more prominent presence in the House; 71 of the 235 Democrats in that chamber belong to the caucus, which was formed in 1991. The group includes key committee chairmen--Frank; Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.; Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif.; and Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich. The progressives are the largest ideological bloc among House Democrats, outnumbering both the centrist New Democrats (58 members) and the more conservative Blue Dogs (47 members).

The Progressive Caucus co-chairs, Lee and Woolsey, are from districts neighboring that of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and they serve as the liberal liaisons to House leaders. Lee, Woolsey, and Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., gathered 92 House members' signatures last fall, for example, on a letter pledging that they would not vote for any more war funding that keeps U.S. troops in Iraq. With those numbers, they forced the leaders to schedule separate votes on war and domestic spending as part of the supplemental appropriations bill pending in Congress this month. The measure would have fallen if the House voted on it as one big package, because Republicans would have voted against the domestic spending and the liberals would have voted against the war spending. By holding separate votes, leaders can rely on Republicans and moderate Democrats to clear the war spending, and on liberals to join other Democrats in clearing the domestic spending.

But the progressives do not command a majority of the House Democratic Caucus. The progressives' budget this year garnered 98 votes on the House floor. Every Republican and 131 Democrats voted against it. The liberals must, therefore, balance their demands with the other blocs' wishes. "What we have to do is say, yes, we support strongly the Democratic agenda," Lee said, "but we have to go beyond that and push the envelope and make sure that real change is taking place."

Hope and Caution

Even though the freshman Democrats who ousted incumbent Republicans in the 2006 election are overwhelmingly moderate, Mark Schmitt, a progressive strategist at the New America Foundation, contends that Democrats have, by and large, moved to the left. Many of the conservative Southern Democrats who stymied liberals during the first years of the Clinton administration are gone. "There's a much narrower [ideological] range than Democrats have had at any time probably since Reconstruction," said Schmitt, who believes that the shift gives progressives a better chance of enacting their agenda in the coming Congress.

Democrats should not be worried about the tax-and-spend liberal label that Republicans are likely to slap on them, Schmitt contends, because Americans generally favor a greater government role in areas such as health care and the environment. "The era of Republicans just being able to yell, 'Liberal! Liberal! Liberal! Big Government! Big Government!' and have a backlash--that era is over," Schmitt said.

Rep. Phil Hare, D-Ill., a Progressive Caucus member, agreed that Democrats should not be afraid to promote ideas that their GOP opponents would decry as liberal. "As progressives, we have to get our voices back," he said.

Indeed, liberal lawmakers argue that the public's anti-Bush and anti-Republican sentiment should embolden them to offer expansive ideas. "We're going to be in a situation where we can talk about bold initiatives, not just the usual stuff we do here now, two tax cuts and call me in the morning," McGovern said.

James Stimson, a political science professor at the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill), has developed an index, based on thousands of surveys, that tracks public support of liberal policies from 1952 to 2006. The index is "pointing in the direction that liberals are happy to see," Stimson said. The year "2006 looks more like the 1960s than the 1980s and 1990s." He said that public support for liberal policies generally rises during conservative administrations.

"The public is generally moderate, but it gets to choose between Republicans who are too conservative and Democrats who are too liberal," Stimson said. "Whatever you're not getting lately becomes more attractive." That view, if true, presents liberals with a double-edged sword. They may be able to capitalize on anti-conservatism now, but the pendulum will eventually swing the other way.

For now, however, congressional liberals are not talking about moderating their plans. "Incrementalism has its place," Lee said. "But we have this moment to shake things up and make some real change. We have to be bold and have a big agenda so we can get half of it, even. You can't start with 20 percent of what you believe in and expect to get 20 percent. You have to start with 100 percent and hope you get 75 percent."

Oakland forum calls for HIV prevention funds

Sat, 10 May 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Julie Gerberding said Friday that more money is needed for HIV prevention efforts in the African American community, particularly for gay black men, who are disproportionately affected by the AIDS epidemic.

"You have to scale the money to the scope of the problem," Gerberding said during a forum hosted by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, at a West Oakland community center.

The chief of the Atlanta-based federal agency responsible for controlling infectious disease acknowledged that, when it comes to HIV, "We have not succeeded in our prevention efforts."

Her call for more money comes even as the Bush administration, which appointed her to run the agency, is proposing a $1 million reduction - to $691 million - for HIV prevention and surveillance in the CDC budget request for the coming fiscal year.

Gerberding was received warmly by the mostly African American audience, but several speakers decried the years of flat or declining spending on AIDS prevention in the United States, even as the administration's spending on the epidemic overseas has soared.

"The pie is only so big right now," Gerberding said. "What we need is a bigger pie."

In testimony before Congress, Gerberding has often conceded that she wanted far more money for her agency than requested by her superiors in the administration. Last year, she said $7.2 billion was needed, but the CDC budget was cut to $5.9 billion.

The epidemic in the United States has been shifting from one that primarily affected gay white males to one where the majority of new infections are occurring among African Americans.

Among young people newly diagnosed between 2001 and 2005, for example, 61 percent were black, and 48 percent of infections among black men were linked to sex with other men.

The infection rate among African American men was seven times higher than that of white men in 2005, according to the CDC. African American women are being infected at 20 times the rate of white women in the United States.

As a result, although 13 percent of the U.S. population is black, African Americans make up half of those living with HIV infection.

In light of such figures, Lee said she is once again urging the federal government to declare a "national public health emergency," just as Alameda County declared HIV a health emergency 10 years ago.

"We need to make sure not only that resources are increased, but are targeted to where they are needed most," she said.

According to Robert Williams of the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, the HIV prevention budget in Alameda County has been cut in half, to $800,000 from $1.6 million. "I think we are moving in the wrong direction," he said. "If it is, in fact, a state of emergency, then why aren't we acting like it's an emergency?"

George Lemp, director of the Universitywide AIDS Research Program at UC, said studies dating back to the early 1990s repeatedly showed that gay African American men were becoming infected with HIV at twice the rate of gay white men. Yet prevention programs were not reaching young black men.

"Our interventions are targeting the wrong people, in the wrong places, and at the wrong time of day," he said.

Rep. Barbara Lee Urges Blacks to Talk About HIV/AIDS

Fri, 09 May 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Click here to listen to George Harris' radio report

Though the HIV/AIDS epidemic has had a profound impact on African Americans, many in the black community don't want to talk about it.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, wants to change that. She hosted a panel discussion titled "From Prevention to Policy: Responses to HIV/AIDS in the African-American Community" in Oakland Friday.

Lee wants to expand the reach of HIV prevention programs, develop new intervention strategies, and get the black community behind an effort to battle the epidemic.

For many years, the congresswoman has pressed for a declaration of a national AIDS emergency, but to no avail.

US lawmakers debate bill to remove stigma for South Africa party

Wed, 07 May 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Lawmakers on Tuesday debated legislation to remove former South African president Nelson Mandela and his African National Congress (ANC) party from an apartheid-era US terrorist blacklist.

Several members of the House of Representatives immediately expressed support for a bill aimed at removing from any US databases "any notation that would characterize the ANC and its leaders as terrorists."

The House bill is sponsored by Howard Berman, the California Democrat who chairs the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, with strong support from the US State Department.

Barbara Lee, another California Democrat who co-sponsored the bill, said she is "especially pleased we are taking this important step to finally right this inexcusable wrong."

Lee and others said the legislation introduced during the 1980s while Ronald Reagan was president is anachronistic and wrongfully labels as terrorists men and women who are heroes and freedom fighters.

Lee recalled that the ANC could travel to United Nations headquarters in New York but not to Washington DC or other parts of the United States.

"It's been 18 years since Nelson Mandela was released from prison, 14 years since he was elected president of South Africa, and this year, he will turn 90 years old," Lee said.

Yet, even though he is "a hero" of the anti-apartheid movement who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993 and who served as his country's president, Mandela must still apply for a visa waiver just to visit the United States, she said.

"This is just plain wrong," Lee added.

Sheila Jackson-Lee, a Texas Democrat, rose to support the legislation, "because it is an important step forward."

She said it will "remove the stigma, if you will, of the name of terrorist because they were freedom fighters to save and preserve and to free South Africans so they, too, might live in a democracy."

"Let us likewise be assured that we recognize that there are other groups that are similarly situated that we should take a look at," Jackson-Lee said without naming the groups.

Mirroring the legislation sponsored by Congressman Berman, Senator John Kerry, a former Democratic presidential candidate, introduced similar legislation in the Senate, his office said.

"The idea that he'd be on our government's terror watch list is deplorable. No bureaucratic snafu can excuse this international embarrassment, and we need to fix this policy now," Kerry was quoted by his office as saying.

Last month US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged a Senate committee to remove the restrictions on the ANC.

She said "it is really a rather embarrassing matter that I still have to waive in my own counterpart, the foreign minister of South Africa, not to mention the great leader Nelson Mandela."

Clergy, teachers, civil rights groups oppose prison measure

Tue, 06 May 2008 00:00:00 -0700

SACRAMENTO — Civil rights groups, teachers and clergy — many from the Bay Area — plan to form a coalition today to oppose a pending ballot initiative that they say would divert funds needed for schools and health care into misguided attacks on crime.

The “Safe Neighborhoods Act: Stop Gang, Gun, and Street Crime” aims to bolster law enforcement funds and toughen gang-related crime penalties.

Republican lawmakers and other authors of the proposed initiative submitted petitions bearing voters’ signatures to election officials April 25 in hopes of qualifying it for the November statewide ballot.

U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, said in a statement Tuesday that the “so-called Safe Neighborhoods Act will not lead to safer streets, less crime or a reduction in drug dealing in our community.”

“The initiative doesn’t address the core problems or create real solutions,” she said. “In light of the current California budget crisis, we cannot afford to irresponsibly spend even more California tax dollars on a failed policy of only funding prisons and criminalizing youth.”

Jakada Imani of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights said that the proposal “makes us less safe.” Effective public safety results from employment and a strong economy, which is based on a strong school system,’’ Imani said.

Opponents include the California NAACP, the California Federation of Teachers, Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums and California Church IMPACT, the advocacy arm of the California Council of Churches.

Foes of the proposal plan to hold similar news conferences today in Los Angeles and Fresno.

Safe Neighborhoods initiative co-author George Runner, a Republican state senator from Lancaster, said in submitting initiative petitions that supporters had “received passionate responses from voters up and down the state for this ballot measure.”

“But we are not surprised by their enthusiasm,’’ he said. “Our constituents tell us all the time that they are fed up with gangs and the violence and destruction they bring to our neighborhoods.”

Other supporters include the senator’s wife, Assemblywoman Sharon Runner, R-Lancaster, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, and Mike Reynolds, who championed California’s crime-penalty toughening “three-strikes” law.

A report by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office on the proposal says it would boost funding for police, sheriffs, district attorneys, jails and probation offices by about $365 million annually.

The initiative also would require a few hundred million dollars for operation of prisons that would house additional inmates imprisoned for longer periods.

The measure would bolster penalties for various crimes, including those related to gang participation and recruitment, intimidation of individuals involved in court proceedings, possession and sale of methamphetamine, vehicle theft and gun possession.

ECSU: 248 Students Earn Degrees

Sun, 04 May 2008 00:00:00 -0700

California Congresswoman Barbara Lee said Saturday that college students today face many of the same problems she faced as a student in 1972 — a long and unpopular war, poverty and civil rights struggles.

"Today you are embarking on a journey that is thrilling and ripe with potential," Lee told the 248 graduates of Elizabeth City State University's newest class. Lee was the keynote speaker at ECSU's 146th commencement held outdoors Saturday morning at Roebuck Stadium.

Of the 248 graduates who received their degrees, 232 were undergraduates and the remaining 16 were graduate students.

Lee has been an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq since she first voted against authorizing military force following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. She said the next president needs to be a dove and end the war in Iraq, which continues to mount in cost and casualties. She challenged the graduates to go out in the world and demand change.

"You must accept your calling as change agents," said Lee, who represents Oakland and Berkeley in California's 9th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives. "You will be called upon for reason and protest to bring this war to an end. We must bring our troops home."

Chancellor Willie Gilchrist welcomed the ever-expanding Viking family to Saturday's commencement and convocation. He extended an extra welcome to members of the class of 1958, who were celebrating their 50th graduation anniversary.

This year's graduating class included the first group of pharmacy science graduates — 13 in all, Gilchrist said. Many are planning to pursue doctorates in pharmacy science, he said.

One of the pharmacy graduates, Ahmed Abrahim, 23, of Cary, N.C., said he felt "ecstatic" but "bittersweet" about leaving ECSU. He plans to become a pharmacist.

Another pharmacy school graduate, Jennifer "Brynn" Hulbert, 28, of Wilmington, said she plans to pursue her doctorate and become a pharmacist at a veterans hospital or long-term care facility.

"It's a good field to get into," she said.

Meanwhile, sociology major Daryl Turrentine, 22, of Ahoskie, said his parents came to watch him receive his degree. He said they're proud of him.

"I'm extremely relieved and happy it's over," he said. "My biggest challenge was myself, that maybe I couldn't make it this far."

After finding a summer job, he plans to attend graduate school at Western Illinois University.

Andrea Morris of Elizabeth City, a 23-year-old music major and choir member, said graduating "is a dream come true, especially for my family."

"It does my mother's heart good to see one of her seven children earn a degree," said Morris, who sang soprano, played piano and studied classical music. She plans to pursue a master of music and jazz degree at N.C. Central University.

"I hope to become a future educator and professional performer," she said.

Of the 16 graduate students, two graduated from ECSU's biology program, one from math, one from elementary education and 12 from master of school administration.

"This is the first time we have presented graduates from every graduate degree program available at ECSU," said ECSU spokeswoman Kesha Williams.

Bearer of the university mace was ECSU's top student, Deysi Galvan Juarez, who earned a double-degree in accounting and business administration, graduating summa cum laude.

Saturday was the second straight year a member of Congress spoke at the ECSU spring graduation.

Last year, U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., was the keynote speaker.

Iraq & the Democratic Platform

Thu, 01 May 2008 00:00:00 -0700

At a time when the media is concentrating on what divides us as Democrats -- our preferences for whom our party should nominate for president -- we think that it is important to speak out on matters that unite us. The debacle in Iraq and the failed foreign policy that led us there is of grave concern to the American people. It also offers a clear contrast between the Democratic and Republican parties, regardless of who our presidential nominee is.

On the issues of Iraq and foreign policy, Democrats can’t be vague or fuzzy. We need to be clear, strong and unequivocal: the war must end; we must reach out to all parties in the region in a diplomatic effort; and we must rebuild our standing in the world by ending the use of torture and closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Regardless of when the nomination is decided, the Democratic Platform that will be ratified at the Convention in Denver will form our core statement of principles as a party for the next four years, principles that we will unite around in both the general election and beyond. With only months remaining before we unite as a party in August, it is critical that we take action now to ensure that a clear statement is made in our platform: we will end the war in Iraq; the Republican Party will not.

That is why we are coming together -- as supporters of Barack Obama, supporters of Hillary Clinton, and those who are still undecided in the nominating contest -- to press for the inclusion of strong language in the platform that addresses the war in Iraq, the need for a fundamental change in our foreign policy, and the need to end the use of torture including the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison.

These are positions that unite the vast majority of Democrats -- and, we would argue, the American people as a whole, who are ahead of their government on this issue -- and it is long past time that we made them a firm plank in the platform that defines what we stand for as a party.

Today we have begun to circulate this statement among our fellow super delegates encouraging the Democratic Party to incorporate clear language about the war in Iraq into the 2008 party platform:

We, Super delegates to the Democratic National Convention, support the incorporation of language into the Democratic Party platform that calls for:

An end to the war in Iraq by initiating the safe and secure withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces, leaving no permanent military bases behind;

A robust diplomatic surge in the Middle East and beyond that includes negotiations with the Iranian government without preconditions that make sitting down to talk impossible; and

An end to the use of torture and the closure of our prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Over the coming weeks, we will be working to convince our fellow superdelegates of the importance of including this language in our party's platform. We invite you to join us in this effort by signing on to an open letter to the Democratic superdelegates that is being hosted by one of our important allies in this effort, Win Without War. You can click here to sign on to this letter today!

The online community has consistently been at the forefront of the debate as we work to fix our failed foreign policy, and we sincerely thank you for your work in this effort. While the nominating process has clearly stirred passions throughout our party, we feel that the unity among Democrats on the issue of Iraq overwhelms our current disagreements and should not be overlooked. And with your help, it won't be.

Sincerely,

Rep. Barbara Lee
Barack Obama Supporter

Rep. Jim McGovern
Hillary Clinton Supporter

Rep. Sam Farr
Undecided Superdelegate

Superdelegates push for commitment to Iran talks in party platform

Thu, 01 May 2008 00:00:00 -0700

As the Democratic primary campaign has veered into distractions over a pastor's diatribes and patriotic displays, more than a dozen superdelegates have started an effort to re-focus the party on vital foreign policy issues.

Supporters of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, along with some still-uncommitted superdelegates, said the Democratic party needs to include in its party platform decisive language in favor of ending the war in Iraq, opening negotiations with Iran and shutting down the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

There is little difference between Clinton's and Obama's approaches to these issues. Obama, however, has been more open about the need to open diplomatic channels with Iran, and he's indicated that he may be willing to speak personally with leaders of the rogue regime. Clinton has said she would open low level talks with Iran, although a few days later she warned the US could "totally obliterate" the country if it used nuclear weapons against Israel.

While the candidates continue to spar, the superdelegates made clear they believe either Obama or Clinton will be able to end the war and correct the course that President Bush has set the country on for the last seven years. The call for unity was a welcome shift from the backbiting and bickering that has plagued the Democratic nominating contest for the last two months.

In a conference call Thursday sponsored by the Win Without War Coalition, some of the superdelegates even broke with their respective camps and praised the other candidate.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) said she supported Clinton because of the former first lady has the "commitment and strength" to withdraw troops from Iraq, but she stressed that the Democratic party has been fortunate to have two excellent candidates this year, both of whom are committed to ending the war.

"Over time," Woolsey said, "I'm gaining confidence that Barack Obama would be able to do the same thing with the experience that he would gain."

Woolsey's confidence contrasts the Clinton camp's efforts to undercut Obama because of his status as a political neophyte. For the last two months, Clinton and her advisers have argued at length that Obama so far has not passed what they're calling "the commander in chief test."

Thursday's conference call coincided with the five year anniversary of President Bush's infamous "mission accomplished" speech, in which he declared that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended." The vast majority of US casualties in Iraq happened since the day of that speech, and the military continues fighting a war that Bush has no intention of extricating the US from.

Rep. Barbara Lee, an Obama supporter, said the timing was appropriate, and she emphasized that there is no difference between the two Democrats' positions on trying to bring the war to an end.

No matter who the nominee is, he or she will "offer a stark contrast to the approach McCain has pledged to continue," Lee said.

Frustrated with Congress's inability to force a change in course in Iraq, the superdelegates -- all of whom are members of Congress -- said the only hope to end the war was electing a Democratic president, either Obama or Clinton.

Sixteen superdelegates are initial sponsors of a Win Without War petition calling for the following language to be included in the party platform:

An end to the war in Iraq by initiating the safe and secure withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces and private military security contractors, leaving no permanent military bases behind;
A robust diplomatic surge in the Middle East and beyond, as recommended by the Iraq Study Group, that includes negotiations with the Iranian government; and
An end to the use of torture and the closure of our prison at Guantánamo Bay.

The initial sponsors hope more superdelegates will sign their petition to ensure a commitment to these issues once the nominee is decided.

Rep. Jim McGovern, another Clinton superdelegate, said skyrocketing gas prices and deficit spending that have been made worse by the Iraq war made necessary immediate action to bring the war to an end. It's time, he said, for the Iraqi government to step up and take control of the country and stop taking advantage of the seemingly endless US presence.

"That is just playing us for chumps," he said.

2 Dem Lawmakers Want Another Economic Stimulus

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:00:00 -0700

U.S. Reps. Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, both California Democrats, yesterday said they want fellow House members to immediately fund an additional economic stimulus package for all Americans.

Lee and Woolsey, who are both co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), said they want a stand-alone bill to be debated and voted on before consideration of the upcoming FY08 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill.

They said they are concerned that President Bush, a Republican, will link a second stimulus bill to $102.5 billion in funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

"Help for America's families has been held hostage by the Bush administration's misspending on its failed foreign policy," Lee said. “The American people know the war is crippling our economy and they want the occupation to end. Since the administration is not listening to the millions of homeowners facing foreclosure, or to the unemployed workers struggling to provide for their families, I will continue working in Congress to act to lessen the impact of the Iraq recession by immediately passing a second stimulus package to help get the economy back on track."

Woolsey agreed.

“When he's spending over $10 billion a month over in Iraq it's inexcusable that President Bush continues to oppose common sense steps to help reenergize our economy here at home," Woolsey said. “President Bush continues to turn a blind eye while millions of families are struggling to keep up with rising mortgage and food costs, and gas prices are at record highs.

"It's time for this Congress to immediately increase unemployment insurance and food stamp benefits, and make vital investments in rebuilding our economy and putting Americans to work," she said. "And it's far past time to end our occupation of Iraq, which has already cost our nation nearly $3 trillion, and has led to the current crisis that we now face."

In a CPC letter to the House Democratic Leadership, CPC members are calling for action on a $118.9 billion package that includes many of the most effective recession-fighting tools left out of the first economic stimulus package enacted in early February - i.e. increasing federal funding for unemployment insurance and food stamp benefits, Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) Medicaid payments to states, home foreclosure relief and housing assistance, reinvesting and creating jobs (including “green" jobs) in the near-term repairing the nation's schools, transportation infrastructure and public housing, and building new wastewater treatments plants, expanding the earned income tax credit for families with 3 or more children, and making the child tax credit fully refundable for families with at least $3,000 in earnings.

China's record does not reflect the Olympic spirit

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 00:00:00 -0700

The Olympic torch will pass through San Francisco Wednesday during the only North American stop on the worldwide Olympic torch relay to Beijing, where the 2008 Olympic Games will be played. Against this backdrop, millions of activists worldwide are calling on China to end the violence and repression in Tibet and urging China to use its influence to put pressure on Sudan to end the genocide in Darfur. Thousands are expected to turn out in San Francisco to cheer the torch on its way or protest the policies of the host nation.

China's resistance to sanctioning Sudan for the ongoing genocide in Darfur, and the continuing violence toward and repression of Tibetan monks have prompted a world outcry against China. The reason is clear. The spirit of the Olympics is about bringing together nations and people from all over the world in peace. China's support for the genocidal regime in Khartoum, and its own actions in Tibet, run contrary to that Olympic spirit. But as host, China puts itself in the international spotlight and invites questions about its own commitment to human rights.

In the case of Darfur, international human rights organizations report that Sudan's ability to sustain the genocide over such a long period of time is in large part due to the heavy support that Sudan receives from China. The genocide in Sudan is entering its sixth brutal year. The Khartoum government, and its proxy Janjaweed militias, are estimated to have killed more than 400,000 Darfuri civilians, raped countless women and young girls, and driven some 2.5 million civilians from their homes. These horrific acts must end. Unfortunately, China continues to strengthen its ties with the government in spite of the genocide.

Concerns over human rights abuses in Tibet are also mounting.

China has engaged in the cultural, religious, economic and linguistic repression of the Tibetan people for almost 60 years. During the past month, China's crackdown on nonviolent protests and demonstrations by Tibetans has led, by some estimates, to the death of more than 140 people and the arrest and detainment of some 1,000 peaceful protesters. China has also censored and restricted the ability of international journalists to monitor and report on the crackdown, and has violated its own stated commitment to the International Olympic Committee to allow freedom of access to the press as the Olympic Games approach. Despite international condemnation of these actions, China has not indicated it will act in a manner consistent with international human rights standards -- this posture is clearly contrary to the spirit of the Olympic Games.

We should not condone China's actions. That is why I sent a letter to President Bush urging him not to attend the Opening Ceremony and why I am co-sponsoring the Defend the Olympic Spirit Act, which restricts funding to prevent any U.S. official from attending the Olympic Opening Ceremony in China, with clear exceptions for the security of any U.S. athlete and support staff. While I support our athletes and honor their achievements, the act of removing an official U.S. presence from the Opening Ceremony will send a clear message that we do not tolerate human rights abuses.

There is much that we can do both as a nation and as individuals to take a stand against further human rights abuses. The United States has already given billions of dollars in humanitarian aid to Western Sudan and the Darfur refugee camps in Eastern Chad. And last December, the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act, which I originally introduced in the House, was signed into law. The act allows cities, states, universities, pension plans and mutual funds to divest their holdings from companies doing business with the Sudan regime, many of which are Chinese state-run companies. Divestment sends a message to both China and Sudan that we do not support genocide -- not on our watch and not on our dime.

It's past time for China to acknowledge and denounce the atrocities in Darfur and end the violence and repression against the Tibetan people. The spirit of the Olympics demands nothing less.

The Impoverished American Dream

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Our nation marked the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. this month. It is a loss that has particular significance today because of Dr. King’s legacy, especially as it pertains to eradicating poverty.

Last year in commemoration of Dr. King’s launching of the Poor People’s Campaign in 1967 — an effort to mobilize thousands of people with the common goal of eliminating poverty — I introduced H.Con.Res.161. Truly, Dr. King was a visionary, who sought to challenge the country’s leaders to meet their obligation to the most vulnerable Americans, to address the root causes of poverty and to be bold enough to identify and implement solutions. His call to action resonates today, just as it did decades ago.

Poverty lurks in our middle class, rural and urban neighborhoods, placing the American dream out of reach of many families while the nightmare of economic peril takes hold for many. It is startling that the outdated federal poverty threshold today for a family of four is only $21,000 and that this generation will be the first in American history to be poorer than their parents.

Just as incomprehensible is the stark reality that 37 million people live in poverty in America, and nearly 60 million more live just above the poverty line. That’s a third of our people living on the razor’s edge, while the Bush administration spends $12 billion a month for a failed foreign policy.

The gap between the rich and the poor is widening as the President’s occupation cripples our economy and it’s time we speak out as Dr. King did during the Vietnam war. Exactly one year before his assassination, on April 4, 1967, Dr. King delivered his speech, “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence,” articulating the connection between the war in Vietnam and poverty. He reflected, “I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.”

Today war continues to be an enemy of the poor, as well as thousands of other working men and women and their families — It is clear we must go to battle to combat it. I recently introduced, H.Res.1019, the ‘Iraq Recession’ Resolution, which connects the recession to the U.S. occupation in Iraq. There is no question that America’s economy has become the latest casualty of Bush’s immoral war. Many of us in the Democratic Congress see the greatest outrage of this President as his complete refusal to heed any troop withdrawal timelines or requirements for a plan to end this occupation.

Bush’s Iraq Recession has sounded the alarm that it’s time we go beyond talk to decisive action and strengthen the anti-poverty coalition and make eradicating poverty in America a national priority. The House recently unanimously passed my legislation, H.Con.Res.198, which seeks to cut poverty in half in a decade. While some will see this as overly ambitious, there is tremendous momentum around the country to roll up our sleeves and get it done — and a moral imperative to set a clear goal. The 12 recommendations by the Center for American Progress’s Task Force on Poverty to cut poverty in half are central to the legislative package that the Out of Poverty Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus have rolled out to address income equity. We are also working closely with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, The Economic Policy Institute, Campaign for America’s Future and Martin Luther King III’s Realizing the Dream initiative to identify strategies and solutions.

Together we are making headway, even in the struggle to balance fiscal and moral priorities. But, we have to continue the drumbeat because there is still much to be done.

As Co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Co-founder of the Out of Poverty Caucus, I will work with my colleagues to introduce a sweeping anti-poverty bill in the coming months. And Democrats are working to introduce a second economic stimulus package to increase funding for unemployment insurance, food stamps, housing assistance and Federal Medical Assistance Percentage payments to states. We must shift the conversation from the minimum wage to a living wage, and help those Americans whose dreams of homeownership have turned into a nightmare. Yes, the richest nation in the world can and must do this — especially if we can provide safety nets for Wallstreet firms like Bear Stearns.

The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina gave the world a glimpse of the unfinished business of America. It is time for our nation to respond to Dr. King’s challenge, and if we build a powerful coalition, we will succeed.

Remembering Dr. King's Legacy on Poverty

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Today marks the 40th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination in Memphis in 1968. And while plenty can be said about what more could have been accomplished had his life not been cut so tragically short, the legacy he left to us is one that we can rightfully celebrate and strive to uphold.

One of the most enduring (and, in my opinion, under appreciated) aspects of Dr. King's legacy concerns his fight against poverty. From launching the Poor People's Campaign to speaking out against the Vietnam War's negative impact on the poor in America, his vision of a world without poverty is a vision I try to fight for every day. (I founded One Voice PAC in large part to bring more attention to reducing poverty and increasing opportunity in our country.)

We saw success in the fight against poverty this past January, when the House of Representatives unanimously supported a resolution I authored declaring it a national goal to reduce poverty in America by half in the next 10 years.

But to turn this priority into reality, we need to make systematic changes in the way we address poverty in America; addressing poverty should be one of our first priorities, not the last. And one of the first steps we should take is to end our generation's version of the Vietnam War, our occupation of Iraq.

When reflecting on his turn against the Vietnam War -- in large part because it was diverting badly needed resources away from places it was desperately needed here at home -- Dr. King noted, "I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such."

We are witnessing a similar situation develop today. While funding for the occupation is appropriated with seemingly no limits -- hundreds of billions of dollars have already been spent on the occupation, with the total rising over $12 billion each month -- we are constantly being told that we simply "can't afford" to spend money to address the challenges that we face here at home. And all too often, it is those who live in poverty who bear the brunt of these cutbacks.

Last year, when the Democratic Congress passed legislation to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) -- a program that provides vital health coverage for millions of children who live in poverty and otherwise wouldn't have access to care -- by just $7 billion per year, the President vetoed the bill, claiming it was unacceptable since it represented an incremental step towards federalizing health care.

It is this sort of thinking -- focusing on maintaining ideological purity, rather than addressing the real problems that real people face -- that represents one of our greatest roadblocks to moving the 37 million Americans who live in poverty (and the 60 million more who are just over the poverty line) toward freedom from want for the basic necessities of life.

Thankfully, the tide is turning as the American people witness the lack of resources we have to address problems here at home, and acknowledge that the occupation of Iraq has not been worth the costs. As states are forced to cut vital programs that help those in poverty in order to balance their budgets in this worsening economic climate, the lack of action from the federal government becomes all the more glaring.

It is in this trade-off that we see yet more proof of the folly of our invasion of Iraq, which is why I recently introduced the "Iraq Recession" resolution tying the occupation to our current economic challenges.

Forty years after his passing, it is clear that we still have work to do to finish the job of ending poverty that Dr. King started. But if we make clear that domestic priorities are more important than simply sustaining a failed occupation, that a portion of our limited resources need to be directed to those living in poverty here at home, and that the worst-off among us shouldn't be the first punished in an economic downturn, I have little doubt that we can succeed.

House renews world AIDS relief program

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:00:00 -0700

The House today voted 308-116 to reauthorize the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) — America’s effort to curb the spread of HIV/AIDS worldwide — at $50 billion over five years, considerably more than the $30 billion for which President Bush had asked.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, was among the five original co-authors both of this H.R. 5501, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act, and the original PEPFAR legislation back in 2003. Of the reauthorization, she said today there’s “perhaps no other piece of legislation that Congress will consider this year that will have greater impact on the lives of people around the world.”

Lee said she’s sad that former House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, who died Feb. 11, and former chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., who died in November, weren’t here to see this bipartisan compromise.

She noted the bill passed today includes language from her own PATHWAY Act, H.R. 1713 — which strikes the requirement that at least a third of U.S. funds for global HIV/AIDS prevention be earmarked for abstinence-until-marriage programs. Indeed, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, issued a statement today saying he’s “disappointed the Majority turned back a balanced Republican alternative that would have authorized funding for the PEPFAR program at the level requested by President Bush, while protecting taxpayers from funding programs that support abortions overseas.”

Lee also noted the House version doesn’t include language from her H.R. 3337, the HIV Non-Discrimination in Travel and Immigration Act, which would overturn the current travel and immigration ban on people living with HIV/AIDS wishing to enter the United States. “I’m happy that the Senate version of PEPFAR does adopt the language to eliminate the ban,” she said. “I will work with my colleagues to make sure that when we get to conference, the ban is repealed once and for all.”

Some other quotable quotes about the PEPFAR reauthorization, after the jump...

From House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco:

“The legislation before us today will move us from the emergency phase to the sustainability phase in fighting AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. My colleagues have presented the provisions of the bill to you, so I’ll just submit mine for the record, and just say in the closing that the Leadership Against HIV/AIDS Act is our compact with developing nations across the globe. It says that America stands with them in this fight, that our commitment will not waver, and shows them America’s true face of compassion.”

From House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Martinez:

“Today, this groundbreaking legislation sends a message to the world about America’s commitment to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS. I just returned from a trip with Speaker Pelosi to India, a country in which almost 2.5 million people are suffering from and living with HIV/AIDS. The U.S. has been a partner in fighting this devastating pandemic and this bill will allow for a continuation and expansion of U.S. support to developing countries like India that are disproportionately devastated by HIV/AIDS and also by TB and malaria.”

From Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo:

“In particular, I am pleased to see a strengthened focus on the needs of women and girls, and prevention and treatment programs targeted towards this population — including, for the first time, the provision of HIV/AIDS testing and counseling services in family planning programs. I would note that concerns have been raised that the bill’s language would block HIV testing and counseling services from being offered by family planning providers that are not compliant with the misguided ‘global gag rule’ policy, and I hope that Congressional intent can be clarified that this is not the case.”

Barbara Lee's War on Poverty

Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Recently, Congresswoman Barbara Lee said to me, "This is a moment when people are suffering. They are one paycheck -- if they have a paycheck -- away from poverty."

That's why Lee has maintained a laser-like focus on addressing poverty. One in eight Americans -- approximately 37 million people -- now live below the federal poverty line of $19,971 for a family of four. (A woefully inadequate measure that is 42 years old and fails to account for basic necessities.) That's 4.9 million more people than in 2000 and the poverty rate for children is the highest of all age groups. Nearly 60 million people live just above the poverty line. Using the British standard of measurement, approximately 30 percent of Americans -- and 40 percent of American children -- are living in poverty.

In January, Lee introduced House Concurrent Resolution 198 to get her colleagues on record saying that the US should set a national goal of cutting poverty in half over the next 10 years. The resolution stated that "policy initiatives addressing poverty have not kept pace with the needs of millions of Americans" and that "the United States has a moral responsibility to meet the needs of those persons, groups, and communities that are impoverished, disadvantaged or otherwise in poverty."

"That resolution passed on a bipartisan basis," Lee told me. "No opposition. And so we're looking now at the specific recommendations of many groups that have come together to talk about what makes sense to begin to reduce and eliminate poverty. And so, that's the mission of the Out of Poverty Caucus which I co-chair. And it's moving. The Speaker has taken note, the Leadership has taken note."

Lee said that a real test of Democratic priorities occurred in the budget debate earlier this month. The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), which she co-chairs along with Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, introduced its Progressive Caucus Budget which included an Anti-Poverty and Opportunity Initiative. The CPC budget spent $468.3 billion on defense, $68.7 billion less than President Bush's request of World War II-proportions.

It called for $73 billion in FY 2009, increasing to $129 billion in FY 2018, to fund a comprehensive strategy to cut poverty in half in a decade, including: expanding child care and increasing Head Start funding; making the Child Tax Credit fully refundable and expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit for larger families; increasing funding for Food Stamps programs; increasing housing vouchers by 200,000 annually; lifting restrictions on TANF, Food Stamps, SSI and Medicaid for documented immigrant families; fully funding block grants to states with broad anti-poverty strategies and distributing targeted grants to states for families where a parent or child has a disability; increasing funding for Indian Health Services, education, housing and infrastructure, natural resources management, and other areas impacting Native American poverty; and reversing the 20 percent cut in child support enforcement.

The CPC budget also offered a second economic stimulus package -- to pump $118.9 billion into the economy -- with funding increases for unemployment insurance, food stamps, foreclosure relief and housing assistance, and Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) payments to states; and also job creation through repair of schools, transportation infrastructure and public housing, and building new wastewater treatment plants. Over the next decade its sustained Rebuild and Reinvest in America Initiative would create green jobs and overhaul our nation's crumbling infrastructure.

In the end, the budget was defeated by a 98-322 vote. But it received 17 more votes than last year, and the Democratic vote was 98-131(during an election year when too many Democrats still fear criticism from Republicans on domestic spending). Clearly, the progressive movement in Congress is growing. Lee and her CPC colleagues will introduce the Anti-Poverty and Opportunity Initiative and also the Rebuild and Reinvest in America Initiative as their own freestanding bills in coming months. She also continues to work on a second economic stimulus package.

"I'm cautiously optimistic," Lee said. "We heard while negotiating the first stimulus that there would be a second -- and that the reasons why we couldn't get the food stamps, and unemployment insurance, and those efforts -- in the first stimulus, it just wouldn't pass and we needed to get money in the hands of people right away. But that we'd come back and work on the second piece, and so that's what we're working on."

Lee is disappointed that Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton aren't addressing poverty more aggressively in their respective presidential campaigns.

"Every now and then they'll say a little bit but for the most part I don't think any of them have made this a bold initiative like Senator Edwards did," she said. "Of course, I'm an Obama person. Every chance I get I'm pushing [his campaign] to talk about poverty in a direct way. And I assume the Clinton people are talking to their candidate about this.... We've always talked about the middle-class -- which is fine, we want to make sure the middle-class stays [strong]. But we never seem to fix our mouths to talk about the poor and low-income individuals. And, of course, when you talk about poor people there may be some negative connotations about that. You know, maybe there's a messaging issue. But when people are poor, they're poor. When they don't have any money, they don't have any money."

As for Lee, she will continue to strengthen the anti-poverty coalition and fight for strategies that work. Within the halls of Congress, she's part of the Faith Working Group -- united in its view that the budget is a moral document and that there is a moral imperative to fight poverty. She works closely with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Center for American Progress Task Force on Poverty who urged her to push the resolution setting a national goal to cut poverty in half in a decade. She and the CPC have reached out to work with Martin Luther King III's Realizing the Dream initiative. And the Economic Policy Institute and Campaign for America's Future are very involved in the second economic stimulus package. Labor, health care, and affordable housing advocates are also on board in helping to move progressive legislation.

"A major coalition could develop from this effort," Lee said.

With the poor getting poorer, and the middle-class shrinking, Lee's steadfast commitment to fighting poverty -- and building a coalition to win that fight -- is needed now in new and urgent ways.

Congress moves to repeal HIV travel ban

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:00:00 -0700

A bipartisan effort to repeal U.S. travel restrictions on people who are HIV-positive is moving forward in the Senate. The amendment has been added to legislation reauthorizing PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Program for AIDS Relief.

The effort is being led by Senators John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) and Gordon Smith (R-Oregon), who introduced a similar stand-alone repeal bill last December.

The travel restrictions were first imposed in 1987, at the height of AIDS hysteria, by then-Senator Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina). The archconservative inserted language into a bill that directed the secretary of health and human services to add HIV to the list of medical conditions barring immigrants and visitors to the United States.

The Department of Health and Human Services sought to loosen the restriction in the early 1990s but Congress took the opposite tack, writing the ban into immigration law. It is the only disease specifically mentioned in that statute.

President Bush has acknowledged that the provision is counterproductive. On World AIDS Day 2006 he said he would modify administration of the law to make it easier for persons to get a waiver to enter the country. But the alternatives that the Department of Homeland Security proposed were even worse. The law itself had to be changed.

In a March 11 conference call with reporters Kerry said, "The Senate language [reauthorizing PEPFAR], right now, has this provision in it." He anticipates that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will approve it as written.

Smith was not able to participate in the call.

The ban "prohibited people from traveling to the UN or to conferences to discuss the issue," Kerry added, while the existing waiver option "is very restrictive, resulting in a lot of unintended consequences."

"This is long overdue in terms of how we can repeal an outdated and misguided provision" in the immigration act, Kerry said.

Representative Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) introduced similar repeal legislation in the House last August. She made a strategic decision against introducing it as an amendment to PEPFAR in the House because she was "concerned with a possible motion to recommit" the entire bill by members seeking to stall it.

"There is no public health rationale for continuing this travel and immigration ban," Lee said during the call. "It has not been shown to reduce the transmission of HIV/AIDS, nor has it provided any real economic benefit to the United States."

Lee said it is "pretty shameful" that the U.S. is one of only a dozen other, primarily authoritarian, countries with such a travel ban in place. The International AIDS Conference has boycotted the U.S. ever since the ban was imposed and Lee said that she looks forward to the conference returning to the U.S. "so that our own communities can benefit from the deliberation and the contacts made at these conferences."

The Bush administration does not oppose repeal of the travel ban. Last month the State Department lifted its blanket restrictions on hiring people who are HIV-positive to be diplomats. It will now consider HIV the same as other medical conditions and evaluate candidates on their overall health and availability to serve worldwide.

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese called the latest effort "a tribute to the hard work and leadership of our champions in Congress." He said the current policy is "without a sound public health and medical rationale."

Pundit Andrew Sullivan has been a leading voice in calling attention to unfairness of the travel ban. On March 10 he wrote on his blog, "A critical factor in treating HIV and AIDS is reducing the stigma of the disease. How can the U.S. do what it's doing and remain a beacon for that stigma in the world community? It's long past time that this formal government discrimination against people with HIV be brought to an end."

Congress May Strike HIV Travel Limits

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:00:00 -0700

Gay-rights activists are hoping to use a global AIDS relief bill supported by the Bush administration to repeal a 15-year-old law restricting travel to the U.S. by HIV-positive people.

Activists oppose the near-ban as discriminatory since HIV is the only medical condition singled out in the Immigration and Nationality Act for inadmissibility. Under a 1993 amendment to that law, foreigners with the virus can obtain visas to come to the U.S. only under limited circumstances and if they get a waiver from the Department of Homeland Security.

Now language in a bill extending the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief would delete the restriction. The bill, which directs billions to AIDS programs worldwide and is enthusiastically supported by President Bush, is set for a vote Thursday in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

A House version of the bill does not include language repealing the travel ban. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., who along with Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., has introduced stand-alone legislation to change the ban, said supporters thought it would be easier to get the provision through the Senate. They will try to ensure it stays in the final version of the bill.

Lee and Kerry joined Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese on a conference call Tuesday to push for reversing the ban.

Kerry called reversing the restriction "a reform that is long needed." Lee noted that the International AIDS Conference has not been held on U.S. soil since Congress passed the restriction. Activists say the U.S. is one of just a small number of countries to block entrance of HIV-positive people.

"We're once again very isolated on this policy in terms of the world community," Lee said.

The Bush administration has acknowledged problems with the ban and on World AIDS Day last year proposed changing the rules to make the process easier for HIV-positive people seeking 30-day stays.

But the draft rule issued by the Department of Homeland Security, which still hasn't been finalized, has been criticized by activists and Democratic lawmakers who say it doesn't improve matters. The draft rule would shift decision-making from DHS headquarters to U.S. consulates in HIV-positive travelers' home countries, but would require applicants to agree to certain conditions, including giving up the right to apply for a longer stay or permanent residency in the U.S.

My Resolution Opposes Bush's Secret Deal

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:00:00 -0800

As a Member of the House Appropriations State Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I have introduced a new resolution (H.R. 1028), to reassert the constitutional powers of Congress and make it clear that any agreement, other than a treaty, between Iraq and the United States that imposes burdens in excess of those customarily included in a status of forces agreement (SOFA) requires congressional authority, approval, and appropriations.

On the same day I introduced the resolution, I questioned Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte during a Subcommittee hearing about reports of ongoing Bush administration negotiations to establish permanent military bases in Iraq.

While Negroponte denied that the Bush administration is seeking a permanent military presence as part of recent administration discussions about a SOFA with Iraq, just last November President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki entered into a Declaration of Principles, which cites ‘security assurances and commitments’, without the approval of Congress.

The reality is that the Bush administration negotiated the Declaration of Principles in secret and then sought to characterize this sweeping agreement as an innocuous ‘Status Forces of Agreement’ to circumvent Congressional scrutiny and approval.

The plain fact, however, is that the Declaration of Principles cannot possibly be deemed a status of forces agreement because, among other things, it explicitly calls for ‘security assurances and commitments to the Republic of Iraq to deter foreign aggression against Iraq that violates its sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, or airspace.’

Historically, a SOFA serves the limited purpose of delineating the rights and responsibilities of the military when operating on foreign soil. They have never been the vehicle through which the United States guarantees the security of a foreign country.

The Bush administration cannot unilaterally establish a long term military presence in Iraq, tying the hands of future presidents, without Congressional approval.

This resolution is intended to hold President Bush accountable to the bills he has signed into law that include provisions prohibiting permanent military bases in Iraq. I will work with my colleagues to generate support to push this resolution through Congress.

Lee, others seek limit to president's pact power

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:00:00 -0800

President Bush can't make major, long-term economic and military commitments to Iraq without consulting Congress first, according to a resolution introduced Thursday by several legislative authors, including two Bay Area House members.

The resolution isn't binding, acknowledged Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, who crafted it along with Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles, and Rep. Bob Filner, D-San Diego, to put on record congressional opposition to such far-reaching pacts.

"Consistently I have seen this administration ... really erode our checks and balances, erode our democracy," Lee told reporters Thursday. "This resolution is long overdue and we've got to move it forward."

The resolution raises "the level of awareness, it educates the public, it brings the debate to the forefront of our legislative agenda. ... While it may not be binding, I think this would be a very clear message that he (President Bush) needs to back off."

The White House in November announced a U.S.-Iraq "Declaration of Principles for Friendship and Cooperation" envisioning long-term commitments, and is still negotiating the relationship between the nations after the United Nations multinational force mandate expires at the end of 2008.

The declaration drew criticism from some in Congress, and the Bush Administration claimed it'll be nothing more than a traditional Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). Constitutional law experts who joined Thursday's conference call said that's not so.

Yale Law School associate professor Oona Hathaway, who testified on the subject Tuesday before Congress, said no SOFA has ever done the kinds of things the Bush administration now wants to do: extend the legal authority for U.S. troops to operate in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires, and grant legal immunity to private American military contractors working in Iraq.

Yale Law School professor Bruce Ackerman, a constitutional law expert, said the president as Commander in Chief can engage in ordinary SOFAs, "but when he goes beyond the powers of Commander in Chief he has to get the consent of Congress ... and both of the provisions that Professor Hathaway described are plainly of this kind."

The President "does not have the authority unilaterally to determine the status of Americans working abroad ... Congress must have that power, this is a very serious matter indeed," Ackerman said, adding Congress' 2002 vote to allow military engagement against Saddam Hussein's regime clearly doesn't authorize further military commitments.

The resolution says any agreement, other than a treaty, involving stationing U.S. military forces or using U.S. financial resources in Iraq should have to be approved by Congress, and that no pact exceeding a SOFA's usual scope will have legal effect without Congress' OK.

Congress Ramps Up Fight Against Permanent Iraq Bases

Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:00:00 -0800

Antiwar Democrats in Congress have failed in almost every one of their attempts to reverse the Bush administration's Iraq policy. However, they are now pursuing what many call a winnable objective: resisting the establishment of a permanent US presence in Iraq.

In late November, President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki signed a "Declaration of Principles" setting the stage for long-term, open-ended US military and economic involvement in Iraq.

Later, in a January signing statement attached to a defense policy bill, Bush declared that he would disregard a ban on permanent US military bases in Iraq.

Since then, Bush and Maliki have been moving forward with negotiations on the terms of their agreement, with conversations taking place "largely in secret," according to Sameer Dossani, director of 50 Years Is Enough: US Network for Global Economic Justice. The administration says that a more definitive agreement will be reached "within six months," according to Dossani.

Yet, two weeks ago, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the administration would not seek permanent bases in Iraq, contradicting the sentiments of Bush's signing statement and the Declaration of Principles.

The administration's denial doesn't indicate a change in strategy, according to Erik Leaver, policy outreach director for Foreign Policy in Focus, but it does indicate an avoidance of confrontation and a fear of public opinion - elements that bode well for a Congress-led change in course.

While the Bush-Maliki talks move shakily forward, progressive Democrats are taking advantage of the Declaration of Principles' tenuousness to introduce initiatives limiting executive power and curbing long-term plans for Iraq involvement. They hope that, while efforts to end the war will likely flop, Congress might succeed in preventing it from lasting forever.

Democratic Congress members are under pressure to produce some change in Iraq policies before the November elections, since public opposition to the war was a key factor in the 2006 elections' slew of Democratic victories.

Forty-six members of Congress recently sent a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, demanding transparency on the issue of permanent bases.

"We would like to learn precisely what is being done to make certain that permanent military bases are not being planned or constructed in Iraq," said the letter, penned by Rep. Barbara Lee.

Lee recently introduced a bill to prevent Bush from signing any agreement emerging from the Declaration of Principles without consulting Congress. A parallel bill in the Senate, sponsored by Sen. Hillary Clinton, would limit the scope of an ongoing US presence in Iraq.

Since November, attacks on the Bush-Maliki agreement's constitutionality have mounted. Bill Delahunt, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight, has held a series of hearings on the legality of the Declaration of Principles. During the most recent Delahunt hearing, experts almost universally concluded that the agreement violates the Constitution, since Congress was not consulted in the process of its approval.

The State Department declined to testify at any of the three Delahunt hearings, though Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice agreed last week to appear at a future hearing.

The controversy over the limits of presidential power could generate a bipartisan effort to take back Congressional control, according to Leaver.

"Republicans have a vested interest in this issue, too," he said. "The next president might very well be a Democrat."

Leaver admits that such cooperation might be a stretch, but is not out of the question. After all, the first time a provision passed banning permanent bases in Iraq, it was under a Republican Congress.

Moreover, the project of reasserting the authority of the legislature goes beyond the US Congress, according to Raed Jarrar, Iraq consultant to the American Friends Service Committee. In mid-March, Jarrar said, five Iraqi Parliament members (MPs) will speak at a House briefing, arguing that their prime minister's actions mimic Bush's: Maliki bypassed the legislative branch when he signed the Declaration of Principles, even though Iraq's Constitution specifically requires Parliamentary approval for international agreements.

"We're hoping for a parallel declaration of principles between the two [Iraqi and American] legislative branches," Jarrar said. "We can't actually declare new principles, but politically it will be equivalent -- the legislative branches from both countries will come together against an unconstitutional situation."

Jarrar hopes the Iraqi MPs' visit will draw attention to the split in the Iraqi government, in which the elected majority -- the Parliament -- favors a US withdrawal, while the unelected minority -- the Maliki administration -- favors a continuing occupation.

"If the US is interested in democracy, how come it is ignoring the only elected body in the Iraqi government?" Jarrar said.

Perhaps other priorities -- such as military strategy and market control -- rank higher on Bush's list. Dossani points to permanent bases in Iraq as the administration's solution to the problem of US bases in Saudi Arabia, which al-Qaeda cited as a major motivation for the September 11 attacks. The US has already begun to pull out of Saudi Arabia. Robert Naiman, national coordinator of Just Foreign Policy, cites the possibility of confrontation with Iran as a primary motivation for establishing bases in Iraq.

Further, an extended presence in Iraq would mean molding the political landscape of the country to fit US interests, according to Naiman.

US involvement has shaped and reshaped Iraq over the past 18 years, beginning with the Gulf War and continuing through the UN/US economic sanctions of the Bush and Clinton administrations. Jarrar fears that if negotiations under the Declaration of Principles continue moving forward, the "end" of the Iraq war -- if it happens -- will simply mean the beginning of a new chapter in the continuing story of US occupation.

In part, that chapter is already well on its way. The US embassy in Baghdad, to be completed in the fall, is the largest and most expensive in the world. Most Iraq withdrawal legislation proposed thus far calls for US troops to remain to guard the embassy; an exception that would translate into at least 5,000 troops by some estimates. While the embassy cannot be categorized as a military base per se, Jarrar notes that it serves many of a base's functions - and perpetuates the underlying current of US dominance on Iraqi soil.

"Most of the 'no permanent bases' legislation is very vague and hard to put into real terms, so the embassy is viewed as political and excluded -- even though thousands of soldiers will be there protecting it," Jarrar said. "Even though the embassy will not be used 100 percent as a military base, it could still be a permanent political intervention base. The thousands of Americans at the embassy will not be there to facilitate diplomatic relations; they'll be there to run the country."

Iraqis are currently not allowed to enter the US embassy in Baghdad unless they're escorted by an American citizen, according to Jarrar. Even the five Iraqi MPs set to speak before Congress in March were recently barred from the embassy when they went to submit their visa applications, according to Dr. Nadeem Al-Jaberi, one of the MPs.

"They treat us in a disgusting way," Al-Jaberi said.

Steps like the upcoming Parliamentarian briefing may provide a short-term fix, Jarrar says, giving the public a glimpse of Iraq as a sovereign, self-determining nation and averting the immediate danger of committing to a permanent US presence in Iraq. Yet, those measures still "play within the rules of the game." To avoid the inevitable recurrence of dangers like this one will require a wholesale shift in mindset for the US, according to Leaver.

That shift would encompass more than Iraq policy, says Leaver. The US has more than 700 military bases, on every continent except Antarctica. In a way, establishing permanent bases in postwar Iraq would simply follow suit.

"This is not just a question of bases inside Iraq," Leaver said. "It's larger: Is our goal to be the military policeman for everyone? Can we continue this policy of having bases all over the world? What's the return on our investment?"

These questions will persist as the Delahunt hearings continue, the Lee bill goes into committee and the Bush administration's Declaration of Principles moves forward, even as the days of its hold on US foreign policy wane.

No Immunity from the 4th Amendment

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 00:00:00 -0800

Civil protections, consumer privacy, and freedom from unwarranted government intrusion are the foundation of our most cherished civil liberties. The government and telecommunications companies have a responsibility to safeguard these rights, and by aiding the Bush administration’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program, they violated this basic trust. Congress is faced with continuing to fight to protect the privacy rights of all Americans or giving in to a President trying to shield telecommunication companies that sold out their customers. The right choice could not be clearer.

Retroactive immunity for these companies sets a very dangerous precedent, and Congress cannot afford to give in to the President’s ultimatum that he will veto any reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that does not include this immunity. That’s why last week we sent a letter to the President stating that we will not support legislation reauthorizing FISA that provides retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies.

Congress, an independent and co-equal branch of government, has the responsibility to examine the documents the Bush administration claims justify granting these companies deserve immunity. However, the President has intentionally withheld these documents from Members of Congress, openly infringing on the Congress’s constitutional responsibilities. That’s why, on behalf of all Congressional Progressive Caucus Members, we have written to the President to demand that all interested House Members be given access to the documents related to the actions taken by telecommunications companies as part of the President’s domestic surveillance program.

During the President’s State of the Union address last month, he again demanded that Congress make permanent his Protect America Act (PAA) with expansive warrantless wiretapping powers and immunity for telecommunications companies. These companies aided the administration’s secretive illegal wiretapping program that only became public in December 2005. President Bush again is whipping up public fear, arguing that America would be in greater danger and the men and women who serve in our intelligence community would be vulnerable without immunity and unchecked surveillance. This is just not true.

Under the guise of protecting our nation, President George W. Bush and his administration have repeatedly allowed to go unpunished those who break the law.The administration has used the specter of terror to broaden and abuse executive power at the expense of Americans’ rights and freedoms. Too often, this erosion of civil liberties has accompanied steps by the administration to ensure that the parties responsible for violating the law escape accountability.

Today, it is following the same shameless approach. Telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance programs handed over their customers’ records without a valid court order or other legal instrument authorized by statute. President Bush has insisted that he will veto any FISA legislation that does not grant retroactive legal immunity for these companies, which would prevent Americans from holding these companies accountable for their actions.

The President will continue to threaten that our country will be attacked if court oversight, accountability, and protections for Americans civil liberties are included in the FISA reauthorization. While we must work to strengthen our ability to protect our country from terrorist attacks, we should never sacrifice the fundamental values of our nation. Congress has a responsibility to stand up the President by upholding the Constitution and the rights of the American people.

Rep. Barbara Lee gives annual State of the District address

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:00:00 -0800

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, gave her annual State of the District address Monday in front of hundreds of Bay Area residents and discussed issues both local and global.

"We must forge beyond our progress in delivering economic security for all by providing a living wage for all Americans, by making housing a fundamental right, by finally delivering on universal health care for all, by ensuring every child has access to a quality public education at all levels and by ensuring our trade polices are just and fair," Lee said.

She went on to pinpoint bringing the troops home from Iraq, ending genocide in Darfur and preventing the spread of HIV and AIDS on a global level as steps of great importance to Americans.

Shutting down Guantanamo Bay and preventing war in Iran were also high on Lee's list.

"We must forge beyond our progress in protecting the environment and toward achieving energy independence by tackling global warming, and; by making sure that in California, our waiver to more aggressively curb car emissions is given the green light," said Lee.

Barbara Lee: Polls Open, Final Push

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:00:00 -0800

The polls are open, and Rep. Barbara Lee of Oakland is already out and about for that final campaign push, talking up her candidate -- Sen. Barack Obama -- and getting out her voters.

"I'm very excited," said Lee, who has been making her way back and forth from Obama's Oakland headquarters to San Francisco in the last 24 hours to mine for votes. "The turnout will be phenomenal, and this is part of what democracy is all about -- the belief that people can make a difference."

Lee said that today's Super Tuesday Democratic primary in California brings her back to memories of the days she was monitoring elections in South African and Nigeria. As she watched voters line up there, she recalled, "I was thiking we've got to do something in Ameirca to raice the level of excitement, the feeling of empowerment."

And now, it's happened: the Field Poll predicts nearly 9 million voters today, excitement that has "defied all predictions."

She said she's been stunned at the energy among youth for the Obama cause. "The number of volunteers working 24/7 is a good sign we will get all our votes out..and we will get more delegates than most ever expected," she said. "And the other side said they expected to close the race today."

Whatever happens, Lee said that both sides expect "a very long night," with millions of mail ballots coming in today and some 20 counties using paper ballots because of problems with electronic voting machines.

"But it's better to make sure all the votes are counted," she said. "A large turnout means it will take longer, but I'm willing to wait for the results."

Bill would dramatically slash poverty

Mon, 04 Feb 2008 00:00:00 -0800

With our nation having just commemorated Martin Luther King Jr. Day, let us remember the legacy of the man who spread a message of peace and justice and challenged America to fulfill the true promise of Democracy. Among Dr. King's lesser-known speeches is that which included his powerful remarks lamenting over the impact of the war in Vietnam on poverty.

He reflected, "Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political play thing of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such."

Dr. King's Vietnam speech comes to mind as I work with Congress to fully fund the redeployment of our troops and contractors from Iraq so we can end the U.S. occupation; when I hear the Bush administration's saber-rattling about Iran; and when the Bush administration pushes to sell over $20 billion worth of precision-guided bombs to Saudi Arabia and other countries, creating a powder keg that can only spark a regional arms race in the volatile region. Yet all the while, families are being displaced by the foreclosure crisis and the country is heading toward a major economic downturn.

Poverty impacts every state, county, city and district in America. Nationally, 21 percent of Americans living in poverty were under 5 years old in 2005, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. More than 37 million people are living in poverty in the United States, a number equal to the entire population of California.

Congress has been forced to drastically decrease funding for domestic priorities so we can fund Bush's failed foreign policy, while this Republican administration spends somewhere between $11.7 billion and $15 billion a month on the so-called war on terror. Each additional day that our brave servicemen and servicewomen remain in harm's way in Iraq is another day that U.S. national security is further compromised and our domestic agenda goes under-funded. As Dr. King observed with the Vietnam War in the '60s, there is no question that we have to shift funding from the war to support America's families.

This week, as we remember Dr. King, Congress will also take action on my legislation, H. Con. Res. 198, which seeks to cut poverty in half over the next 10 years.

Earlier in this term, I introduced resolution (H. Con. Res.-161) commemorating the 40th anniversary of Dr. King's launching of the Poor People's Campaign and Organization of the Poor People's Army. These bills are part of a larger package of poverty legislation I will introduce to make eradicating poverty in America a national priority.

Bush's war is a drag on the economy. In upholding Dr. King's legacy, we must challenge this administration's foreign and domestic policies and demand peace and justice.

Obama is the Leader for Our Time

Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:00:00 -0800

I took my time to make an endorsement in the Democratic presidential race. I looked at the candidates and analyzed their campaign statements. I wondered where they stacked up on my list of priorities: sensibly ending the war in Iraq, solving the nation’s health care, housing and economic crises, and enhancing and strengthening our democratic institutions and civil rights. As I traveled around the nation, in Iowa and elsewhere, organizing against the Iraq war, it became clear to me whom I had to endorse: Senator Barack Obama.

I am convinced that Senator Obama is the candidate who is a real agent of change; a man who can lead our nation in this young century in a new, progressive and positive direction. This century cries for social, environmental, diplomatic, global, and neighborhood solutions to the misery that confronts far too many people in our own country and around the globe. Senator Obama promises leadership to meet these challenges – leadership we have been sorely lacking.

I know that a President Obama would find a prompt and effective way to end the occupation of Iraq and that he would strengthen US diplomacy and international development as an instrument of national policy. He would seek to prevent crises that lead to war and conflagration, and invest in a foreign policy that promotes stability, environmentalism and human rights.

I know that a President Obama would place education, health care, economic security, poverty, criminal justice reform, climate change, and all of the other important domestic issues at high on his agenda. More than that he would lead to find solutions to these problems.

And, I know that a President Obama would make eradication of HIV/AIDS at home and abroad a top priority.

As Andrew Sullivan so eloquently wrote in an Atlantic article this December: “At a time when America’s estrangement from the world risks tipping into dangerous imbalance, when a country at war with lethal enemies is also increasingly at war with itself, when humankind’s spiritual yearnings veer between an excess of certainty and an inability to believe anything at all, and when sectarian and racial divides seem as intractable as ever, a [person] who is a bridge between these worlds may be indispensable”.

I believe that the indispensable person Sullivan imagines is at this time running for the office of President of the United States, and it is Senator Obama.

Congress Needs Aggressive Oversight on Bush Move for Permanent Military Presence in Iraq

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:00:00 -0800

Today I sent a letter to the Speaker requesting that appropriate Committee Chairs quickly schedule oversight hearings regarding the recent Bush Signing Statement to circumvent a key provision in the Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4986) against a permanent military presence in Iraq.

The letter, co-authored by Congresswomen Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters, states, “We believe that Congress must find out and the American public made aware of the serious consequences of long-term military basing agreements or treaties that bypass congressional action as the ‘Declaration of Principles’. In addition, it is critical to shed light on the implications of the President’s signing statement and intention to ignore the law. At the same time it is also imperative to give greater scrutiny to the Bush administration’s efforts to maintain a long-term or indefinite military presence in Iraq. Holding hearings will complement the 166 hearings on Iraq that Democrats have held since you became our speaker in January 2007.”

Circumventing this important provision is contrary to the law and oversight hearings are clearly needed for Congress to get answers and for the American public to be assured the law is not being side stepped.

We need to know why President Bush wants to ignore a key provision he signaled he would uphold by signing the bill into law in the first place.

This latest action by this Republican administration seems to flagrantly disregard the law of the land. The President has signed into law, five times, legislation that included similar provisions to prohibit permanent military bases in Iraq since 2006 (PL109-289, PL 109-364, PL 110-28, PL 110-116, and PL 110-161.). Now he arbitrarily wants an exemption from the provision in the FY08 Defense Authorization bill.

We need answers and we need them now. Congress must immediately hold the Bush administration accountable.

Young Voters and the New Face of Politics

Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0800

We're only a few weeks into the presidential nominating season, and already it's clear that something special is happening.

We first saw it in both Iowa and New Hampshire, where extremely high turnout led to record numbers of voters participating in the Democratic nominating contests. This is great news for our country, and represents an exciting development on an issue that is close to my heart: engaging new voters in the political process.

I have endorsed Senator Barack Obama, because I know that bringing about the positive change we need in this young century demands activism and energy from America's young people. Senator Obama has built a movement by exciting young people and harnessing their political power like no other presidential candidate since John F. Kennedy. He has proven that if you reach out to young people and speak to their issues, they will vote.

In Iowa, young voters blew away the records for previous caucus participation. According to the respected Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE), in 2000, 3% of voters 17-29 participated in the Iowa caucuses; in 2004, that number rose slightly to 4%. This year? The youth turnout rate skyrocketed to 13%, a tripling of participation that represented over 65,000 young voters who came out for the caucuses. And well over half of them caucused for Senator Obama, leading him to victory in Iowa.

Senator Obama once again carried the youth vote in New Hampshire, where total youth turnout hit a record 43%. Over 50,000 voters under the age of 29 turned out for the Democratic primary alone -- a major increase over the 30,770 who participated just 4 years ago. He captured nearly 3 in 5 young voters in Nevada as well, where more than 15,000 young people age 18-29 participated and over a third of all caucus-goers were traditionally-underrepresented minorities. In both of these states, Senator Clinton also showed that reaching out to young people must be part of a winning campaign strategy.

South Carolina stunned everyone on Saturday. Over half of the participants in that primary were African American, and young voters turned out in record numbers: nearly one in five 18-29 year-olds participated. Two-thirds of these young South Carolinians cast their ballot for Senator Obama, who once again demonstrated his diverse base of support by capturing a majority of young African Americans, and a majority of young whites.

Mike Connery at Future Majority put it best: the "youth vote" is no longer the "icing on the cake"... it is the cake. The initial nomination contests have shown both candidates and the media alike that a permanent shift is underway in how young adults engage in the political process, and I am thrilled about the implications of this development. With young Democrats outnumbering young Republicans in all four of the competitive contests thus far, the recent surge in political participation by our nation's young people is exciting news for progressives. Even more heartening to me, these young voters are defying traditional lines of race and gender and uniting behind Barack Obama, a candidate they know will deliver the 21st Century change that has so far eluded their generation.

Engaging new voters in the political process is an important issue to me, because while every voice in America deserves a hearing in Washington, all too often it is moneyed and established interests who drive the conversation. Marginalized voices can't afford high-priced lobbyists to press lawmakers on issues that are important to their communities, but they possess one irreplaceable resource that can't simply be purchased by the highest bidder: the ability to vote.

It is important for young people to understand that they have a voice in this government, and one of the first steps in speaking up in this conversation is to vote. We want young people to have hope -- and to use their votes to elect politicians who will be accountable to them. The only way this will happen is through engagement with the political process, because if you're not at the table, your voice is not being heard.

I founded One Voice PAC in large part to increase participation in the political process by individuals and groups who have traditionally been marginalized, in particular young people, communities of color, and low-income voters. The face of America in politics must change -- and with the results we've seen in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina so far, it's clear that it is changing, a development that bodes well for our great country.

Local Democrats Unimpressed with Bush Address

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0800

The East Bay Democratic congressional delegation offered no plaudits of President George W. Bush's seventh and final state of the union speech Monday.

"The president is suffering from the writer's strike," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, an Alamo Democrat and leader of the House's moderate caucus. "There's nothing new here. He's trying to look like he's still relevant and he wasn't successful."

The delegation's criticism is, in large part, a predictable reaction from members of a party that hopes to retake the White House from the Republicans in November.

But the Democrats have had a rocky and partisan relationship with a president they say has squandered opportunities to work with Congress during his tenure.

Bush could have helped broker much of what he outlined in his speech in areas such as energy and education reforms, said Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez.

The president called on Congress to reauthorize No Child Left Behind, a bipartisan education reform act that Miller helped write but has become wildly unpopular among educators. The president also sought reforms of federal mortgage agencies to help families who have fallen victim to loans they can't afford.

"I welcome Bush if he really wants to be constructive," said Miller. "But his actions over the past seven years have undermined his credibility. Now, all of a sudden, he wants to engage on health care, energy, the economy and education? It's too little, too late."

Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont, viewed the speech on television at home, although his grandson -- Timothy Wainwright, 16 -- was on the House floor as a newly-sworn Congressional page. Stark said he wishes his grandson had been witness to a more inspiring moment.

"I think you just watched what history will determine was the worst president in the history of the United States reviewing all the bad things he has done," he said.

Stark, who chairs the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, said he was dismayed by Bush's continued call for privatizing Medicare and Social Security, as well as for maintaining the war in Iraq.

Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, a first-term Democrat in a GOP-leaning district, offered the least scathing review of the president's policies.

But McNerney also said Bush's words of support for investment in renewable energies is "at odds with veto threats he issued during consideration of versions of the energy bill that extended investment and production tax credits."

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, who two weeks ago told community leaders she does not believe "earmark" is a dirty word and vowed to bring every dollar possible back to her district, said she was stunned by Bush's call to slash such spending.

"Look at the president's earmarks he puts forth every year -- I'm totally flabbergasted at what he's talking about," she said, noting that Bush requested more than $20 billion in earmarks in 2006.

Lee also said what plenty of Democrats were thinking Monday night: "I'm very pleased that this was the last State of the Union speech that we'll have to listen to and respond to by George W. Bush."

Lee, Miller, Lofgren on Obama "Truth Squad"

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0800

Hot on the heels of Barack Obama’s rout of Hillary Clinton in Saturday’s South Carolina primary, the Obama campaign announced today it’s forming a “truth squad” of California supporters who’ll refute what they say are mistruths spread by Clinton’s campaign.

“Yesterday we watched as the voters of South Carolina sent a clear message to America and voted for change,” House Education & Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Martinez, said today. “They rejected the divisive politics of the past and chose progress for the future. According to exit polls, 70% of South Carolina voters said the attacks leveled by the Clinton campaign were unfair. And despite weeks of misleading negative attacks, Barack Obama won because voters in South Carolina, like voters across America, wanted to bring this country together, and change the way business is done in Washington so we can finally stand up to the special interests and solve the problems that matter to ordinary Americans.”

Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, who spent time phone-banking for Obama on Saturday at the Oakland campaign headquarters, said, “We’re here today because we know Californians are tired of the same divisive politics that failed in South Carolina. We are organized to make sure that the truth is shared with Californians and to respond to same type of negative attacks that the Clinton campaign tried, and the voters rejected, in South Carolina.”

Take that, Bill and Hillary! (Um, and Ellen Tauscher and Lynn Woolsey, too!)

Besides Miller and Lee, other California Truth Squad members include Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Lakewood; Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose; Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Burbank; Assembly Majority Floor Leader Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles; state Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero, D-East Los Angeles; San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris; and LA Federation of Labor Executive Secretary/Treasurer Maria Elena Durazo.

Aiming to cut poverty in half

Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0800

As co-founder of the Out of Poverty Caucus, I am happy that the House has unanimously passed my legislation, which sets a national goal of cutting poverty in half over the next ten years.

This week our nation honored Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy of justice and equality, and in the coming weeks, we will develop an economic stimulus plan to support families struggling economically. It is then very timely that we make eradicating poverty a national priority.

Over 37 million Americans—more than the population of my home state of CA—are in poverty and the number has grown by 5 million since the Bush administration took office; one in eight Americans now live in poverty; poverty in the US is far higher than in many other developed nations; and inequality is at an all time high. The richest 1 percent of Americans in 2005 held the largest share of the nation’s income since 1929 and at the same time, the poorest 20 percent held only 3.4 percent of the nation’s income. Perhaps the greatest example of the critical need for action though is the devastation of hurricane Katrina and its impact – One-third of those displaced by hurricane Katrina had incomes below one-and-a-half times the poverty line.

These statistics quantify what most of us already know - we are heading in the wrong direction, and we need a national commitment to address the growing poverty crisis in this nation. This resolution helps get us back on track by setting an achievable, and in my view, a modest goal of cutting poverty in half over the next decade.

By setting our sights to tackling poverty head on we can take serious steps toward bridging the gap between the haves and have nots and also help make certain that those of modest means will be able to participate and benefit in the economic recovery that must happen.

The passage of this resolution is an important step, but only a first step. Now we must work together to make the goal a reality. I am thrilled that, on a bipartisan basis, my colleagues support the struggle to eliminate poverty in America.

Barbara Lee speaks on her anti-poverty bill

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0800

Here’s what Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, had to say this afternoon during debate on legislation she authored, H.Con.Res. 198, expressing the sense of Congress that the United States has a moral responsibility to meet the needs of those in poverty, and sets a national goal of cutting poverty in half over the next 10 years using a strategy that promotes good jobs at livable wages. The House agreed to it with an unopposed voice vote.

[Click here to watch Rep. Lee's remarks]

Lee steps up in Obama campaign

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0800

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, who was the first California House member to endorse Barack Obama for president, on Monday was named the campaign’s Western Regional Co-Chair, with responsiblity for helping to turn out the vote in all western states.

Lee, a fan of Obama’s strong stance against the Iraq war, said she’s honored to take the job, and reiterated her vow to do all she can to see him elected. A Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair (with Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton), Lee has been in South Carolina for the past few days rallying voters for Obama.

“Senator Obama is a real agent of change who can can and will lead our nation in this young century in a new and positive direction,” she said. “I know that a President Obama would find a prompt and effective way to end the occupation of Iraq and that he would strengthen US diplomacy and international development as an instrument of national policy to prevent crises that lead to war and conflagration.”

Obama said he’s honored and proud to have her represent him: “Congresswoman Lee had the courage to stand up against the war from the start and she passionately fights for economic and social justice. Congresswoman Lee will provide a significant boost in our efforts to mount a successful campaign throughout the West on February 5th.”

Barbara Lee Remembers King's Legacy Saying, 'The War is a Drag on the Economy'

Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0800

Remembering Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King's legacy and the connection he made between the war in Vietnam and poverty, Congresswoman Barbara Lee (CA-9) released the following statement:

“As our nation commemorates Martin Luther King Jr. Day, let us remember the legacy of the man who spread a message of peace and justice and challenged America to fulfill the true promise of Democracy. Among Dr. King's lesser known speeches is his powerful remarks lamenting over the impact of the war in Vietnam on poverty.

“He reflected, 'then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.'

“Dr. King's Vietnam speech comes to mind as I work with Congress to fully-fund the redeployment of our troops and contractors from Iraq so we can end the U.S. occupation; when I hear the Bush administration's saber rattling about Iran, and; when the Bush administration pushes to sell over $20 billion worth of precision-guided bombs to Saudi Arabia and other countries, creating a powder keg that can only spark a regional arms race in the volatile region. Yet all the while, families are being displaced by the foreclosure crisis and the country is heading towards a major economic downturn.

“Poverty impacts every state, county, city and district in America. Nationally, 21 percent of Americans living in poverty were under 5 years old in 2005, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. More than 37 million people are living in poverty in the United States, a number equal to the entire population of the state of California.

“Congress has been forced to drastically decrease funding for domestic priorities so we can fund Bush's failed foreign policy, while this Republican administration spends somewhere between $11.7 billion and $15 billion a month on the so called war on terror. Each additional day our brave service men and women remain in harm's way in Iraq is another day that U.S. national security is further compromised and our domestic agenda goes underfunded. As Dr. King observed with the Vietnam war in the 60s, there is no question that we have to shift funding from the war to support America's families.

“Next week, as we remember Dr. King, Congress will also take action on my legislation, H. Con. Res. 198, which seeks to cut poverty in half over the next 10 years. Earlier in this Congressional session, I introduced a Congressional resolution (H.CON.RES.161) commemorating the 40th Anniversary of Dr. King's launching of the Poor People's Campaign and Organization of the Poor People's Army. These bills are part of a larger package of poverty legislation I will introduce to make eradicating poverty in America a national priority.

Officials offer help to homeowners facing foreclosure

Sun, 13 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0800

The impact on the Bay Area of the nation's mortgage crisis was vividly illustrated Saturday, when several hundred worried people gathered with a dozen local officials in packed Oakland City Council chambers to learn how to stave off foreclosure.

"We are here today to make a local response to what is a national epidemic," said Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums. "This has the potential to become even worse and unravel our economy."

The town hall included workshops on options for troubled homeowners, such as loan modification and refinancing. Lenders, loan servicers and nonprofit housing counseling agencies sent representatives to sit at tables laden with brochures and meet one-on-one with residents.

James and Eleanor Warren of Oakland, who run a nonprofit agency to assist young people called Truth 'n Youth, told the gathering they were 48 hours away from losing their home of 30 years in a foreclosure auction when a nonprofit housing counseling agency was able to help them renegotiate their back payments.

"This (type of assistance) needs to be done," James Warren said. "This is the proper venue to support those who need it."

Hundreds of thousands of people nationwide lost homes to foreclosure in the past year as payments on their adjustable rate mortgages rose to unaffordable levels. In the Bay Area, about 11,000 residents went through foreclosure in 2007, according to public records compiled by research firm DataQuick Information Systems. Even more homeowners, both nationally and locally, will face mortgage rate increases in 2008.

Among potential solutions highlighted in the workshops was the FHASecure program backed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which lets homeowners refinance into fixed-rate mortgages. Until the end of the year, the program is available to people who owe more than their home's value and people who are behind on their mortgage payments, if the delinquency was due to higher rates.

Assemblyman Sandre Swanson noted that both corporations and individuals need to take responsibility for helping to create the morass. Some people "didn't learn from the dot-com crash that things that go up do come down," he said. "We have to pay attention to what we sign."

The event reflected the growth in foreclosures. While a similar foreclosure-prevention workshop in Oakland in October drew about 150 people, about twice as many people showed up Saturday, with every seat taken and dozens standing in the back of the room.

New worries arose Friday when the nation's largest lender, Countrywide Financial Corp., agreed to be acquired by Bank of America Corp., but Preston DuFauchart, commissioner of the California Department of Corporations, said Bank of America has promised to maintain Countrywide's commitment to temporarily freeze interest rates for some homeowners.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, said the situation shows the urgent need for better laws to regulate lending.

"The worst part of this whole crisis is that it could have been prevented with reformed lending laws, increased funding for financial literacy and expanding housing counseling," she said.

Democrats' eyes on California

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0800

Say goodbye to the door-to-door politics of New Hampshire, where Hillary Clinton scored a surprise win Tuesday, and Iowa, where Barack Obama pulled off a larger-than-expected victory a week ago.

For all the attention they received, those states awarded a total of 67 delegates to the Democratic Convention.

At stake on "Tsunami Tuesday" on Feb. 5? More than 1,600 delegates. The biggest prize: 370 delegates from the California primary alone.

Clinton's New Hampshire win, her campaign said, was boosted by women who were moved by the much-debated moment when she got choked up on camera, making the race - nationally and in California - more intense than ever.

"Iowa and New Hampshire are like the NFL preseason. They're not emblematic of the rest of the country," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a Walnut Creek Democrat who backs Clinton. "Feb. 5 is the Super Bowl. It's the big show."

And it cannot be more exciting for Democrats, observers say. Sen. Barbara Boxer, who has remained neutral because she is close to both Obama and Clinton, called it "truly historic. It looks like we are going to have a woman or an African-American as our nominee."

California likely is going to count this time. Clinton enjoys strong support among women and Latinos, and the backing of dozens of officeholders. Obama has shown he can attract younger voters and independents, and in California the only major party that allows independents to vote in its primary is the Democratic one.

"Women turned out for Clinton in New Hampshire in big numbers the way younger people turned out for Obama in Iowa," said Simon Rosenberg, founder of the New Democrat Network, a group of moderate Democrats with ties to both campaigns.

"We'll see if either pattern holds in other states," said Rosenberg, Bill Clinton's communications director in New Hampshire in 1992.

In conference calls and rallies Wednesday, both Clinton and Obama campaigns made California pitches.

'Humanity, warmth'

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, an early Clinton backer, said women "have a strong, emotional connection" with the New York senator, calling Clinton's emotional response to a question in New Hampshire a "very important moment because it showed humanity and real warmth."

Women traditionally make up about 58 percent of the electorate in the California Democratic primary.

Both camps have launched an effort to reach hundreds of thousands of early absentee voters, who may account for 44 percent of the state's turnout.

At a rally in San Francisco Wednesday, Obama supporters, including two dozen elected Bay Area officials, characterized their candidate's message as one that is more in tune with California Democrats.

"Barack Obama is the candidate of change," said Rep. George Miller, an East Bay Democrat who announced his endorsement of the Illinois senator at the rally. "In the politics of California, we depend on change."

Obama will begin new outreach efforts to Latinos and an online strategy designed to capitalize on Obama's appeal among young voters, California campaign co-chairman Steve Westly said.

Underscoring the challenge the campaign faces, Rep. Barbara Lee of Oakland, an Obama backer, said, "We are taking on the status quo."

The most recent survey in California, the Field Poll taken in mid-December, showed an erosion of Clinton's lead over Obama from 25 points to 14 points. Many of those early Clinton backers shifted to undecided, reflecting what Rep. Zoe Lofgren called the "very fluid nature" of the primary.

'Very appealing'

Lofgren, a San Jose Democrat who has remained neutral, described Clinton and Obama as "very appealing candidates" who face different challenges with California Democrats. Voters are drawn to Obama, but want to know more about him.

Clinton earns pluses and minuses because of her complicated history, Lofgren said. Democrats in the state have fond memories of Bill Clinton, but many of them "are desperate to go in a new direction." She added that Hillary Clinton's 2002 vote for the Iraq war resolution "is still a big problem for her."

Before they get to California, New York, Illinois and the other Feb. 5 states, Obama and Clinton face other challenges. The Nevada caucuses Jan. 19 will be the first big test of the Latino vote, which could help Clinton. But Obama's campaign officials say they are better organized.

Obama will also benefit from the support in Nevada of two large unions, the Service Employees International Union and the 60,000-strong Culinary Workers, which represents hotel and restaurant workers in Las Vegas.

"Clinton has locked up the Democratic establishment," said David Damore, an associate professor of political science at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas. "What you see on the ground is a lot of enthusiasm for Obama outside the party structure."

Clinton is making a hurried trip to Nevada today to secure support in a state where the results will be considered a bellwether for the West and could possibly impact voter decisions in California.

The South Carolina primary Jan. 26 will test Obama's appeal with African-American voters, who make up about half the Democratic electorate, and Clinton's ability to organize quickly. Michigan and Florida are also holding primaries in January, but because state parties violated national party rules by moving up the primary dates, the candidates have not campaigned there and the results aren't likely to be seen as a true test.

Rep. Mike Honda of San Jose, who has not endorsed in the race, said the campaign of John Edwards, who finished second in Iowa and third in New Hampshire, could still be a factor if he pulls out a big win in South Carolina, where he was born.

The one thing Obama and Clinton apparently will not have to worry about is money. In the first eight days of the year, boosted by his Iowa victory, Obama raised more than $8 million and now has about 500,000 donors, campaign manager David Plouffe said Wednesday.

Obama is returning to California next week for fundraisers in Atherton, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Clinton's surprise win in New Hampshire spurred $760,000 in contributions in just a few hours, campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said.

California has been a reliable source of money for both candidates - $13 million for Clinton and $12 million for Obama during the first three quarters of 2007.

Even so, with such a tight contest, the candidates probably won't be able to saturate the airwaves, especially in California's expensive media markets.

Predicted Rosenberg: "We're about to see how Internet-centric these campaigns are, and whether it pays off."

Vote Hope 2008: Rep. Barbara Lee

Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0800

Where are the opportunities for real change in the 2008 election? To find out, we spoke to some grassroots organizers, national leaders, and elected officials who are working for change.

Challenge Status Quo

Sarah van Gelder:What are the most interesting possibilities you see for progress in the 2008 election season?

[Rep. Barbara] Lee: I see every election as an opportunity to build on the number of progressives in Congress, and 2008 offers a great opportunity to do that.

The American people have had it with the Bush administration and the Republican party. Whether the issue is the occupation of Iraq or paying for tax cuts for the wealthy by cutting vital services, people are hungry for an alternative vision.

That is the reason that I launched OneVoicePAC.org. When I cast the lone vote after September 11 against giving George Bush an unlimited war-making authority—an authority, I might add, that his administration has invoked in invading Iraq, setting up military commissions, even warrantless wiretapping—I was alone. Today, there are millions of Americans who are calling for an end not just to the occupation of Iraq, but to the entire Bush foreign policy of unilateralism and pre-emption. Our goal is to help translate that support into more progressive votes in Congress.

Sarah van Gelder: How might the election help us move toward ending the war in Iraq and preventing war in Iran?

Lee: I am hopeful that these elections, in addition to giving us a new president, will also help change the dynamic in the Senate, where efforts to end the occupation have gotten bogged down. Currently, because of the slim majority in the Senate and the Senate rules, Republicans have been able to block up-or-down votes on Iraq-related legislation, and they have not, thus far, had to pay a price for it politically.

As we get closer to the elections, I think that is going to change. Certainly if it doesn’t I think that there will be a lot of Republicans who will not be reelected, and we have to make sure that there are strong progressive candidates who are prepared to take those seats.

At OneVoicePAC, in addition to raising money to support progressive candidates, we’ll be working to change the face of politics.

Many of the people who are most profoundly impacted by the decisions being made in our government today are also the most marginalized from the political process, particularly communities of color and young people. Part of our mission is to help these communities elect candidates who are accountable to them and who will work to challenge the status quo.

Sarah van Gelder: Poll numbers for the Democratic-led Congress are almost as low as those for the Republican administration. Many feel that the Democratic Party has thus far failed to end the war, get us universal health care, deal meaningfully with poverty, and to provide a sense of vision for our country. What will it take to get real change?

Lee: Real change only comes from unrelenting political pressure, and that is not just about elections, it is about holding people accountable between elections. I know that there are a lot of people out there who are disappointed and frustrated that more has not been accomplished. I am disappointed and frustrated. But if you allow yourself to get discouraged, you just let the other side win. For me, the stakes are too high, and I have to look at the challenges and setbacks as an incentive to keep pushing harder.

Win Boosts Obama Support in Region

Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0800

More than 100 people squeezed into Barack Obama's two-room Northern California headquarters in downtown Oakland on Friday afternoon to celebrate the candidate's history-making decisive win in Iowa's Democratic caucus.

They vowed to repeat the victory in California's Feb. 5 Democratic primary.

"What a day, what a day!" said U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland. "I feel and you feel — we know — that change is in the air."

Lee said Obama's win in Iowa serves as "a major signal" about the country. "It's a country that believes in global peace and security," she said, "not in creating wars."

Thursday's Iowa caucuses were the first event in a string of state primaries that will culminate in the Democrats and Republicans nominating their presidential candidates. And those nominations, in turn, are only a step in the arduous road toward winning the presidency. But since Iowa is first, it is carefully watched. Obama won 38 percent of Democratic caucus votes, while John Edwards had 30 percent and Sen. Hillary Clinton 29 percent.

Lee urged the group assembled in Oakland, most of whom were volunteers on Obama's campaign, to take their candidate to victory in California's primary and beyond.

The group included college students as well as gray-haired supporters and many people somewhere in between, defying, at least locally, the notion that Obama is the young person's candidate. There were about as many white folks as African Americans and a fair number of Asians and Latinos in the room as well.

Stephanie Chan, communications director of Students for Barack Obama's California operations, said, "We have thousands of volunteers working the phones every day here in California."

Non-students and students alike, California has about 120,000 volunteers in the Obama campaign, according to Erin Callahan, political director for the campaign's Northern California operations.

The Rev. J. Alfred Smith Sr., senior pastor of the Allen Temple Baptist Church in Oakland, said Sen. Obama has the backing of religious people, too.

"I represent the faith-based community and I'm happy to say that the faith-based community — which has been on wrong side of some national decisions — has been on the correct side this time in backing Barack Obama," Smith said, praising the candidate for "the courage of his convictions," in opposing the Iraq war from its outset.

Oakland City Councilmember Desley Brooks, who represents the city's Eastmont-Seminary sixth district, said Obama "is how we are going to move hope and possibility forward.

"We're talking about a person that represents the hope this country so needs."

Bush's Saudi Arms Deal Escalates Arms Race

Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0800

Despite significant Congressional opposition, the Bush administration intends to formally announce their plan to sell precision-guided bombs to Saudi Arabia later this month.

This arms package is reckless and has the potential to create a powder keg that can ultimately spark a regional arms race. It appears that, once again, this Republican administration is out of touch with reality if they think that they can buy peace through arms.

Selling precision-guided bombs, including joint direct attack munitions and satellite-guided bombs, to Saudi Arabia will only flare up an already volatile region and further weaken our national security.

This Bush-Saudi arms deal is expected to eventually total $20 billion, but what will be the human cost? I intend to work closely with my colleagues in Congress to block these arms sales.

Bush Signs Bill Allowing Sudan Divestment

Tue, 01 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0800

President Bush signed legislation on Monday allowing state and local governments to cut investment ties with companies doing business in Sudan, even as he expressed concerns that the bill could interfere with his right to set foreign policy.

The measure, called the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act, is aimed at pressuring Sudan to end the violence in the Darfur region, where 200,000 people have been killed and more than two million driven from their homes in a four-year conflict that Mr. Bush has termed a genocide.

The bill, which passed both houses of Congress unanimously, makes it easier for mutual funds and private pension fund managers to sell their investments and allows states to prohibit debt financing for companies that do business in Sudan. It also requires companies seeking contracts with the federal government to certify that they are not doing business in Sudan.

“I share the deep concern of the Congress over the continued violence in Darfur perpetrated by the government of Sudan and rebel groups,” Mr. Bush said in a statement issued from his ranch here, where he planned to celebrate the new year with his wife, Laura, and some friends.

But the administration has expressed reservations about the bill, and Mr. Bush’s signature was accompanied by a proviso known as a signing statement, in which he said he was reserving the authority to overrule state and local divestment decisions if they conflicted with foreign policy. The statement said the measure “risks being interpreted as insulating” state and local divestment actions from federal oversight.

Mr. Bush has long sought an effective way to press Sudan to end the violence in Darfur, and he has been under intense pressure from human rights advocates to do more. The administration imposed stiff economic sanctions on the Sudanese government at the end of May, trying to force it to accept a United Nations-led peacekeeping force.

On Monday, formal authority was transferred from the current African Union peacekeeping force to a joint United Nations-African Union mission. But advocates complained that the deployment was delayed for months because of bureaucratic foot-dragging by the Sudanese government.

The peacekeeping force will be staffed far below the levels set by the United Nations Security Council when it voted unanimously in July to deploy 26,000 troops to try to stop the violence in Darfur.

As planned, the peacekeeping force would have been the largest such effort in the world, costing about $2 billion in its first year and drawing on military and police forces from the African Union and the United Nations.

Instead, after months of wrangling, the force that made its debut on Monday had 9,000 troops, United Nations officials said. Experts worry that it may never get to the level where it will make any difference in the region’s troubles.

“What we are seeing and hearing is a reprisal of their same stall-and-delay tactics,” said Allyn Brooks-LaSure, a spokesman for the Save Darfur Coalition.

The coalition, an umbrella group of more than 170 organizations, has been waging a “Divest in Darfur” campaign aimed at big investment companies like Fidelity and Vanguard, highlighted by the question “Is your mutual fund funding genocide?” After a State Department official testified that the divestment bill might not be necessary, the coalition put together a letter-writing campaign urging Mr. Bush to sign it.

“The Congress passed this measure unanimously in both chambers, and I think that sent a strong message to the White House,” Mr. Brooks-LaSure said. “We believe they were right to heed that message.”

A Signature Away From Action For Darfur

Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:00:00 -0800

For nearly five years, a brutal genocide has been taking place in the Darfur region of the Sudan, leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths and the displacement of millions -- all with the support of the Sudanese government.

This is an appalling and tragic state of affairs, which is why I've sponsored legislation that would help U.S. companies and governments divest their assets from the region. Divestment is the exact opposite of an investment: it involves organizations withdrawing their assets from the country, which would cripple the Sudanese government's ability to financially sustain the genocide.

As the Los Angeles Times put it in an editorial in favor of divestment last year:

The divestment movement [helps] draw international attention to the appalling situation in Darfur while pressuring the foreign companies working with the murderous Sudanese government to pull out. That could be a catalyst for change in Africa's worst killing zone.

Corporations and local government often face roadblocks in the divestment process, which is why I sponsored legislation that would remove these obstacles while prohibiting the federal government from making new investments in the region. On Tuesday, the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act passed both Houses of Congress, and now only needs the president's signature to become law.

Already, 58 universities, 22 states, and 11 cities have divested their assets from the Sudan, but we need this legislation to make sure this positive trend continues. By protecting and encouraging those who wish to divest, we are ensuring that no one will have to worry that their retirement savings are being used to support an ongoing genocide.

Divestment worked in South Africa -- where our sustained divestment campaign hastened the fall of the apartheid government -- which is why members of the Sudanese advocacy community have organized so strongly behind a similar campaign for Darfur. This legislation was written in partnership with members of this advocacy community, and it will send a strong message to the companies that are supporting this genocidal regime while tangibly crippling the Sudanese government's ability to sustain the conflict.

It should be noted that the Sudan Accountability and Divestment act doesn't require that anyone divest from the region. Rather, it provides the opportunity and protects any American organization that chooses to withdraw its support from the Sudanese government -- an action that I hope will skyrocket after this legislation is signed into law.

If you'd like to contact President Bush and urge him to sign this important legislation, you can click here to do so.

While this is an action that we can take right now to impact the genocide in Darfur, it is but one piece of a comprehensive solution to ending the conflict. This week the Congress also passed $1 billion in humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping funding for the region, and active diplomacy is another key ingredient for stopping the violence and bringing all parties together to negotiate a comprehensive political solution.

Some say that there is little we can do to end this genocide, but I refuse to accept that pessimistic claim. I've visited the region three times and have met with survivors of this conflict, and it is clearly time to move past words and directly towards action -- and passage of the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act will do just that.

I hope you'll join me in telling the President: "Not on our Watch. Not on our dime."

Congress wants investments in Darfur to end

Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:00:00 -0800

A far-reaching law to curb investment in the Sudan is awaiting the President's signature -- an effort to address years of violence against men, women and children in Darfur. We spoke to the congresswoman who is behind this bill.

"It made a difference when we divested from South Africa. It will make a difference in ending the genocide in Darfur," says Rep Barbara Lee, (D) Oakland.

Congress has now joined 22 states and dozens of universities in calling for an end to investment in the Sudan. The bill was introduced in the house by Oakland Congresswoman Barbara Lee. Strong bipartisan support makes the bill veto-proof by the President.

"This is the moment of truth. Their rhetoric has been great. They declared genocide. They say genocide is wrong. They acknowledge the 450,000 people who have died; two and a half million people are refugees in Darfur. I have visited three times and I've seen this taking place right before my eyes," says Lee.

The divestiture bill bars federal contracts with companies doing military or energy-related business in the Sudan. It also protects investment firms from shareholder suits if they sell off holdings in such companies.

San Mateo based Franklin Templeton Investments has been the subject of protests for owning an estimated $1.6 billion stake in a Chinese petroleum company involved in oil and gas exploration in the Sudan.

Franklin Templeton issued a statement that "our fiduciary responsibility is to our funds. We support efforts toward positive and meaningful reform there. We have seen that fostering economic and business development through investment can often help in achieving reforms."

A member of the Bay Area Darfur Coalition hopes the divestiture bill will lead to similar action globally.

"There is similar legislation pending in eight other countries. Germany and the U.K. are two of those countries, so we certainly hope that will happen. This is an ongoing campaign," says Martina Knee, Bay Area Darfur Coalition

The divestiture bill is sitting on the President's desk, awaiting his signature.

US Congress passes Sudan divestment bill

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:00:00 -0800

The U.S. Congress pressed for an end to the violence in the Darfur region by passing legislation on Tuesday to help investors who want to shed their holdings in companies doing business in Sudan.

The House of Representatives voted 411-0 to back the measure that aims to shield state and local governments, mutual funds and private pension funds from investor lawsuits if they divest shares of companies active in Sudan's oil, mining, power and military equipment industries.

It also denies federal contracts to companies involved in Sudan's oil, mining, power, and military equipment industries.

The bill has already passed the Senate and now goes to President George W. Bush. But his administration has criticized the legislation for interfering with foreign policy-making and it was unclear whether he would sign it into law. A U.S. State Department spokesman said the administration had some concerns about legal issues raised by the bill.

Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat, said the United States had a moral responsibility to use every tool to stop the genocide in Darfur.

"It's time we put the United States, not just with rhetoric, but with action, on the right side of history," said Lee before the vote.

Experts estimate 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million uprooted in the Sudanese region's conflict, which started in 2003 and pits mostly non-Arab rebel groups against the Khartoum government and Arab militias.

The Save Darfur Coalition, an alliance of more than 180 faith-based, advocacy and human rights organizations, has asked investors to divest their holdings in companies such as Malaysia's state-owned Petronas, India's Oil and Natural Gas Corp Ltd, and PetroChina Co Ltd, whose parent company, China National Petroleum Corp, is helping Sudan drill for oil.

The coalition says the Sudanese government uses up to 70 percent of its oil revenues to give arms and supplies to Arab militias charged with putting down the revolt.

U.S. companies are generally barred from investing in Sudan already, so the divestment mostly affects foreign companies. Bush concluded in 2004 that genocide took place in Darfur in 2004.

U.S.-based Capital Research & Management Co, Lazard Asset Management Co Ltd, and Blackstone Asia Advisors Ltd, were among the top 10 largest institutional holders of Natural Gas Corp Ltd shares as of the end of September, according to Reuters Company Views.

The same database showed Capital Research & Management Co, Barclays Global Investors NA and Vanguard Group Inc were among the top 10 investors in PetroChina, joined by units of California-based Franklin Templeton Investments and FMR Corp, better known as Fidelity Investments.

Lawmakers Protest HIV/AIDS Travel Rule

Wed, 12 Dec 2007 00:00:00 -0800

On World AIDS Day last month the White House said new rules would soon make it easier for people with HIV/AIDS to travel to the United States. Democratic lawmakers and gay rights groups are complaining that the regulations proposed by the Homeland Security Department could actually create more barriers.

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said Tuesday that the proposal "offers little of value to HIV-positive applicants."

"It imposes strict requirements that unfairly limit travel to the United States," Kennedy said after chairing a Senate health committee hearing on the Bush administration's international AIDS efforts. "It is mired in the past, a past where people feared HIV as a contagious disease that could not be controlled or effectively managed."

Bebe Anderson, HIV project director at the gay civil rights group Lambda Legal, said the rules were "inappropriate based on medicine and public health concerns."

Gay rights advocates have long opposed a 1993 federal law that strictly restricts travel and immigration to the U.S. by HIV-positive people, arguing it's discriminatory. Foreigners with the virus can obtain visas only after receiving a waiver from the Homeland Security Department in a cumbersome process that requires approval from DHS headquarters.

The White House says it wants to make the process easier for HIV-positive people seeking 30-day stays. As President Bush observed World AIDS Day on Nov. 30, the administration announced the publication of regulations meant to speed up the process.

"The administration is working to end discrimination against people living with HIV/AIDS," said a White House fact sheet. "A 'categorical waiver' will enable HIV-positive people to enter the United States for short visits through a streamlined process."

The rule proposed by the Department of Homeland Security would allow short-term visas to be granted to HIV-positive people by U.S. consulates in their home countries, cutting out the involvement of DHS headquarters and thus speeding up the process. However, applicants would have to agree to certain conditions, including giving up the right to apply for a longer stay or permanent residency in the U.S.

In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, more than two dozen Democratic House members objected that the changes don't lessen the burden on HIV-positive people, instead shifting authority to "local consular officers who may lack the appropriate medical expertise."

"There would be no appeal process," said the letter released Monday by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif. "Selecting this pathway would also require applicants to waive any right to readjust their status once in the United States — a waiver not required under current policy."

Homeland Security Spokeswoman Veronica Valdes contended the new rule does provide a streamlined process for HIV-positive visitors. She had no immediate response to Lee's letter, saying the department would review it.

The comment period on the proposed rule closed last Thursday. Valdes couldn't say when a final rule would be published.

Gay rights activists say the U.S. is one of just a handful of countries that restrict travel for HIV-positive people. Lee has introduced legislation to overturn the ban, and Lambda Legal and other gay-rights groups are advocating its passage.

Congress in tug of war over Iraq funding, domestic spending

Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:00:00 -0800

Just days before funding for the federal government is set to run out, congressional Democrats continued to struggle Monday to put together the most important domestic spending legislation since they assumed the majority in January.

Democratic leaders are working on a gargantuan package that will likely top $500 billion and would boost funding for Democratic priorities such as school aid and healthcare.

But they are laboring to defuse a veto threat from President Bush, who has adopted a new role as fiscal watchdog since the Democratic takeover and has promised to block any legislation that exceeds his budget requests for the year.

At the same time, senior Democrats are facing a restive liberal base incensed by talk that a budget deal would provide more money for the war in Iraq without attaching any conditions aimed at forcing troop withdrawals.

Additional war funding would represent a major concession to the president, who has demanded that Congress abandon its push to impose a schedule for bringing troops home.

On Monday, one of the country's leading antiwar groups, MoveOn.org, called on Democratic leaders to maintain their demands that any war funding be tied to a withdrawal timeline.

"Americans elected a Democratic Congress in 2006 to end the war in Iraq. A blank check for billions in war funding moves us in the wrong direction," said Nita Chaudhary, MoveOn's Iraq campaign director.

Democratic leaders continued to attack the Bush administration as their increasingly bitter conflict over federal spending intensified.

"The White House should cease its political posturing and work with the Congress to complete the appropriations process," said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.).

But with the approach of a Friday deadline -- when a temporary funding resolution for the federal government expires -- it appears increasingly likely that congressional Democrats will once again have to give in to the White House.

"You can't just leave the troops sitting out there," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) said, acknowledging that Democrats had few good options to force the president's hand.

Democrats writing their first spending bills in 12 years have tried to add more money for new roads, healthcare for veterans, public housing and other domestic programs, in many cases reversing cuts proposed by the White House.

But this has combined with the effort to put conditions on war funding to create a budget breakdown more than two months into the new fiscal year.

The Iraq legislation has stalled in the Senate, where Republican lawmakers have successfully blocked war-related measures all year. And thus far, Democrats have sent the president only two of the 11 spending bills needed to fund the federal government.

Last month, he signed a $471-billion defense bill that pushed up military spending by more than 9.5% compared to the year before, even though it included only a fraction of the funding needed for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The same day, Bush vetoed the other spending bill, which would have allocated $150.7 billion for the departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services, and substantially boosted funding for Head Start, reading and math instruction, and other programs targeted for poor children.

Since then, the 10 spending measures have remained mired in partisan conflict.

Democrats are trying to lump them into a single omnibus measure that would fund everything but the operations of the Pentagon. They have talked about giving the president additional funding for the war in Iraq in exchange for his support of additional funding for Democratic domestic priorities. One draft put spending at about $522 billion, about $18 billion above what the president requested.

From 2001 to 2006, the president signed at least 50 spending bills passed by Republicans that exceeded his budget requests, according to House Appropriations Committee records.

But this year, Bush, who has presided over a budget deficit every year of his presidency, is trying to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility. He has said he will veto anything that exceeds the $933 billion he budgeted in discretionary spending (the measure he vetoed in November was $10 billion over his proposal).

Over the weekend, White House budget director Jim Nussle reemphasized the veto threat, calling the Democratic proposal "not fiscally responsible."

Democratic leaders are looking for allies among moderate Republicans. But GOP leaders are so far sticking with the president. On Monday, a frustrated House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) told the Associated Press that he would look to cut GOP priorities to bring the budget bill's cost below the president's total.

At the same time, as senior Democrats talk of adding in money for the war in Iraq, they are dealing with a rebellion on the liberal wing of their caucus. On Monday, three leaders of the Out of Iraq caucus sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and other Democratic leaders a letter urging them not to include war funding without conditions.

"Congress should not approve another dime for any measure for continuing the occupation of Iraq that does not include a clear timeline for safe and timely redeployment," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland), one of the letter's authors. "We have the power to end the occupation of Iraq."

Today I Endorsed Barack Obama

Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:00:00 -0800

I wanted to share some exciting news with you, as today I announced my endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States.

Like so many Americans, I first heard Senator Obama when he delivered his electrifying speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. Deep down, I knew I'd witnessed history in the making.

Barack Obama represents a bridge to the future. He embodies the hope and new direction that our country so desperately needs. As I've watched Senator Obama campaign for the presidency, I am convinced that he is a real agent of change; a man who can lead our nation in a new and positive direction.

This century cries for social, environmental, diplomatic, global, and neighborhood solutions to the misery that confronts far too many people in our own country and around the globe. I share Senator Obama's vision and active commitment to building a society based on activism, progressive values and a keen sense that we must act now and outside of the usual bounds of partisanship and expediency.

I know that a President Obama would find a prompt and effective way to end the occupation of Iraq and that he would strengthen U.S. diplomacy and international development as an instrument of national policy to prevent crises that lead to war and conflagration.

I know that a President Obama would place education, health care, poverty, economic security, criminal justice reform, climate change and all of the important domestic issues at the top of his agenda.

And, I know that a President Obama would make the eradication of HIV/AIDS at home and abroad a top priority.

I founded One Voice PAC as an organization dedicated to helping elect truly progressive candidates who will challenge the status quo. To that end, I am honored to endorse Senator Obama's candidacy and I hope you will join me in helping him secure the Democratic nomination for the presidency.

Barbara Lee Speaks for Obama

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:00:00 -0800

Rep. Barbara Lee of Oakland stood with tears in her eyes on the floor of the 2004 Democratic National Convention as she watched a rising party star, Barack Obama, deliver an electrifying speech that shot him into the political stratosphere.

When it was over, a profoundly moved Lee told us on the convention floor that she had witnessed history that day in Boston -- the political emergence of the man she believed would be the first African American president of the United States.

Today, Lee endorses Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for president, making her a star endorser in his campaign effort.

''He does represent that bridge to the future; he reprsents hope, new direction which our country desperate needs,'' Lee told us this morning. ''This is a very powerful and defining moment for our country, and my conscience is my guide. I can't sit on the sidelines when we have an opportunity to move forward.''

Obama plans a major rally and fundraiser in Los Angeles this afternoon. And Lee -- who represents the 9th Congressional District in Oakland, the most Democratic leaning district in the nation -- is a hero to the left for her anti-war activism. She's a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, and co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus -- and her endorsement for Obama serves as a formidable counterweight to that of her former boss, former Congressman and now Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums, another African American political force.

Dellums endorsed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for president weeks ago in Oakland (she's in San Francisco holding a public discussion with Schwarzenegger adviser and financier Warren Buffett Tuesday in addition to fundraising). But Lee is a good campaigner, very closely tied to African American churches and the voters in her district, where those ''Barbara Lee Speaks for Me'' bumper stickers are still legion.

Rep. Barbara Lee, known for anti-war stance, endorses Obama

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:00:00 -0800

Barack Obama on Monday won the endorsement of one of Congress' staunchest opponents of the Iraq war.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., said she believes Obama is the most committed among the Democratic presidential hopefuls to ending the war.

"This is, for me, about Sen. Obama being the right person at the right time for our nation," Lee, who represents Oakland, said during a conference call with reporters.

In endorsing Obama, Lee parted ways with another prominent black Oakland Democrat and her former boss, Mayor Ronald Dellums. Dellums, who spent 27 years in Congress representing the district Lee now serves, endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton in October.

"I did not arrive at this decision lightly," Lee said, adding that she thinks it's healthy that black politicians can disagree because they have more than one option.

"African American voters are being very intelligent and very discerning about how they are evaluating all the candidates," Lee said.

Opinion polls show Clinton with a wide margin among likely voters in the state's Feb. 5 primary election.

Not Another Dime without a Timeline

Fri, 07 Dec 2007 00:00:00 -0800

Congress should not approve another dime for any measure for continuing the occupation of Iraq that does not include a clear timeline for safe and timely redeployment.

Next week Congress is likely to vote on the expected FY08 omnibus bill, which may include funding to continue the occupation of Iraq. Now is not the time to lower the bar on the Bush administration on Iraq funding.

The President’s 10-year, trillion dollar war in Iraq has already cost America too much — too many lives lost, too many devastating injuries sustained, too many taxpayer dollars spent, and too much damage to our reputation in the world — creating an even greater terrorist threat to the United States.

Insisting on safe and timely redeployment makes perfect sense and is in line with what the American people have asked for. But congressional Republicans would rather play politics than pressure the White House to do the right thing.

American troops have performed heroically in Iraq. However, President Bush’s troop surge was designed to give Iraqis the opportunity to make political progress and political progress in Iraq has been virtually nonexistent. Intelligence experts concur that there is no military solution to the problems in Iraq.

It is the Bush administration and the Republicans who need to change their strategy. I have called on my colleagues to only fully-fund the timely redeployment of our troops.

It is time to take tough action to do what the American people want to protect our troops on the ground and bring them home as safely and as soon as possible.

Fighting inequality, starting at the top

Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:00:00 -0800

We have a problem with our economy. The raw numbers say the economic pie is growing, but the larger pieces are all going to a small minority of Americans -- meaning that for most Americans, wages are barely keeping pace with inflation.

We see this rising income inequality clearly in recent IRS data, which show that the share of income going to the wealthiest Americans is the highest it has been since before the Great Depression. To pick but one example of this disturbing trend, last year the average CEO made more in one day than the average worker made over the entire year.

Clearly, it's time to reconnect the economic fortunes of front-line workers to those of their CEO's -- who are commonly making making tens of millions of dollars annually -- by cutting off tax subsidies for these enormous compensation packages if they are more than 25 times the salary of the lowest paid worker in the company.

When the economy is growing and the only people who are benefiting are the wealthiest among us, we have a problem with our priorities.

When the share of income going to the wealthiest Americans is growing, and the number of people living in poverty is rising as well, we have a problem with our priorities.

When issues like income inequality and poverty are not part of our national political debate, we have a problem with our priorities.

It is time to finally put to rest the ridiculous idea that if we just take care of the wealthy then the rest of the economy will take care of itself. The evidence is overwhelming: it is just not true.

That's why I have introduced new legislation designed to fight income inequality in America starting at the top: by reconnecting the economic fortunes of those in the executive suite with those of their frontline employees.

My bill, the Income Equity Act of 2007, is a simple, common sense piece of legislation that would limit the amount of executive compensation corporations can deduct as a legitimate business expense to 25 times the pay of a company's lowest paid worker.

It's not the government's job to tell corporations what they can pay their executives, but American taxpayers have the right to choose whether or not to subsidize these out of control executive salaries. If a corporation chooses to provide compensation packages that are disconnected from the wages of average workers, then I believe we should have a say over how much of that compensation is tax deductible.

If you'd like to help us build support for this legislation in Congress, you can click here to email your Representative today.

While this particular driver of income inequality can be slowed through specific legislation, it speaks to a larger trend that will require comprehensive changes to fully address. In short, the basic assumptions of the Bush "ownership society" have been shown to be bankrupt: the culture of individualism; the conviction that people who aren't getting ahead "just aren't trying"; the belief that government's only responsibility is to protect business and the wealthy, and the rest will magically take care of itself -- these ideas are not just unsustainable, but fundamentally at odds with the sense of collective responsibility that is a core part of who we are as a nation.

On a very basic level, we understand that our fates -- rich and poor alike -- are ultimately connected. I believe that we should aspire as a nation to be judged not by how well we do by the wealthy, but rather, in the words of gospel, by how we treat "the least of these."

I hope that this legislation is something that will start a conversation about the best way to address widening inequality here at home, and best wishes to everyone for a wonderful Thanksgiving!

East Bay Congresswoman Hopes War Funding Stall Sends Message to Bush

Tue, 20 Nov 2007 00:00:00 -0800

Click here to listen to Chris Filippi's report as it aired on KCBS radio

Democratic Representative Barbara Lee of Oakland is applauding the fact that Congress has left for the Thanksgiving break without approving more money for the war in Iraq.

An outspoken critic of the war, Lee said the move lets President Bush know he won’t get a blank check from Capital Hill. On Friday, Senate Republicans blocked a $50 billion Democratic bill that would have paid for several months of combat. It also would have ordered troop withdrawals from Iraq to begin within 30 days and set a goal of ending combat in December 2008.

Democrats now plan to sit on Bush's $196 billion request for war spending until next year, pushing the Pentagon toward an accounting nightmare.

"Hopefully the president will hear the will of the people and know that any money that is spent should be spent to begin bringing our young men and women home right away," said Lee.

Bush is accusing Congress of playing politics at the expense of soldiers. "On Wednesday the House passed a bill that once again has Congress directing our military commanders on how to conduct the war in Iraq as a condition for funding our troops," he said in his weekly radio address.

More than 3,800 U.S. troops have died in Iraq. Democrats on Congress' Joint Economic Committee estimated this past week that more than $1 trillion will have been spent on the war through next year.

Liberal Dems Back Party's War Bill

Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:00:00 -0800

Three leading House anti-war Democrats said they now back a $50 billion bill that funds the war but calls for most troops to come home by December 2008. Their support paves the way for the bill's passage Wednesday.

The trio, California Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters, represent a liberal anti-war caucus that last week expressed opposition to the measure on the grounds it was too soft and did not demand an end to combat.

The bill requires that President Bush initiate troop withdrawals within 30 days of its passage with the goal of bringing home most soldiers and Marines by Dec. 15, 2008.

The White House said Bush would veto the bill if it comes to him. Presidential spokeswoman Dana Perino called the legislation the "height of irresponsibility," charging Democrats with merely trying to "appease radical groups" such as MoveOn.org and Code Pink.

"Once again, the Democratic leadership is starting this debate with a flawed strategy, including a withdrawal date for Iraq, despite the gains our military has made over the past year, despite having dozens of similar votes in the past that have failed, and despite their pledge to support the troops," she said. "Democrats believe that these votes will somehow punish the president, but it actually punishes the troops."

A provision added to the bill, to satisfy liberal caucus members, states that the primary purpose of the $50 billion included in the bill "should be to transition the mission" and redeploy troops in Iraq, "not to extend or prolong the war."

The measure is largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who has already begun withdrawing some troops but fiercely rejects the notion of setting a timetable for the war.

"While this bill is not perfect, it is the strongest Iraq bill to date," the Democratic trio wrote in a joint statement. "This is the first time that this Congress has put forth a bill that ties funding to the responsible redeployment of our troops, and it also includes language mandating a start date for the president to begin the redeployment of our brave men and women."

Woolsey, Lee and Waters said they remained disappointed that the 2008 date was a nonbinding goal that Bush could ignore. But, they said they realized the provision made it more likely that the Senate could pass it.

"This is a concrete step in the right direction, and an important marker for this Congress to lay down," they wrote.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters on Wednesday that he anticipates the bill will pass.

Similar legislation has repeatedly passed along party lines in the House only to sink in the Senate, where Democrats hold a razor-thin majority and 60 votes are needed to overcome procedural hurdles.

It is expected that if the measure fails in the Senate, Democrats will not consider Bush's war spending request until next year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that if it does pass and Bush rejects the bill, "then the president won't get his $50 billion."

The money included in the bill represents about a quarter of Bush's $196 billion war spending request for the 2008 budget year, which began Oct. 1.

Democrats say the military won't need the money until early next year. Until then, the Pentagon can transfer money from less urgent accounts or fourth quarter spending to cover costs, they say.

The Pentagon says moving money around is a bureaucratic nightmare that costs more in the long-run. And if taken to the extreme, the military would eventually have to freeze contracts or lay off civilian workers to ensure troops in combat have what they need.

In another provision sure to draw White House opposition, the House bill would require that all government interrogators rely on the Army's field manual. The Army's manual was updated in 2006 to specifically ban the military from using aggressive interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding.

The bill also requires that the president certify to Congress 15 days in advance that a unit being sent into combat is "fully mission capable," although Bush could waive that requirement if necessary.

Why I Support the Iraq Redeployment Bill

Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:00:00 -0800

This past July, I joined with Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters to write President Bush, making it clear that the only funding that we will vote for is funding to protect our troops and contractors and bring them home.

Since that time, 89 of our colleagues have signed on to our letter, bringing the total signers up to 92. And as Congress begins debate on the President's recent request for hundreds of billions more for the conflict in Iraq, our efforts are starting to show progress.

Tonight, the House of Representatives will be voting on h.r. 4156, the strongest Iraq bill to date. While far from perfect, this is the first legislation that has come to a vote on the floor that ties funding to the responsible redeployment of our troops, mandating that the President begin bringing our troops home within 30 days of being signed into law.

While I would of course prefer legislation that sets a firm deadline -- not a "goal" -- of December 2008 for completing the redeployment of our troops, I will be voting for h.r. 4156 because it represents a fundamental break with President Bush's failed status quo. By tying additional funding to a redeployment time line, we will be saying "No" once and for all to the blank-check policy that has fueled the engagement in Iraq for over four and a half years.

While we've passed binding legislation in the House several times this year, between the President's vetoes and his enablers in the Senate (insisting on a 60-vote threshold) we've been blocked from legislating redeployment thus far. But there is no reason why h.r. 4156 should fail in the Senate, and if the Republicans choose to obstruct this legislation then the President will have to do without his money.

In addition to mandating redeployment, h.r. 4156 would ban permanent military bases in Iraq and provide for a regional stability plan featuring comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategies, policies of engagement that serve in stark contrast to the Bush Administration's refusal to work with Iraq's neighbors towards regional stability that all parties have an incentive to pursue.

Finally, the bill will also make clear that the Army Field Manual -- which bans all torture, including the abhorrent practice of waterboarding -- applies to all federal agencies and personnel, a clarification that sadly seems necessary given the reported actions of the Bush Administration.

We clearly still have a ways to go as we seek to end the engagement in Iraq, but the fundamental shift in our policy that h.r. 4156 represents overshadows its limitations. Tying additional funding to the responsible redeployment of our troops is a critical first step in ending the engagement of Iraq, which is why I will support this legislation when it comes to a vote later tonight.

Barbara Lee: The Progressive Interview

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0700

"Barbara Lee speaks for me."

That simple phrase-with plain white text on a black background-began appearing on Bay Area bumper stickers shortly after Congresswoman Barbara Lee cast a lone vote against President Bush and his desire to wage war without restraint in the fall of 2001. For progressives, especially those in Northern California, Lee was a singular, sane voice. Others with more conservative political views slammed Lee, some going as far as sending her death threats.

Barbara Lee is no longer a lone voice. A growing chorus on both sides of the Congressional aisle and many others around the country are now openly critical of the Bush Administration's policies. Not only did Lee persevere through those difficult times, she has expanded her role as one of the nation's most respected progressive politicians.

Barbara Lee was born into a military family in El Paso, Texas. She briefly received public assistance as a young single mother of two while attending Mills College in Oakland. It was there that she became involved with the Black Panther Party, volunteering at a local community center the party ran. When Panther co-founder Bobby Seale ran for mayor of Oakland in 1973, Lee helped out with the campaign.

Lee's political career is closely tied to that of Ron Dellums, the former Congressman who is currently mayor of Oakland. Lee started as an intern in Dellums's office, and eventually became his chief of staff. After serving in the California state assembly from 1990 to 1996, and the state senate from 1996 to 1998, she was first elected to the U.S. Congress in a special election in 1998 to fill Dellums's Congressional seat after his retirement.

As dissatisfaction with the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership has continued to grow, Lee's star within the Democratic Party has steadily risen. She joined the House Appropriations Committee (which controls the federal purse strings) earlier this year, and also serves on the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Subcommittee, the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, and the Legislative Branch Subcommittee. Lee is also a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, first vice-chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, and a senior Democratic whip.

In person, Barbara Lee is poised and confident, but she also radiates a surprisingly down-to-earth, unassuming air. She can generate applause simply by entering a public gathering, and is a major draw at local events focusing on everything from AIDS ro peacemaking.

You can still see the "Barbara Lee Speaks for Me" bumper stickers on vehicles around the Bay Area, and though some of them are now a bit faded, the support for Barbara Lee's courage and integrity is stronger than ever.

After half a dozen postponements and reschedules, I spoke with Barbara Lee by telephone on a busy day in Congress.

Q: Can you comment on the Iraq War funding bill that passed in May?

Barbara Lee: Sure, we had probably 160 or 170 votes against it. Unfortunately, we didn't have enough votes to kill it. That was very disappoinring. I think it was a step backward. And for those of us who are committed, like a majority of the American people are, to ending this occupation and bringing the troops home, it did remind us of how much work there still is left to do. The notion that we were going to give him another blank check to continue this failed policy at a cost of thousands of American lives and untold Iraqi lives is just wrong, and people know that, and sooner or later I think we'll have the votes to stop it. There is a real struggle within our Democratic caucus. I have to give the Speaker a lot of credit: She's been able to pull together, for the most part, a majority of the caucus to be committed to finding a way to end this occupation and civil war.

Q: How do you think we'll be able to get out of Iraq?

Lee: The next step is to fully fund withdrawal. That was my amendment, which we couldn't get a vote on last time. Here's the money to fully fund withdrawal, and to fully fund protecting the troops, which we must do, because there's going to be chaos, and also to fully fund a major diplomatic effort in the region and a reconstruction effort that is for real, that allows Iraqis to get involved in taking back their country. This is the only way I see an out. Many said, "Oh, you want to cut the funding from under our troops." That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about stopping the funding to wage this unbelievable occupation that has created a civil war. We're talking about funding to protect them and bring them home.

Q: Another argument is that Al Qaeda will be strengthened and will claim victory if the United States withdraws. What is your response to that?

Lee: The Bush Administration needs to be honest. There already is a civil war, and we created it, first of all. Second of all, Al Qaeda is there. The war, the occupation, the bombing, the destruction of that country created a real haven for Al Qaeda. That's happening. And that is the result of the Bush Administration. And so for them to try to turn around and say we've got to stay there because that might happen is one of their disingenuous positions. The longer we stay there the worse it's going to get. We have to remember: We're digging ourselves deeper in a hole by staying there, and you don't dig yourselves out of a hole by digging yourself deeper.

Q: Going back even further, you were the only person in all of Congress to vote against authorizing the Bush Administration's use of force in September 2001. Looking back on that, how do you feel about that vote today?

Lee: It was a resolution that gave the President a blank check to wage an undefined war against an undefined enemy for an undefined period of time. We shouldn't have given him that authority. That was not only authority given to the Bush Administration, that was authority given to any Administration (unless we repeal it, of course, which I doubt if we will do) to use force in perpetuity as long as they can claim that it's part of the war on terror. It's also been used for domestic surveillance, for spying. It's a resolution that I knew was ripe for abuse. Congress gave up so many of our constitutional duties in terms of declaring war.

Q: Beyond the so-called war on terror, what are some of the issues you are most focused on?

Lee: Well, of course this HIV/AIDS pandemic, both domestic and abroad. It particularly affects communities of color, especially African Americans, women, here at home. And it is ravaging sub-Saharan Africa and rhe Caribbean, and other regions.

I'm also concerned abour economic inequality and the elimination of poverty. Poverty should be an oxymoron here in the richest nation. We're working on legislation to repeal these tax cuts for the wealthy and put the money in poverty-elimination initiatives. And as we do with environmental-impact studies, I want poverty-impact statements on all of our policies. Here in America, thirty-seven million people live in poverty. A large percentage is African American and Latino.

So a lot of what I'm doing here in Congress has to do with closing these gaps: health care disparity gaps, criminal justice gaps in terms of the incarceration rates of young African American boys and men, affordable housing, and funding for education.

Q: Are you backing anyone in the 2008 Presidential race?

Lee: No, I'm listening. I've invited all the candidates to come to my districr. Senator Obama came and got a phenomenal response: 15,000 people showed up. I want my constituents to evaluate all of them. Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, and I have gone to Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, ro the early primary states, to try to help grassroots organizations and voters look at these candidates in the context of where they stand on the occupation, where they stand on poverty, where they stand on global warming, where they stand on education, and, of course, universal health care. I have not endorsed because we're working ro try to make sure that all of the candidates have the kind of scrutiny that they deserve.

Q: How long do you see yourself in office?

Lee: Well, you know, I've never really thought about that. I'm focused on the present, and what it really means now to be in the majority. Every day I say, what can I do today to move the progressive agenda forward, to help more progressives and people of color get elected to Congress? What I can do everyday to end poverty and end racism? What can I do to put issues on the Democratic agenda that heretofore have been too controversial or wouldn't get addressed because they didn't have a huge constituency? So what I have to do every day is not think about my length of time in office, but what I can do to make this a better world and how I can help my constituents.

Q: Many Americans have become cynical about politics. What would you say to those who have lost some faith in our political system?

Lee: Well, if you lose faith in the political system, guess who runs the show? If you're not at the table, you're not considered. If you don't register to vote, your lives are dictated by those who don't care about human beings but profits. So I don't have any tolerance for people who are cynical. I don't have any tolerance for people who say it doesn't matter. Because in a democracy, it's those who yell the loudest who get heard. People need to yell, we need to put street heat on elected officials. And trust me: I see every day constituents that yell loud; they get the action. Those that are violent or invisible don't get anything. I encourage young people to come work with me, and really see how this stuff works. And once you see it, you say, "Oh my God, we've got to participate, otherwise we're leaving it up to the others to run the country and the world." That, to me, is totally unacceptable.

Q: When people look back at your political legacy, what do you hope people will say?

Lee: I really don't think about it much. But I hope what I'm doing will change people's lives and make them a little bit better. I hope the kids have a better chance at the future that they deserve, and I hope that the world is a bit more peaceful.

House Democratic Survey Links War Funding to Troop Reduction

Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0700

A majority of Americans favor congressional rejection of the Bush administration’s Iraq war supplemental request either outright or with the caveat that the funds be used to redeploy troops and contractors, says a new poll commissioned by antiwar Rep. Barbara Lee.

The poll is the latest attempt by Reps. Lee and Lynn Woolsey, both of California, and other Democratic House members to force President Bush's hand in Iraq. Lee and Woolsey were among 133 House members — 126 of them Democrats — to vote against the initial authorization of force five years ago on Wednesday.

The poll, commissioned by Lee’s political action committee OneVoicePac.org, found that 46 percent of respondents said Congress should approve the supplemental request under the condition that funds be spent only to protect and redeploy troops and contractors, rather than to continue the war. An additional 24 percent responded that Congress should vote against the supplemental unconditionally. Twenty-two percent of respondents said Congress should approve the funding request with no strings attached.

"The president wants to pretend that Congress’ only choice is to provide the funds he has requested unconditionally or 'cut off funding for our troops.’ That is just not true," Lee said at a press conference on Capitol Hill.

Of the 1,000 survey participants, 49 percent identified themselves as Democrats, 13 percent as independents and 33 percent as Republicans. The single-question survey read: "President Bush wants Congress to approve a $200 billion dollar request to continue funding the Iraq war and keep the troops in Iraq. Should Congress: Vote against the $200 billion funding request; vote for the $200 billion funding request without conditions; OR vote for the $200 billion funding request but specify that it can be used ONLY to protect U.S. troops and contractors and to bring them home, rather than to continue the war."

Lake Research Partners, led by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, conducted the questionnaire between Sept. 20-23. It had a 3.1 percent margin of error.

Lee, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said the findings of the poll indicate strong public support to "fully fund the safe, timely, responsible redeployment of our troops and contractors from Iraq."

Woolsey said that through "the power of the purse," Congress has the ability to change course in Iraq accordingly. She said she, Lee and another California Democrat, Rep. Maxine Waters, co-authored a joint letter to Bush stating Congress’s intention to withhold money used to fund combat operations.

Congress has not decided upon a timeframe for a U.S. troop withdrawal, and recently turned its attention away from legislation aimed at that goal. But House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey also said he will not bring up a supplemental war funding request unless it has provisions for withdrawal, and certainly not before next year.

Woolsey said members of her caucus are working with the Democratic leadership to get troops out as soon as possible.

"April ’08 was our original date; I’d rather have them home by Christmas, but it gets less practical every day," said Woolsey. The president announced last month that some troops will be home by Christmas, though the bulk of the 168,000 will remain at least until next summer.

"We really already have a blueprint of how to implement the findings of the survey," said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, citing the United Kingdom’s plan to draw down its troop levels by 50 percent over the next eight months. About 5,500 British troops are in Iraq.

"We are not calling for a precipitous withdrawal. We are asking for a fully-funded reduction," Doggett said.

Lee added that the goal is to bring troops home in a "safe, orderly manner as quickly as possible" without spending new money on combat operations. She cited Pentagon reports that the current war chest will be able to fund combat operations in Iraq until February.

Lee's poll shows voters oppose Iraq supplemental

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0700

A poll done for an anti-war legislator found that 70 percent of registered voters think President Bush’s $200 billion Iraq war supplemental spending request should be rejected or conditioned on redeployment.

“The president wants to pretend that Congress’s only choice is to provide the funds he has requested unconditionally or ‘cut off funding for our troops,’ ” Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) said at a press conference on Wednesday, the fifth anniversary of the House vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq. “That’s just not true. We can use our constitutionally mandated appropriations power to end his failed policy, to protect our troops and to bring them home. We have the power to fully fund redeployment, and that is what we must do.”

Lee, who was joined at the press conference by several other war opponents in Congress, used her leadership political action committee to pay for a poll of 1,000 adults, including 796 registered voters.

It found that, among all adults, 22 percent supported the president’s request without conditions, 24 percent supported voting against the funding, and 46 percent supported providing funding only for redeployment. Eight percent responded “don’t know.”

Among registered voters the numbers were similar — 23 percent supported funding the president’s request without conditions, 22 percent supported voting against the funds, and 47 percent supported providing funds only for redeployment.

The poll was conducted by Lake Research Partners and administered by Caravan from Sept. 20 to Sept. 23 as part of an omnibus telephone survey. The margin of error for the full sample of adults is +/- 3.1% and +/- 3.5% among registered voters.

Respondents were asked the following question: “President Bush wants Congress to approve a $200 billion request to continue funding the Iraq war and keep the troops in Iraq. Should Congress: vote against the $200 billion funding request; vote for the $200 billion funding request without conditions; or vote for the $200 billion funding request, but specify that it can be used ONLY to protect U.S. troops and contractors and bring them home, rather than to continue the war?”

PHR Applauds Rep. Barbara Lee's Introduction of Bold Measure to Tackle Massive Health Worker Shortage in Africa, Fight AIDS

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0700

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) today introduced the African Health Capacity Investment Act of 2007 in the House of Representatives. The bill would authorize $600 million over three years to train new doctors and nurses in Africa and give them incentives to stay in their home countries to fight the AIDS pandemic and other pressing health issues. The bill has been picking up support and momentum in the U. S. Senate, where Senator Durbin introduced it in March. It is co-sponsored by 26 senators including Norm Coleman (R-MN), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Chuck Hagel (R-NE). Its introduction into the House is an important milestone in a three-year effort spearheaded by Physicians for Human Rights and Health GAP to move the world to act on this problem. The health worker shortage is viewed as a crippling impediment to providing lifesaving health care by top officials in the Bush administration, the World Health Organization, and at the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria.

"The US is the first country in the world to consider legislation that would help train and retain African doctors and nurses. It will save lives and stretch US tax dollars by making sure that there are more nurses and doctors caring for patients who have HIV/AIDS and other diseases," said Pat Daoust, MSN, RN, Director of the Health Action AIDS campaign of Physicians for Human Rights.

"The U.S. Congress is poised to support the heroic effort of nurses and doctors on the ground in sub-Saharan African countries--now they must take the next step and swiftly pass the bill," said PHR Senior Global Health Policy Advisor and Global Health Workforce Alliance board member Eric A. Friedman, JD.

The problem is crippling health care in many African countries. In Uganda, hospitals have shut down for lack of a single health worker to care for patients, and in some areas a single doctor or nurse may be on call 24 hours a day and seven days per week to care for hundreds of extremely ill patients every week. In Ethiopia, there are only 2,000 doctors for 75 million people; this is comparable to 16 doctors in all of Washington DC coping with simultaneous pandemics of AIDS, TB and malaria killing hundreds of people every day. In fact, there more than 4,000 doctors in Washington, DC to care for its 600,000 people.

In addition to Rep. Lee, the bill's introduction in the House has been spearheaded by U.S. Representatives Donald Payne (D-NJ), Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL), and Jim McDermott (D-WA).

The full list of current co-sponsors: Howard Berman (D-CA), Julia Carson (D-IN), Cohen, Danny Davis (D-IL), Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Mike Honda (D-CA), Jesse Jackson Jr (D-IL)., Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Donald Payne (D-NJ), Bobby Rush (D-IL), Adam Smith (D-WA), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

The bill would provide $150 million in FY 2008, $200 million in FY 2009, and $250 million in FY 2010 to pay for safer working conditions, training and recruitment of health workers (especially in underserved rural areas) and better health systems management.

The World Health Organization estimates that sub-Saharan Africa is suffering a shortage of at least 800,000 doctors, nurses, and midwives, and an overall shortfall of nearly 1.5 million health workers of all kinds. Many receive salaries so low that they cannot afford to pay for rent even in their home country, let alone support a family. In rare cases, they have been forced to live in their own examination rooms.

In 2004 Physicians for Human Rights and Health GAP started an advocacy campaign to address this problem and have been spurred on by our colleagues in Uganda and Kenya, where PHR supports large activist networks comprised of health professionals. PHR also wrote a seminal report in 2004 on the subject: An Action Plan to Prevent Brain Drain (see below), which was released at that year's International AIDS conference in Bangkok. Since then, PHR, Health GAP and their allies have educated the US Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator, the Global Fund, leaders of G8 nations, and the U.S. Congress about the problem.

Lee Hosts a Town Hall Immigration Meeting

Sat, 06 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0700

OAKLAND, Calif. (KCBS) -- East Bay Congresswoman Barbara Lee was in Oakland's Chinatown this morning to host a town hall meeting on immigration.

Lee told those gathered at Lincoln Elementary School, and the Carmen Flores Community Center, that her goal is to provide immigrants with the resources they need.

"Our case load in our office is predominately immigration cases. We’re going to talk about what a comprehensive immigration policy should look like,” said Lee.

The congresswoman said that she wants people to know that her office can help with green cards, and assist immigrants in understanding the visa process, to make it less intimidating.

"It’s unbelievable how the bureaucracy oftentimes frustrates people,” said Lee. “There really is not a sense of fairness and justice for people who are trying to seek the legalization process and the path to citizenship.”

Time for Congress to Take a Stand

Tue, 04 Sep 2007 00:00:00 -0700

If you believe the Beltway hype, members of Congress will return today to a fiery debate about whether or not the president's so-called "surge" has produced military progress in Iraq. Beltway pundits are breathlessly predicting Democrats will be thrown into disarray by claims that the increased troop levels in Iraq may have produced security results.

Don't believe the hype. First off, the data are suspect. The Pentagon refuses to share the methodology by which it arrived at the metrics used to claim success. Even if the progress is real, it is hardly encouraging when put in perspective. When discussing the alleged gains he has overseen, Gen. David H. Petraeus stated that they put us on a course to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq sometime nine or 10 years from now.

What the debate about military progress really does is serve as a distraction - a smokescreen - put forth by an administration that finds it rhetorically convenient to speak in terms of "victory" and "defeat."

It serves to obscure the basic, fundamental fact that there is no military solution to the situation in Iraq. Our troops are trapped in a civil war and occupation, a situation where there can be no "victory." Our continued presence there is not only breaking our military, it is undermining our national security and our efforts to fight international terrorism.

Members of the Bush administration understand this, just as they understand that there are no pretty or clean options for bringing a responsible end to our policy there. They are content to mouth the words of victory while they try to run out the clock, playing a cynical game of political "chicken," where whoever acts to bring a responsible end to their failed policy will be accused of having lost Iraq.

The president's latest request for an additional $50 billion to continue the "surge" - over and above the $147 billion war supplemental Congress is scheduled to consider - amounts to a call for another blank check to continue an open-ended commitment to a failed policy. Members of Congress are going to have to decide whose interests they represent: a president who has staked his legacy on an unnecessary war, or the millions of Americans who understand that ending the occupation is the first step in repairing the damage the administration has done to the security of our nation and the world.

Despite the administration's efforts to frame it as an issue of "victory" and "defeat," the fact remains that the redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq is a precondition to restoring our national security and our efforts to fight international terrorism and putting us on a path toward a foreign policy that provides real solutions for global peace and security.

Redeployment is a precondition for engaging Iraq's neighbors and the international community in a regional stability plan. We have a moral obligation to help rebuild Iraq, but neither Iraq's neighbors nor the international community will truly engage in a regional stability plan as long as they believe that the United States intends to maintain an indefinite occupation.

Redeployment is a precondition for any successful effort to combat global terrorism. The U.S. occupation of Iraq has become a rallying point for terrorist recruitment, training and fundraising, a factor that actively undermines our anti-terrorism efforts.

Congress has the power to bring a responsible end to the Bush administration's failed policy. We should not approve another penny to continue that policy. Instead, we should use our constitutionally-mandated appropriations power to provide all the money necessary to fully fund the safe, timely and responsible redeployment of our troops and contractors from Iraq.

In July, U.S. Reps. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, and Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles, and I, led a group of 70 members of Congress in writing to the president to tell him that we would only vote to provide funds to do two things: protect our troops and contractors and bring them home. As we return to Washington, I will continue that fight.

Last week, tens of thousands of Americans took to the streets in protests and vigils, calling on Congress to take a stand, and that is what we must do. The best way for us to do that is for members of Congress to commit to only providing funds for the safe, timely and responsible redeployment of our troops from Iraq.

House bills target Iran and Sudan divestiture

Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:00:00 -0700

Investment managers would be shielded from suits for not backing nuclear, Darfur policies.

WASHINGTON - The House voted yesterday to give legal protection to institutional investors and state and local governments that curtail investments in international corporations doing business in Iran and Sudan.

The bills, now heading to the Senate, provide safe harbor from lawsuits against managers of mutual funds and pension funds that divest funds from companies that invest more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector or in businesses that support Sudan's policies in Darfur.

The bills, said Finance Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.), will "empower Americans, in their individual capacities, through their state governments, through organizations, to express in a concrete way the overwhelming opposition in our country" to the genocide in Darfur and to Iran's pursuit of a nuclear-weapons capacity.

The votes were 418-1 on Darfur and 408-6 on Iran divestment.

Under both bills, the federal government is to periodically update a list of companies that do business with Sudan or Iran's energy sector.

The bills would allow state and local governments to divest the assets of their pension funds and other funds under their control from any company on the list.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D., Calif.), sponsor of the Darfur measure, said 54 universities and 19 states had already taken steps to divest funds with companies investing in Sudan to protest the violence there that has killed about 400,000 people.

The Iran bill focuses on those international corporations investing at least $20 million in Iran's energy sector, selling munitions to Iran, or extending credit of $20 million or more to the Iranian government.

The House separately voted, 415-11, for a bill to expand existing sanctions on Iran to include business in that nation's liquefied natural gas and petrochemical industries. It would make export credit agencies, insurers and other financial institutions subject to sanctions for investment in Iran's energy industry.

"Responsible nations must immediately stop their multimillion-, and in some cases billion-, dollar investments in Iran's energy sector," said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R., Fla.), who sponsored the measure.

Let Us Now Praise an Infamous Woman -- and Our Own Possibilities

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:00:00 -0700

The problem with letting history judge is that so many officials get away with murder in the meantime -- while precious few choose to face protracted vilification for pursuing truth and peace.

A grand total of two people in the entire Congress were able to resist a blood-drenched blank check for the Vietnam War. Standing alone on Aug. 7, 1964, senators Ernest Gruening and Wayne Morse voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Forty-three years later, we don't need to go back decades to find a lopsided instance of a lone voice on Capitol Hill standing against war hysteria and the expediency of violent fear. Days after 9/11, at the launch of the so-called "war on terrorism," just one lawmaker -- out of 535 -- cast a vote against the gathering madness.

"However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of restraint," she said on the floor of the House of Representatives. The date was Sept. 14, 2001.

She went on: "Our country is in a state of mourning. Some of us must say, Let's step back for a moment, let's just pause just for a minute, and think through the implications of our actions today so that this does not spiral out of control."

And, she said: "As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore."

With all that has happened since then -- with all that has spun out of control, with all the ways that the U.S. government has mimicked the evil it deplores -- it's stunning to watch and hear, for a single minute, what this brave Congresswoman had to say.

After speaking those words, Rep. Barbara Lee voted no. And the fevered slanders began immediately. She was called a traitor. Pundits went crazy. Death threats came.

Barbara Lee kept on keeping on. And nearly six years later, she's a key leader of antiwar forces inside and outside Congress. In her own way, she is a political descendent of Sen. Morse, whose denunciations of the Vietnam War are equally inspiring to watch today.

The pretexts for starting the wars on Vietnam and Iraq preceded the pretexts for continuing them. While antiwar activism took hold and public opinion shifted against the war effort, the Congress lagged way behind. Today, the need for a cutoff of war funding remains unfulfilled. To watch rarely seen footage of Wayne Morse and Barbara Lee is to see a standard of decency that few of our purported representatives in Congress are meeting.

There's no point in waiting for members of Congress to be heroic. When we're blessed with the living examples of a few genuine visionaries in office, they should inspire us to realize our own possibilities. Ultimately, our own actions -- and inaction -- are at issue.

"Incontestably, alas," James Baldwin wrote a few years after the killing of Martin Luther King Jr., while the war in Vietnam still raged, "most people are not, in action, worth very much; and yet, every human being is an unprecedented miracle. One tries to treat them as the miracles they are, while trying to protect oneself against the disasters they've become. This is not very different from the act of faith demanded by all those marches and petitions while Martin was still alive. One could scarcely be deluded by Americans anymore, one scarcely dared expect anything from the great, vast, blank generality; and yet one was compelled to demand of Americans -- and for their sakes, after all -- a generosity, a clarity, and a nobility which they did not dream of demanding of themselves ... Perhaps, however, the moral of the story (and the hope of the world) lies in what one demands, not of others, but of oneself."

Rep. Lee Introduces Legislation to Repeal Ban on Immigration of HIV-Positive People to U.S.

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:00:00 -0700

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) last week introduced a bill (HR 3337) that would repeal Congress' 1993 ban on granting permanent status to HIV-positive immigrants and return such authority to the HHS secretary, the Oakland Tribune reports. The measure would require the HHS secretary to re-review the ban on HIV-positive immigrants. It also would allow a 30-day period for public comment before the secretary reports to Congress on whether to repeal or maintain the ban. Lee has said that she has not gauged support for the measure but that it will be heard first in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law.

According to the Tribune, the HHS secretary prior to the 1993 ban had exclusive authority to determine which diseases were grounds for excluding prospective immigrants, students, refugees and tourists from entering the U.S. HIV/AIDS in 1987 was added to the list, and HHS secretaries in the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations proposed its removal before Congress enacted the ban in 1993. HIV-positive people can seek a waiver to the ban if their spouse is a permanent resident and affirms that if the applicant becomes ill, he or she will not require public support for HIV/AIDS care, the Tribune reports.

According to the Tribune, under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act -- which stated that the term "spouse" could be applied only to a member of a heterosexual marriage -- members of same-sex couples who are permanent residents cannot sponsor their partners for immigration purposes. The Uniting American Families Act (HR 2221, SB 1328), which was introduced on May 8, would allow citizens and legal residents in same-sex relationships to sponsor their partners for immigration purposes, but it is unclear whether the bill will pass, the Tribune reports.

According to the Tribune, same-sex couples with an HIV-positive member currently can ask House members to introduce a "private bill," which would apply only to the individual named on the bill. Private bills must be approved in the ICRSBIL subcommittee and then approved by the House and Senate before being submitted to the president to either be signed into law or vetoed, the Tribune reports (Richman, Oakland Tribune, 8/5).

Congresswoman Looks to Block U.S. HIV Travel Ban

Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:00:00 -0700

East Bay congresswoman Barbara Lee wants to put an end to a law that forbids most people with HIV to travel to this country. So she's introducing legislation to change it.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee is a strong advocate for people living with HIV. She's pushed for more testing, even getting an HIV test herself in public. Now she wants to lift the ban on people with HIV who want to visit the U.S.

Congresswoman Barbara Lee: "We should lift it first because it was enacted in 1987 when very little information was known about HIV and AIDS, it's discriminatory, it's unjust and it's not really unnecessary. There is no public health benefit to having this ban in effect."

The ban was put in place 20 years ago by the Reagan administration.

Back then the Centers for Disease Control added AIDS on their list of "dangerous and contagious diseases." But as early as 1991, a team of medical experts from the CDC's Health Services concluded "admission of people with HIV would not significantly increase the risk of HIV infection to the U.S. population."

Kim Page-Shafer is with UCSF's Aids Research Institute.

Kim Page-Shafer, UCSF: "There is no evidence at all that this ban has had any productive affect or any positive affect on the state of our health or on the state of HIV infections in the U.S."

Today short term visas are granted by the State Department only to people with HIV who attend a professional or academic conference.

Rick Oltman is with Californians for Population Stabilization. He's in favor of maintaining the ban.

Rick Oltman, Californians for Population Stabilization: "If someone comes into the country with an infectious disease that simply adds to the number of people that has infectious disease and in our very mobile society today, we need to guard against the kind of diseases that can be spread."

Congresswoman Lee also says the ban has kept the United States from hosting the International AIDS Conference.

Just eight months ago President Bush said he wanted to ease the restrictions on travelers with HIV. Congresswoman Lee hopes the president will support her legislation and encourage other lawmakers to do so as well.

U.S. House Steps Up Pressure With Sudan Divestment Bill

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 00:00:00 -0700

The U.S. House of Representatives passed almost unanimously a bill Tuesday that would authorize and protect states that divest from companies that support the Sudanese government – which is accused of fueling the genocide in Darfur.

In a landslide vote, H.R. 180 – the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007 – passed 418 to 1. The bill was sponsored by Rep Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and co-sponsored by 130 members of the House of Representatives.

"No one should have to worry that they are supporting genocide, whether it's through their tax dollars or their pension fund," said Lee, according to the Inside Bay Area newspaper.

"This bill is designed to wash the blood off of our federal contracts, protect the rights of states to divest their own public pension funds from companies doing business in Sudan and increase the financial pressure on Khartoum to end the genocide in Darfur."

Since 2003, more than 2.5 million people have been displaced and some 200,000 people killed due to violence instigated by janjaweed militias. Khartoum is widely accused by both Darfurians and the international community of unleashing the janjaweed on Darfurians after rebels from ethnic African tribes in the region rose up against the central government.

Khartoum, however, has repeatedly denied involvement in the atrocious violence in Darfur.

Even prior to the House bill, the United States had existing bans prohibiting U.S. companies from conducting business operations in Sudan. Yet often times private institutions and individuals had indirectly fueled the genocide by investing in foreign companies associated with Sudan.

The Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act would establish a federal list compiled by the U.S. Treasury Department of foreign companies whose business in Sudan directly or indirectly supports the Darfur genocide to better inform Americans regarding their investments.

Furthermore, the bill forbids the U.S. federal government from entering into or renewing contracts with companies on the list and authorizes state and local government to do the same. H.R. 180 also protects the rights of state and local governments and asset managers to divest without fear of lawsuits.

It is hoped that divestment will be an effective strategy against the Darfur genocide since the Sudanese government depends heavily on foreign investment to fund its military.

The U.S. House increased pressure on Sudan the same day that the U.N. Security Council unanimously approved the creation of a 26,000-strong peacekeeping force to be sent to Darfur Tuesday.

The Sudanese government has reluctantly agreed to the hybrid U.N.-African Union body which is scheduled to be nearly fully deployed by the end of the year.

The United States, however, did not sponsor the resolution saying that it wanted a faster transition of authority to the new hybrid force from the current African Union force on the ground, and wanted part of the resolution on possible sanctions to be clearer, according to The New York Sun.

“Three years ago, the United States Congress made an unprecedented announcement acknowledging the atrocities in Darfur as genocide,” said Genocide Intervention Network executive director Mark Hanis, in a statement.

“Today, the House of Representative took powerful action to see that this genocide comes to and end. It’s now up to the Senate and President Bush to follow the House’s lead,” he said.

Christian leaders and churches across the nation have been advocating for stronger U.S. actions to pressure Sudan to halt the bloodshed in Darfur.

In May, the Rev. Dr. Geoff Tunnicliffe, international director of the World Evangelical Alliance, applauded the U.S. decision to impose a set of U.S. economic sanction but urged stronger immediate action to be taken.

Tunnicliffe has spoken at several Save Darfur rallies which are attended by thousands of human rights activists and concerned citizens.

The National Association of Evangelicals – the nation’s largest evangelical organization with about 30 million members – has also called on Christians and churches to pray and promote awareness on the Darfur situation

Other prominent Christian leaders who have spoken out against the Darfur genocide include Richard Land, the president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention; the Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president of governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals; Jim Wallis, head of the nation’s largest progressive Christian network Sojourners/Call to Renewal; and the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, Jr., president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference.

Nineteen states have adopted divestment policies from Sudan and 18 other states have initiated Sudan divestment campaigns, according to the Genocide Intervention network. Eight countries, meanwhile, have initiated Sudan divestment campaigns and five international companies have ceased operations in Sudan or publicly announced their plans to do so. Moreover, 54 universities have adopted divestment policies.

House Says No to Permanent Bases in Iraq

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:00:00 -0700

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a bill Wednesday that would prohibit permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

The bill, HR 2929, is sponsored by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., who has opposed every facet of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, which has often left her out of step with the majority of lawmakers, at least until relatively recently. This time, the House of Representatives was with her, approving the bill by a vote of 399-24.

The bill also said the U.S. will not exercise control over Iraq’s oil resources.

Lee said she hoped passage of the bill would “take the targets off our troops’ backs.”

“The perception that the United States plans to maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq strengthens the insurgency and it fuels the violence against our troops,” she said.

Lee said it is hard to know if the Bush administration is actually planning permanent U.S. bases. In October, Bush said the decision about whether the U.S. would keep bases in Iraq would be made by the Iraqi government. Administration officials also have talked about having a permanent presence in Iraq that would be similar to the presence in South Korea more than 50 years after the Korean War ended.

“We may disagree on many things about Iraq, but I hope we can agree that an endless occupation is not the answer,” Lee said. “Let’s tell our troops that when they come home, they will all come home.”

The bill now goes to the Senate, which has passed similar legislation only when it has been attached to other measures. The 2007 defense authorization, appropriations and supplemental appropriations bills each contained provisions prohibiting the U.S. from creating permanent bases in Iraq. Each of the measures was signed by President Bush, which makes the Lee legislation a symbolic duplication of existing law.

House Votes to Bar Bases in Iraq

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:00:00 -0700

The House voted Wednesday -- for the seventh time -- to bar the establishment of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, in a move that Democrats said reflected their abiding mistrust of President Bush but Republicans belittled as redundant and meaningless.

The move to bring legislation sponsored by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, to the floor, where it was approved 399-24, was part of a strategy by Democratic leaders to make the House vote repeatedly on anti-war measures as a way of pressuring Republicans to end their support of an unpopular war or face consequences with the voters in 2008.

"The Democratic Congress will go on record -- every day if necessary -- to fight for a redeployment of our forces as the central element of a new direction strategy for Iraq," Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, told the House in wrapping up debate on Lee's measure, which also makes it U.S. policy not to control Iraq's oil resources.

The vote came the same day Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the anti-war head of the House military appropriations subcommittee, told reporters that in September he will offer yet another Iraq withdrawal proposal. The proposal, similar to one Bush vetoed in May, would seek to begin withdrawing the estimated 160,000 U.S. forces from Iraq beginning in November and complete it a year later, just as Americans elect a president to replace Bush.

Republicans, who overwhelmingly supported Lee's bill, said Wednesday's vote was another sign that Democrats can't get much done in Congress.

"The majority's attempts to score political points have already paralyzed months of decision making'' on the war in Iraq, said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

But the Democrats said recent statements by Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates that U.S. forces could be in Iraq for years to come fueled their feeling that the president hasn't gotten the message although he has signed three bills that state there should be no permanent U.S. bases.

"The administration signals it intends to put down roots in Iraq,'' said Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee. "Building huge military bases in Iraq to last for the ages is not the answer.''

Republicans who support Bush's strategy said they could vote for the Lee bill because of their definition of the word "permanent.''

"No American troops are permanently stationed in countries around the world by virtue of the fact that we station them there with the permission of the host governments,'' said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine (San Diego County).

But those Democrats who have voted to pull out almost all U.S. forces by April say that translates into an open-ended commitment in Iraq if the Baghdad government asks for a bases agreement.

"Republicans should ask the president what it is about the word 'no' you don't understand,'' said Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va.

The narrow Democratic majorities in the House and Senate have been stymied by Bush and the Republican minorities in their efforts to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq and enact other anti-war measures. Just a few weeks ago, the Senate failed to secure the 60 votes needed to end a Republican filibuster against a proposal by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., that would have significantly lengthened the time military units would have to spend back home between deployments to Iraq.

Webb's measure would have curtailed the U.S. involvement in Iraq by cutting the number of units from an overstretched military that could be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The House plans to take up its own version of Webb's idea, probably next week. The House Armed Services Committee is expected Friday to pass the measure sponsored by Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Walnut Creek.

Tauscher's bill states that any units from the regular military or National Guard and Reserve sent to Iraq or Afghanistan must have time at home that matches the length of their previous deployment.

"We need a posture that allows units adequate ... time to recover, train and deploy for their next assignment,'' said Tauscher, an Armed Services Committee member. "If we do not fix this problem immediately, we will suffer massive recruitment and retention problems in the near future.''

A Voice Against Presidential War-Making Now Leads a Chorus

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:00:00 -0800

As Democrats brace themselves for yet another showdown with President Bush over war funding, one legislator who stood alone for a long time is now finding a crowd milling around her.

Three days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Barbara Lee, a liberal Democrat from Oakland, Calif., was the lone member of Congress to vote against the resolution authorizing the president to use force in pursuing those responsible.

When she walked off the House floor, her colleagues told her she had made a mistake and should change her vote, given the emotionally charged environment at the time. She was deluged with hostile mail, and she needed security because of death threats.

"It was horrible," she recalled this week, sitting in the serene, elegant Rayburn Room of the Capitol. "A really, really bad time. But what you have to do is keep moving forward."

These days, Lee finds herself at the often-tense negotiating table as Democratic leaders, trying to end the war in Iraq, propose a new round of legislation to fund the war yet also require the administration to set benchmarks that would determine when to bring troops home.

Although Lee would vastly prefer a timeline for withdrawal -- which Bush has already vetoed -- she believes any conditions for funding are better than none.

"Again, do we give the president another blank check to continue this occupation and civil war, or do we tell him that this is the beginning of the end?" she asks.

Don't get her wrong; she says she will never vote for any measure that funds this war, including the one that could come for a vote today. But she is credited by Democrats with being able to balance principle and pragmatism.

Democrats say that she was largely responsible for breaking the stalemate between leadership and antiwar liberals on the most recent funding vote, brokering an eleventh-hour compromise that saved House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) from an embarrassing defeat. In exchange for inserting timelines for withdrawing troops, she and two other California Democrats who oppose the war, Rep. Maxine Waters and Rep. Lynn Woolsey, cleared the way for other liberals to support the bill. The trio got a standing ovation from the caucus.

"I weighed in," says Lee, adding that there's "no way" she wanted to see Pelosi suffer the defeat.

Lee, 60, is soft-spoken and is no lefty flame thrower. The daughter of a veteran of two wars (whom she still calls "Colonel"), she says she is not a pacifist. But she felt strongly in 2001, as she does now, that the president should not be given unfettered authority to wage war -- a position many more of her colleagues are embracing these days.

She calls the Democrats' demands an "excellent first step" and "a signal to the American people that Congress wants this war to end."

Barbara Lee: No Longer Alone Against Bush

Thu, 01 Mar 2007 00:00:00 -0800

REP. BARBARA LEE (D-Calif.) is a brave soldier. Her fight, however, is not with the people of Iraq. It's with those who started the war.

"The [Bush] administration misled the American people into war," says Lee. "They put our troops, brave young men and women, in harm's way in Iraq."

The 60-year-old Texas native followed her conscience in 2001, when she refused to approve America's bombing of Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/11. Though the Pentagon was still smoldering just miles away and smoke was still rising from the memory of the World Trade Center, Lee said war was not the answer.

"However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of restraint," she said on the House floor. "Our country is in a state of mourning. Some of us must say, let's step back for a moment and think through the implications of our action today so that it does not spiral out of control."

Lee stood alone then, steeling herself against an avalanche of national right-wing criticism and death threats. Today, however, nearly seven years and more than $400 billion later, both Democrats and Republicans have jumped on the Lee bandwagon - calling for an end to the war in Iraq and for the troops to come home. The public has also grown weary of the war as soldiers continue to die.

And the war surely will be one of the defining issues of the 2008 presidential election campaign.

"How you stand on the war in Iraq is a big deal for a lot of people in this country," says David Bositis, senior political analyst for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

Lee represents California's 9th district, which includes Berkeley and Oakland. She holds the former seat of her mentor, Ron Dellums, who is the current mayor of Oakland.

"She came through, essentially, the Ron Dellums School of Progressive Politics," says American University scholar Clarence Lusane of the congresswoman. "So Barbara Lee has basically taken the same posture: that she may lose 100 battles but win one, [and] that one will be important."

The new battle for Lee, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and whip of the Congressional Black Caucus, is to pass bills countering Bush's proposal to send additional troops to Iraq. She's introduced legislation that, if passed, would withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq before 2008, and legislation that would prevent the U.S. from establishing permanent bases there. Lee's other priorities include ending the global AIDS pandemic, fighting poverty, getting comprehensive housing for Katrina victims and building stronger protection of the environment.

The new House majority may be a little more open to Democratic ideas, but Lee knows she'll still have to fight battles. Political scientist Ollie A. Johnson III of Wayne State University believes Lee has shown that she can handle the cutthroat world of Capitol Hill.

"She's been attacked because she's been able to stand tall and stand strong," says Johnson. She's a "voice of reason and sanity in an unsafe global environment."

No I-Told-You-Sos

Mon, 05 Feb 2007 00:00:00 -0800

Sweet vindication. Who wouldn't want it? To be right. To be free of criticism and upheld by evidence, by actual proof, that one's predictions about a controversial war were correct.

It is the culture of this town -- trafficking in rightness. People clamor day in and day out, in that polished and politic way of the Washingtonian, to be proved right.

But on Iraq, the vindicated are pained. There is no gloating -- not with thousands of people dead, Americans and Iraqis; not with the Iraq war precipitating an ongoing foreign policy crisis that has left the United States' global image in tatters.

For people who were pilloried, penalized or warned to be careful because of their opposition to a powerful president's war, vindication is nothing to celebrate. It is a victory most bitter.

"Emotionally, it's a very traumatic and unhappy outcome." That is retired Army Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, head of the National Security Agency under President Ronald Reagan. "How can you be happy about being right about the disaster that's been created?"

It weighs on him.

"Vindication is not pleasing," he says. "Even some of my friends have noted: the more vindicated I've been, the more irritable I become."

Back before the war even began, Odom said its aims were wrong. He criticized the doctrine of preemption, said al-Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq and predicted that democracy could scarcely take hold there. A year after the war began, he was quoted calling it a failure -- and heard soon thereafter that he'd been dubbed a Benedict Arnold for his views. To dissent, back then, was risky. Not like now, when the conventional wisdom about the conflict has made a U-turn in a political climate where anger over the war toppled the majority party in Congress. The president sounded almost plaintive in his State of the Union address, saying, "This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we are in."

Lots of people predicted things would turn out this way. They are military brass and lawmakers and foreign policy intellectuals, the kind of wise ones whose counsel is routinely sought and respected. In the run-up to this war, their concerns carried no weight against a swelling of patriotism, a backdrop of fear and an administration determined to oust Saddam Hussein. Their warnings that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of Sept. 11 were ignored. Worse, some were shunned and scolded.

As president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, raised hard prewar questions about the looming Iraq engagement. They predicted Iraq would become a long occupation and recruiting tool for al-Qaeda and would damage U.S. relations with the Muslim world. And: No weapons of mass destruction would be found.

One day back then, one of Mathews's colleagues ran into an acquaintance on the street, and that acquaintance warned: " 'What is your boss doing? Nobody at Carnegie is ever going to get through another Senate confirmation.' " And Mathews was herself admonished by a colleague at another think tank, who told her: "You're going to make Carnegie irrelevant. The war's going to happen and you ought to have Carnegie working on the after-war rather than on 'we shouldn't go to war.' "

Amid what she calls the "seemingly inexorable roll" toward war, the clear message was "you better get on the bandwagon or you'll never be taken seriously in this town again."

Instead, she looks like an accurate prognosticator. But, "you can't take any pleasure in having been right," says Mathews, "because this is a catastrophe for the United States and people are dying and didn't have to die, and it's going to take us years and years and years to dig out of this, and it's been a catastrophe for the Iraqi people."

Also repudiated were people who supported the war but diverged from the official administration line. Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, then the Army's chief of staff, was sharply rebuffed in early 2003 for publicly saying that several hundred thousand U.S. troops would be needed to keep the peace in Baghdad.

Now, as President Bush seeks additional troops for Iraq, it is widely agreed that the war was indeed prosecuted with too few troops -- a seeming vindication for Shinseki, though he did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment.

Vindication is a difficult and complex concept and one that has to be considered with many caveats, such as those presented by Zbigniew Brzezinski when asked if he felt vindicated.

"If vindication was accompanied by a sense that America is likely to undo the damage they have done and can dis-embarrass itself of the tragic involvement, then my answer would be yes."

But Brzezinski, former national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter, scarcely believes such course corrections will happen.

He opposed Bush's doctrine of preemption and assessed the war policy as one that "was propelled forward by mendacity." He spoke out before and during the war, and he believes his criticisms began to sting as the war began to falter. As a result, he says, he was ultimately shut out of high-level Defense and State Department briefings he had often attended and was publicly upbraided by a foreign policy peer.

Despite the broad sea change in opinion among the political and policy class, Brzezinski's sense of vindication has its limits, he says, because "I have the feeling that the president's team is hellbent on digging itself in more deeply and if it does not succeed in Iraq some of its wilder policymakers seem to be eager to enlarge the scope of the war to Iran."

"I'm saddened," he said, "because I think it's doing terrible harm to America. But more than being sad, which is an emotion, I'm worried."

From Afghanistan to Iraq to Iran? Could this scenario actually play out? It is, among the vindicated, not at all absurd, for official Washington's sights have turned to Iran with "the same signs, a very similar drumbeat" as that which preceded the war in Iraq, says Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.).

Lee saw it coming -- not Iran, but Iraq. Back in September 2001, days after the terror attacks, she saw the broadly worded congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to use force to fight terrorism as giving him a dangerous degree of carte blanche.

That early resolution allowed the president to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

It is language that haunts her still.

"I said then it was giving the administration a blank check to use in perpetuity," Lee says. "If you read that resolution, it's very clear that it was the beginning of a march to war."

She voted against that resolution -- the only member of Congress to do so -- and then took the barbs.

"It was a very tough period," she says. "To call me unpatriotic was the lowest of the low," especially considering that her father, an Army lieutenant colonel, served for 25 years and saw duty in World War II and Korea.

Now, she says, people are eager to tell her she was right. But "it's not about feeling vindicated," she says.

"I want people to understand that this is a very dangerous foreign policy, the administration's foreign and military policy is very dangerous, that the notion of preemptive war is very dangerous and that we need to support more rational approaches to our foreign and military policy."

Lee, like Odom and many others, is calling for the war to end. They are strange bedfellows -- she, a progressive liberal; he, a usually hawkish conservative.

For months, Odom, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, has been pushing a "cut and run" policy. He even wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times in October headlined "How to Cut and Run," in which he wrote, "We must cut and run tactically in order to succeed strategically."

He advocates troop withdrawal coupled with a diplomatic engagement with Iraq's neighbors, especially Iran, with whom the United States actually has common interests, nukes notwithstanding.

Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, formerly the top U.S. military man in the Middle East, started where Odom started -- in opposition to the war. Zinni argued that going into Iraq would destabilize the region and distract from the fight against al-Qaeda.

For his opposition, he says he was accused by some fellow officers of having political motivations and was disinvited from attending meetings at the Joint Forces Command, where he'd been a regular as a senior mentor for more junior officers.

But he diverges from most early critics of the war, because he now is arguing that withdrawing from Iraq would destabilize the region. Instead, he says, a new strategic framework for the war is needed -- something far broader than the increase Bush has proposed, which Zinni calls a "half-step."

"It's breaking my heart, watching it," he says of the war. "I was praying somehow I'd be wrong, but in my heart of hearts I knew it would happen this way -- the bad decision-making, the insufficient troops."

Congress now is mulling varying resolutions on the war, but Zinni complains that "the debate is wrong. I think Congress is debating the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic."

But the ship, he argues, doesn't have to go down.

As the debate now centers on what can be salvaged from the U.S. engagement in Iraq, a cynical Washington exercise is underway, some of the vindicated say. It's a snake-like shedding of skin, a policy metamorphosis in which people who once were prominent cheerleaders for the war now are cozying up with the war's early opponents and distancing themselves from their earlier roles.

Mathews has seen it and fears it may warp the crucial debates about the way forward in Iraq and toward Iran.

"So many of the people who were wrong have gone on to being very visible pundits without ever admitting how wrong they were," Mathews says.

Brzezinski says there are some people -- and he's talking "outside of the administration, of course" -- who have embraced his positions in the oddest and most disingenuous way.

They say "that they are happy to have associated themselves with these views . . . ," Brzezinski says. "That is the funny part, because you meet people who say, 'Oh, I was with you all along.' "a

Democrats Who Opposed War Move Into Key Positions

Mon, 04 Dec 2006 00:00:00 -0800

New Committee Chairmen Had Warned of Postwar Disorder

Although given little public credit at the time, or since, many of the 126 House Democrats who spoke out and voted against the October 2002 resolution that gave President Bush authority to wage war against Iraq have turned out to be correct in their warnings about the problems a war would create.

With the Democrats taking over control of the House next January, the views that some voiced during two days of debate four years ago are worth recalling, since many of those lawmakers will move into positions of power. They include not only members of the new House leadership but also the incoming chairmen of the Appropriations, Armed Services, Budget and Judiciary committees and the Select Committee on Intelligence.

Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, was one of several Democrats who predicted during the House floor debate that "the outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the hardest part, and it is far less certain." He credited his views in part to what he heard over breakfasts with retired generals Anthony C. Zinni and Joseph P. Hoar, both of whom had led the U.S. Army's Central Command -- a part of which is in Spratt's district.

"They made the point: We do not want to win this war, only to lose the peace and swell the ranks of terrorists who hate us," Spratt said.

Spratt recently looked back at his resolution, which would have required Bush to come back to Congress before launching an attack. It was defeated 270 to 158. He recalled that extended hearings were held before the Persian Gulf War but that nothing similar preceded the vote on the 2002 resolution. "I remember we talked this time about how we got to get answers before this train leaves the station," Spratt said.

The incoming Armed Services chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), spoke in support of Spratt's amendment, stressing the need for "a plan for rebuilding of the Iraqi government and society, if the worst comes to pass and armed conflict is necessary."

Skelton had written Bush a month earlier, after a White House meeting, to say that "I have no doubt that our military would decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider what we would do after we caught it."

Skelton went on to note the "extreme difficulty of occupying Iraq with its history of autocratic rule, its balkanized ethnic tensions and its isolated economic system." He also warned that Bush's postwar strategy must "take seriously" the possibility that a replacement regime "might be rejected by the Iraqi people, leading to civil unrest and even anarchy."

Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.), who will chair the Appropriations Committee, was among the group that organized the Democrats. He spoke then about poor preparation for postwar Iraq, a concern he developed after listening to State Department officials.

He recalled recently that an amendment by Rep. Barbara T. Lee (D-Calif.) that would have delayed taking action until inspectors from the United Nations completed their work "made sense, but there was no prayer it would pass." It got 72 votes.

Obey said Spratt's amendment was the only approach "that could gather critical mass, and that's what most of us in the caucus settled on."

The number of House Democrats who supported Spratt "was a remarkable achievement," Obey said, "given it meant opposing the president in the wake of 9/11." Obey's district was 70 percent in favor of going into Iraq, he said.

On the House floor more than four years ago, Lee told colleagues: "Our own intelligence agencies report that there is currently little chance of chemical and biological attack from Saddam Hussein on U.S. forces or territories. But they emphasize that an attack could become much more likely if Iraq believes that it is about to be attacked." That information, she said, came from material that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet had provided to the Senate.

Lee also raised questions in the floor debate that remain unanswered. "What is our objective here," she asked four years ago, "regime change or elimination of weapons of mass destruction?"

Looking forward now to next year and a Democratic majority in the House, Lee said, "Those of us who early on understood have many ideas of what to do now and how to get out of Iraq."

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), who did not belong to a committee with national security jurisdiction, was among the lawmakers who talked on the House floor about what turned out to be the real issues in Iraq. She spoke of the "postwar challenges," saying that "there is no history of democratic government in Iraq," that its "economy and infrastructure is in ruins after years of war and sanctions" and that rebuilding would take "a great deal of money."

Baldwin four years ago asked questions that are being widely considered today: "Are we prepared to keep 100,000 or more troops in Iraq to maintain stability there? If we don't, will a new regime emerge? If we don't, will Iran become the dominant power in the Middle East? . . . If we don't, will Islamic fundamentalists take over Iraq?"

Baldwin said recently that she put together her statement after reading public commentary and talking with like-minded colleagues and her staff about what would come next. "A vote like this, I didn't undertake lightly -- I almost fully expected they would find weapons there," she said. "But we hadn't heard about an exit strategy; it was such a blank."

The day after the House vote, The Washington Post recorded that 126 House Democrats voted against the final resolution. None was quoted giving a reason for his or her vote except for Rep. Joe Baca (Calif.), who said a military briefing had disclosed that U.S. soldiers did not have adequate protection against biological weapons.

"As a veteran, that's what hit me the hardest," he said.

Lee was described as giving a "fiery denunciation" of the administration's "rush to war," with only 14 colleagues in the House chamber to hear her. None of the reasons she gave to justify her concerns, nor those voiced by other Democratic opponents, was reported in the two Post stories about passage of the resolution that day.

Five years later, Lee's dissent seems prescient

Thu, 14 Sep 2006 00:00:00 -0700

Despite countless five-year retrospectives on the 9/11 attacks, we seem to have forgotten at least one act of courage -- Rep. Barbara Lee's fearless dissent from a congressional rush to judgment. We should remember the Oakland Democrat's speech. It was both principled and prophetic, and we can learn from it today.

The carnage of Sept. 11, 2001 was a defining moment in the American experience. We were stunned, deeply hurt by the loss of so many. Then we were angry. We wanted those responsible brought to justice or summarily killed. Amidst the rubble in New York, President Bush promised to use all necessary means to punish those responsible.

Five years ago today, on Sept. 14, 2001, Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing the president to use military force against those "he determines" were responsible for the attacks.

Only one member of Congress, Barbara Lee, voted against the resolution. She counseled against a rush to judgment, warned that an angry use of force could inflame our growing prejudice against Arab Americans, Muslims, Southeast Asians or others.

She told us "not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit-strategy nor a focused target." And, in her most prophetic moment, she said, "As we act, let us not become the evil we deplore."

Have we not begun that slow descent?

We have long claimed to be against torture and imprisonment without criminal charges, but our actions at Abu Ghraib and Haditha and the detentions at Guantanamo Bay and secret CIA prisons around the world suggest otherwise.

We have enshrined in our Bill of Rights the right to counsel and to a fair trial, but our long denial of counsel to Jose Padilla and our plan to try so-called "enemy combatants" in military tribunals instead of civil courts make our professions of piety empty and meaningless.

We profess the virtues of a democracy, commitment to open deliberation and debate but stood silently by while the administration presented speculative evidence as fact, limited press access to crucial information, and circumvented even the minimal justifications required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Perhaps most importantly, we pay homage to a government "of laws and not men," whose leaders swear to uphold the Constitution.

In no area of policy is the Constitution more important than in the decision to wage war. Lee knew this. She warned us not to "repeat past mistakes," and reminded us of one of our worst.

In 1964, Congress gave similar powers to President Lyndon Johnson for two alleged attacks against U.S. Navy ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. The resolution became the legal basis for the Vietnam War, one that lasted years, divided the nation, cost billions of dollars and took 58,000 American lives. In so doing, Lee insisted, "This House abandoned its own constitutional responsibilities and launched our country into years of undeclared war in Vietnam."

Under our Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. It is Congress' most sacred duty and responsibility. The separation of powers doctrine is at the very heart of our system of liberty and government by executive decree represents a kind of authoritarianism we have always fought against.

Either we demand that Congress reassert its obligations and function as a check on the executive branch or we are merely playing out some script of a democracy, affirming only the freedom of our crimes. Either we uphold our system of law and our civic principles or we become something different.

We become, as Barbara Lee feared we might, the evil we deplore.

Ron Manuto writes on civil rights and legal issues from Fresno. Sean Patrick O'Rourke teaches courses in African-American Protest, Freedom of Speech, and American Public Discourse at Furman University in Greenville, S.C.

Rep. Lee Arrested at Sudan Protest

Wed, 17 May 2006 00:00:00 -0700

Rep. Barbara Lee of Oakland and six other members of Congress were arrested Tuesday when they blocked the front entrance at the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, D.C., to protest genocide in the troubled Darfur region and to build public support for a U.N. peacekeeping mission there.

"The world stood by when nearly 1 million people died in Rwanda," Lee, a Democrat, said before her arrest by Secret Service agents. "The most that our country unfortunately did was say 'I am sorry,' after the fact. Now, over 400,000 people have died as a result of the genocidal actions of the Khartoum government against the people of Darfur. ... Not on our watch will we allow another genocide to take place."

It was the second recent protest and civil disobedience at the Sudanese Embassy involving the arrest of members of Congress. Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, was among five members of Congress arrested April 28 outside the embassy.

The arrests took place as the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution Tuesday that would accelerate planning for a U.N. peacekeeping force in Darfur. The council also threatened sanctions against anyone who impedes peace efforts there.

Lee is a leader of the Congressional Black Caucus, which is composed of 43 African American members of the House and one member of the Senate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

The other members of Congress arrested Tuesday were Reps. Mel Watt, D-N.C., John Lewis, D-Ga., Al Green, D-Texas, Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, Gwen Moore, D-Wis., and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C. All are members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

A peace treaty was signed May 5 between the Sudanese government and Darfur's largest rebel group, but two other rebel groups refused to sign. Meanwhile, more than 2 million civilians remain displaced from their homes and continue to be vulnerable to attacks by armed militias. In addition, the U.N. World Food Program recently cut rations in Darfur to 1,050 calories per day.

"Already too many, far too many people have died or been displaced, have been raped, villages have been burned down," Lee told a crowd of protesters Tuesday. "The people of Darfur deserve to return home."

Lee and her colleagues on the Congressional Black Caucus called for a specific plan of action:

-- An immediate stop to the violence against the people of Darfur by the government of Sudan and its Janjaweed militia;

-- A U.N. peacekeeping mission to assist 7,300 African Union troops in Darfur;

-- Protection of civilians who remain vulnerable; and

-- Accountability for government officials and Janjaweed fighters responsible for war crimes and genocide.

Lee and her colleagues also urged President Bush to persuade the government of Sudan to release its 300,000 to 500,000 metric tons of grain reserves to feed the starving people of Darfur and to take immediate measures to restore security so that the refugees can return to their homes.

Approval of the U.N. Security Council resolution came a day after the African Union agreed to turn over control of its peacekeeping mission to the United Nations by the end of September, or earlier if the United Nations is ready. The council plans to send an assessment team to Sudan within a week to prepare for a multinational force of 20,000 troops.

The council's resolution passed unanimously, despite the reluctance of China and Russia to back a peacekeeping mission that would have the authority to use punitive sanctions and force if necessary to protect civilians. African Union troops were deployed strictly as observers.

Lee, who has traveled twice to Darfur with congressional colleagues, is the senior Democratic woman on the House International Relations Committee and serves on its Africa subcommittee. She has been a leader in the movement to persuade state pension funds and university endowments to divest from companies doing business in Sudan.

"I saw the desperation in the eyes of the people. I saw the violence, the results of the violence, the results of the genocide," Lee said. "We saw and talked with people who wanted to go home. We saw the gloom and felt the pain and suffering of what is taking place."

After she was arrested, Lee was taken to nearby Metropolitan Police Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. She was held for about two hours before being released. She was charged with the misdemeanor offense of trespassing and paid a $50 fine.

"We are going to put the squeeze on the Sudanese government until they stop this horrific genocide," Lee said.

A Progressive State of the Union

Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:00:00 -0800

Against the backdrop of a contentious Supreme Court battle, and just hours before the State of the Union address, Representatives Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) and Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)—co-chairs of the 62-member Congressional Progressive Caucus—presented an alternative vision for the country.

They made their remarks to an audience of progressive policy experts, media-makers and members of the public at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters. Their address preceded two discussion panels designed to propose a new direction for the country and offer a clear set of progressive values. Streaming audio of the remarks and panels is available on the Web site of the Institute for Policy Studies, one of the event’s co-sponsors.

The Nation also co-sponsored the event in conjunction with their special issue, “Paths to Renewal,” which features policy proposals and analysis from 20 Progressive Caucus members, demonstrating that “progressives do have a coherent agenda—and that they have bold, workable solutions to the country’s most vexing problems.”

Woolsey and Lee’s remarks follow.

Rep. Woolsey:

We are here today to offer what we believe to be the “real” State of the Union. We are here to challenge the President, to insist that he offer an agenda of fairness and inclusion … to demand that he address the problems a majority of Americans want their government to solve.

This is something we in the Progressive Caucus have been doing all year long, in fact.

We have taken on the White House and the Republican majority on issue after issue—Iraq, taxes, the budget, the PATRIOT Act, Katrina, corruption and more.

Where others have been cautious, we have been bold and outspoken. Where others have been afraid to say “the emperor has no clothes,” we have been honest enough to shout that if the hopes of Americans—rather than their fears—are the clothes of a Presidency, this President is truly naked!

I’ll give you just one example. Four and a half years ago, the PATRIOT Act was rammed through Congress with barely any deliberation and only 67 dissenting votes. Today, in part because of the objections we’ve raised and the pressure we’ve applied, there’s an open, balanced debate about whether it makes sense to undermine freedom in the name of freedom.

Because we’ve been unapologetic and faithful to our conscience, our agenda is squarely in the American mainstream. If the President wants to regain public support, he could do no better than to emulate the four pillars of our Progressive Promise.

A majority of Americans now believe the Iraq war wasn’t worth fighting … and that the President deliberately misled us into this war. Mr. President, by announcing tonight that you’ll bring the troops home, you could join us on the right side of history and the right side of public opinion.

The President and his party have failed every test of competent, compassionate, honest government. They have sent more than 2,200 Americans to their deaths on a mission that has done nothing to make the United States and its people safer. They dithered and delayed while a major American city drowned. They believe in fiscal restraint only for the powerless and for the vulnerable, while the privileged and the powerful help themselves to lavish tax breaks. They have made a mockery of the principle of checks and balances, by insisting that the President can unilaterally choose to ignore the laws he finds inconvenient—the ones that say you need probable cause to tap the phones of American citizens.

Republicans have put our government up for sale to the highest bidder, turning government of, by and for the people into government of by and for Jack Abramoff.

We, the men and women of the Progressive Caucus, have an altogether different vision, one that reflects the values of the American people. And we’ll be listening tonight, to see if the President is truly ready to make the changes Americans are clamoring for.

Enough of the special interest agenda that caters to the wealthy and the comfortable. Enough of the secretive attempts to build an imperial presidency that’s accountable to no one.

Work with us, Mr. President:

Join us in the pursuit of economic justice— universal health coverage, fair trade, a higher minimum wage and guaranteed Social Security benefits.

Join us, Mr. President, in preserving the civil rights and civil liberties that define America.

Join us in promoting global peace and security. Not by preemptively invading other nations, but by working with allies and multilateral organizations to intercept terrorists, stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and combat HIV/AIDS and other deadly diseases.

And join us in a renewed commitment to protecting our environment.

Most urgently, we need bold steps that reduce our dependence on imported oil, promoting conservation and renewables and allowing us to achieve energy independence. No weapon system or military campaign could do more for our national security.

We believe Americans deserve a government at least as fair and as honest as they are. Over the last several years, they have received anything but.

The President has a chance tonight to begin regaining public trust, to put his stumbling presidency on firmer ground. We’re willing to give him a chance. But if he is committed to more of the same, we will hold him to account. We will continue in our role as watchdogs that don’t hesitate to bark. And we will continue to offer an alternative vision, one that is consistent with our most cherished American values.

Rep. Lee:

Our nation faces a crisis, and we stand at a crossroads. Will we continue to be a nation of laws, or a nation where the executive claims the privilege of lawlessness? Will we be nation run for the benefit of big corporations and wealthy donors, or a nation of opportunity, where people who work hard are rewarded and everyone has a shot at the American dream?

Tonight, the President will take to the stage to try to put a good face on a year of failures. One thing you won’t hear him talk about, however, is the price of his reckless, unnecessary war in Iraq. You won’t see him include the cost for the war in the budget that he submits to Congress next week either. You see, the President doesn’t have the courage to level with the American people about just how long his “stay-the-course” policy will keep us in Iraq, and just how much it will cost.

One Nobel Prize-winning economist has projected that the war may cost as much as $2 trillion. If the President believes in his policy, he should spell out how long it will take and what it will cost, and ask the American people to sacrifice for it. I believe our continued occupation of Iraq undermines our security and our standing, which is why I have joined Congresswoman Woolsey in calling to bring our troops home, and why I have introduced legislation to prevent the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq.

Hurricane Katrina was a shock and a wake up call for our nation. Not only was it clear evidence of the incompetence of an administration that prioritizes patronage and politics over real policymaking, hurricane Katrina exposed the moral bankruptcy of the so-called “ownership society.”

Since President Bush took office, the number of poor people in America has grown by 17 percent, growing at a rate of more than 1 million each year. In 2002-2003, the number of children alone living in extreme poverty grew by half a million.

This is the real state of the so-called “ownership society.” And it is unacceptable.

The Bush administration’s zeal for cutting taxes for the wealthy while cutting the programs that reach the most vulnerable helped lay the groundwork for this disaster.

Ideas have consequences, and the aftermath of Katrina has demonstrated the bankruptcy of the Bush administration’s idea of the role of government. It was not simply the failure to respond to the hurricane in a coherent or competent manner, it was the tragic failure to acknowledge the massive structural crisis that poverty and inequality pose for our nation and the stubborn refusal to conceive of any constructive role for our government in addressing it.

That is why I have introduced a package of three bills designed to make eradicating poverty a national priority. The first calls on the President for leadership, asking him to submit to Congress his plan for eradicating poverty. The second calls on Congress for accountability, and would require the Congressional Budget Office to report on the poverty impact of legislation pending before Congress. The third calls for establishing priorities, and would roll back the tax cuts for the wealthiest five percent of Americans to help pay for poverty alleviation.

According to the conventional wisdom, the Republicans may have a massive problem with corruption, and the President may have a problem with the abuse of power, with an unnecessary, immoral war in Iraq and his failed response to hurricane Katrina, but there really isn’t any alternative vision coming from the Democrats.

Well, we are here today to tell you that the conventional wisdom is wrong. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is the largest and fastest growing caucus here on Capitol Hill. Among our 62 members are 10 members who will become committee chairs, and 35 members who will become subcommittee chairs when the Democrats retake the House of Representatives.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus has clear ideas on how we can move America forward, and restore a government that is worthy of the public trust. Rather than list them all, I direct your attention to the most recent issue of The Nation, where 21 members of our Caucus spell out practical solutions for issues ranging from healthcare and protecting our environment to immigration, good government and getting out of Iraq.

These pragmatic proposals represent more than a list of policy fixes. They represent a set of core principles that stand in stark contrast to the cynicism and corruption of the Bush administration and Republican controlled Congress.

In the face of a culture of corruption, we represent a deep belief in serving the public trust. In the face of abuse of power, we represent the democratic insistence on accountability, checks and balances and the rule of law. In the face of a reckless unilateralism that has squandered our nation’s standing and left us alone and vulnerable in the world, we represent robust international leadership. And in the face of an indifference that abandoned the poor people of New Orleans and America long before hurricane Katrina tore back the curtain, we represent the belief that every American deserves the opportunity to take part in the American Dream.

Permanent Occupation

Thu, 29 Sep 2005 00:00:00 -0700

If you are inclined to believe the president, we will be in Iraq, in his words “as long as necessary, and not a day longer.” Members of the Bush administration, including the president, have been at pains to dispel any notion that they have plans for a permanent military presence in Iraq.

On April 13, 2004, President Bush said, “As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation and neither does America.”

On February 17, 2005, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, testifying before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate, said, ”We have no intention, at the present time, of putting permanent bases in Iraq.”

The circumstances on the ground, however, tell another story. On March 23, 2004, the Chicago Tribune reported on the construction of 14 “enduring bases” in Iraq. The May 22, 2005, Washington Post described the military’s plan to consolidate military personnel in Iraq into four massive “contingency operating bases.” According to the Congressional Research Service, Emergency Supplemental funds appropriated for military construction in Iraq for fiscal years 2001–2005 total more than $805 million, with the vast majority, more than $597 million, coming in the 2005 fiscal year.

Anyone familiar with the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) should be skeptical about the administration’s claims that it does not have plans for a permanent military presence in Iraq. PNAC, many of whose founders, including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, went on to serve in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses.” It plainly cites the objective of an increased U.S. military presence in the region as a rationale for invading Iraq: “While the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for U.S. military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

In discussing the 14 “enduring bases” then under construction, Army Brig. Gen. Robert Pollman, chief engineer for base construction in Iraq, raised the question, “Is this a swap for the Saudi bases? I don’t know,” he told the Chicago Tribune. “When we talk about enduring bases here, we’re talking about the present operation, not in terms of America’s global strategic base. But this makes sense. It makes a lot of logical sense.”

No one disputes that many of the installations under construction are of a physically permanent character. The issue revolves around the policy question of whether Iraq will be under permanent U.S. military occupation.

That is why I introduced H. Con. Res. 197, which would make it “the policy of the United States not to enter into any base agreement with the Government of Iraq that would lead to a permanent United States military presence in Iraq.”

This commonsense measure does two very important things. First, it explicitly states that the United States has no plans for a permanent military presence in Iraq and thus help to defuse the insurgency and improve the security situation on the ground.

Larry Diamond, former advisor to Paul Bremer, then head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, is a Hoover fellow and author of Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq. He writes:

We know from a variety of sources, private as well as public, that intense opposition to U.S. plans to establish long-term military bases in Iraq is one of the most passionate motivations behind the insurgency. There are many different strands to the violent resistance that plagues Iraq: Islamist and secular, Sunni and Shiite, Baathist and non-Baathist, Iraqi and foreign. The one thing that unites these disparate elements is Iraqi (or broader pan-Arab) nationalism—resistance to what they see as a long-term project for imperial domination by the United States. Neutralizing this anti-imperial passion—by clearly stating that we do not intend to remain in Iraq indefinitely—is essential to winding down the insurgency.

Second, this bill allows those who have opposed this war from the outset to define one of the most critical components of an exit strategy—namely, that our troops actually exit. The Bush administration’s unwillingness to acknowledge their intentions in Iraq, coupled with the growing disapproval of their handling of the war and the increasing public support for withdrawing our troops, offer an immediate opportunity to define this debate.

Members of Congress disagree about when, and under what circumstances, our troops should be brought home, but you are not likely to find any member of Congress who would dare to publicly come out in support of staying in Iraq permanently.

It is a question that supporters of the president should be forced to answer. If they don’t support being in Iraq permanently, they should co-sponsor my bill, and put themselves on record. It is that simple.

Giving Peace a Chance: Local Rep. Barbara Lee on her National Following

Sun, 23 Mar 2003 00:00:00 -0800

It isn't as lonely as it used to be way out there on the far left.

A year and a half after casting the lone vote opposing President Bush's global campaign against terrorism, Congresswoman Barbara Lee has become the name attached to the anti-war movement.

When Lee came to the stage at last month's peace rally in San Francisco, she heard the chant "Barbara Lee for president." She has heard it before, and seen it on signs, from Oregon to Massachusetts.

That's a long ways from Mills College, where she graduated 30 years ago. Now a fourth-term Democrat representing Oakland and Berkeley, Lee, 55, gets all the inspiration she needs walking into her district office in the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building in Oakland.

Q: On the Barbara Lee for president movement.

It's a humbling moment when you hear that. I recognize I have represented this area for five years in Congress, and I was in the state Senate and Assembly since 1990. But when you hear the shouts "Barbara Lee for president," you have to say, "Where's that coming from?" It's not coming from me. It's not coming from my staff. That's for sure.

Q: On the "I told you so' temptation.

On Sept. 14, 2001, right after the horrific attack, when I voted no, I knew then that it was wrong for us to give the administration a blank check. That was giving the president too much power to use force without coming back to Congress at all. I believe, and the Constitution requires, that the Congress declare war, that we engage in debate with regard to war and peace. So I would cast the same vote today. No second thoughts.

Q: On no longer being the one lonely anti-war vote.

I offered the Lee Amendment as an alternate with regard to disarmament and finding diplomatic solutions to our problems with inspections. We received 72 votes [Oct. 10, 2002]. When you look at the last vote on the use of force, we had 133 no votes on that resolution.

Q: On North Korean missiles pointed at the Bay Area.

During the debate on Iraq, some members of the Progressive Caucus really made the case for the missile scenario in North Korea and said, "That's where we need to begin talking about containment." I don't think the general public knew, because it's been "Iraq, Iraq, Iraq" from the administration.

Q: On the solution.

We need to re-engage. During the Clinton administration, there was engagement going on. For the first 18 or 19 months of the Bush administration, there was no engagement at all. Next what do we hear? The president goes to Congress and cites the "Axis of Evil." We must re-engage with North Korea, and we must do that immediately. It's a very dangerous situation - certainly more dangerous than Iraq.

Q: On the peace movement.

This doctrine of pre-emption and first strike - Iraq is first on their list,

and this is a policy that this administration is dead-set on implementing. We see Iraq now, Iran, North Korea. Who knows what country is next? I just hope it doesn't take hold, and that's why I'm so happy and delighted to see the peace marches throughout the world.

Q: On naked spellouts.

I've seen the pictures. People are finding creative ways to protest. These women chose to express their views in this way. That's a manifestation of their determination to make their statement. .

Q: On becoming an activist at an early age.

I was born on July 16, 1946, in El Paso, Texas. When my mother went to have me, they wouldn't admit her to the hospital because she was black, and she almost died. I heard my mother tell me this and I was really upset. They left her to die on a gurney.

Q: On growing up a civil rights activist.

I was raised in Texas and the schools were segregated. I wasn't allowed to go to public school. I went to Catholic school. They were the only ones that would let black folks in. I can remember my dad in his uniform - he was an officer in the military - and we'd go to restaurants and they'd say, "I'm sorry we can't serve," and they used the N word. So I was always fighting for what was right.

Q: On an Army brat becoming a peace activist.

My father is a retired lieutenant colonel. When I cast the one vote against the war, he said, "That was the right vote." He was in the Korean War and he's very clear on issues of war and peace. My mother too. They're my source of strength.

Q: On mentors.

Ron Dellums is a phone call away. We work on issues together. He's probably made more of an impact on me than anybody, in terms of policy. He worked very hard to get this federal building here, and every time I walk in, I think of Ron.

Barbara Lee Weathering The Storm: Popularity Strong As Ever After Vote

Mon, 22 Oct 2001 00:00:00 -0700

Barbara Lee was out of character when she cast the lone dissenting vote that denied President Bush unanimous support to wage war against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks on America.

While the vote reflected her political beliefs, stepping out front to become a national symbol is far from the typical behind-the-scenes style of the East Bay congresswoman.

In the five weeks since her historic vote on Sept. 14, Lee has quietly gone back to work, appearing briefly in her district last week to stump for hiring federal workers to handle airport security.

She has shunned the klieg lights and one-on-one interviews with national TV anchors. She has returned to a social justice agenda and is working with her constituents to galvanize support in her district.

Never mind her would-be challengers in next year's election -- a former Green Party assemblywoman and a homegrown black Republican.

Lee is as popular as ever, maybe even more popular, in the Democratic stronghold. A crowd of some 3,000 supporters showed their approval of her vote at a rally yesterday in downtown Oakland.

So she's had her 15 minutes of fame, thank you. She can do without the national spotlight.

"She never expected to be the lone person out there," said a source familiar with the events surrounding her vote. "The response was so overwhelming, and people were saying she was unpatriotic and Communist and all sorts of horrible things.

"It made her want to retreat a little bit."

Her "no" vote last month prompted a flood of letters and e-mails -- 50,000 to date -- from around the nation. Thousands of communiques, many praising her, others expressing outrage, were sent to her offices in Washington and Oakland, so many that a plainclothes officer in Washington was assigned to protect her.

Then came a wave of calls for interviews, from all the networks and national newspapers. She chose to talk to Bay Area media, a move expected by any politician trying to quell dissatisfaction in the home district.

But Lee appeared only once on national TV, on ABC's "Oprah Winfrey Show" as part of a panel of distinguished women discussing the future of the nation's children. Famed poet Maya Angelou was also a guest.

"That was the only national show I did because it was a respectful show," Lee told me last week.

It gave her an opportunity to address a national audience and explain her vote -- without challenges from reporters eager to advance the controversy.

Lee and her staff were also worried about the appearance of self-promotion at a time of national crisis.

"She was so saddened and angered by the attacks that for her to talk about the vote could almost look like she was trying to take advantage of the situation," said one staffer, speaking anonymously.

Taking advantage of the situation is exactly what at least one East Bay political hopeful is trying to do.

Proclaiming that it's "OK to love America," former state Assemblywoman Audie Bock has announced plans to challenge Lee in the March Democratic primary for the 9th Congressional District race.

Bock is hoping to pull off an upset like the one she engineered in 1999 as a member of the Green Party, defeating former Oakland Mayor Elihu Harris in a special election.

Supporters of Shannon Reeves, a Republican and the president of the Oakland chapter of the NAACP, are weighing his chances as a candidate against Lee.

But Reeves, and no other Republican, could win in the district, which includes Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, Emeryville and Albany.

"This Oakland-based district is one of the safest Democratic seats in the nation," wrote Charlie Cook, author of the Almanac of American Politics, a manual on Capitol Hill politics.

"Lee will hold this seat for as long as she wants it," he wrote.

Bock, a longtime East Bay resident, should know better. Most political observers believe Lee, elected to Congress in 1998, will not pay at the polls for her vote on the war.

In fact, she'll probably be honored like her predecessor and mentor, former Congressman Ron Dellums, a peacenik who served for 27 years and chaired the House Armed Services Committee.

She is also following in the footsteps of Jeanette Rankin, a Montana congresswoman who voted against resolutions to enter two wars -- World Wars I and II.

The vote cost Rankin her job both times, but she is viewed as a hero in Missoula, Mont., a liberal university town where a peace center was built to honor her work.

"The whole city was moved by Barbara Lee's vote," said Anita Doyle, chief organizer at the Jeanette Rankin Peace Center on the University of Montana campus.

"Rankin is a highly respected person in this town, so there was a lot of resonance for Barbara's courageous act and a concerted effort to make sure she heard from us," Doyle added.

Rankin got a statue in the Capitol and a peace center in her hometown for her stands.

Maybe Lee will get re-elected and the next government building in Berkeley named after her.

Why I Opposed the Resolution to Authorize Force

Sun, 23 Sep 2001 00:00:00 -0700

ON SEPT. 11, terrorists attacked the United States in an unprecedented and brutal manner, killing thousands of innocent people, including the passengers and crews of four aircraft.

Like everyone throughout our country, I am repulsed and angered by these attacks and believe all appropriate steps must be taken to bring the perpetrators to justice.

We must prevent any future such attacks. That is the highest obligation of our federal, state and local governments. On this, we are united as a nation. Any nation, group or individual that fails to comprehend this or believes that we will tolerate such illegal and uncivilized attacks is grossly mistaken.

Last week, filled with grief and sorrow for those killed and injured and with anger at those who had done this, I confronted the solemn responsibility of voting to authorize the nation to go to war. Some believe this resolution was only symbolic, designed to show national resolve. But I could not ignore that it provided explicit authority, under the War Powers Resolution and the Constitution, to go to war.

It was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the Sept. 11 events -- anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation's long- term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit. In granting these overly broad powers, the Congress failed its responsibility to understand the dimensions of its declaration. I could not support such a grant of war-making authority to the president; I believe it would put more innocent lives at risk.

The president has the constitutional authority to protect the nation from further attack and he has mobilized the armed forces to do just that. The Congress should have waited for the facts to be presented and then acted with fuller knowledge of the consequences of our action.

I have heard from thousands of my constituents in the wake of this vote. Many -- a majority -- have counseled restraint and caution, demanding that we ascertain the facts and ensure that violence does not beget violence. They understand the boundless consequences of proceeding hastily to war, and I thank them for their support.

Others believe that I should have voted for the resolution -- either for symbolic or geopolitical reasons, or because they truly believe a military option is unavoidable. However, I am not convinced that voting for the resolution preserves and protects U.S. interests. We must develop our intelligence and bring those who did this to justice. We must mobilize and maintain an international coalition against terrorism. Finally, we have a chance to demonstrate to the world that great powers can choose to fight on the fronts of their choosing, and that we can choose to avoid needless military action when other avenues to redress our rightful grievances and to protect our nation are available to us.

We must respond, but the character of that response will determine for us and for our children the world that they will inherit. I do not dispute the president's intent to rid the world of terrorism -- but we have many means to reach that goal, and measures that spawn further acts of terror or that do not address the sources of hatred do not increase our security.

Secretary of State Colin Powell himself eloquently pointed out the many ways to get at the root of this problem -- economic, diplomatic, legal and political, as well as military. A rush to launch precipitous military counterattacks runs too great a risk that more innocent men, women, children will be killed. I could not vote for a resolution that I believe could lead to such an outcome.

Alone On The Hill

Thu, 20 Sep 2001 00:00:00 -0700

"It was a vote of conscience," says California Democratic Representative Barbara Lee.

On September 15, the US Congress approved a resolution authorizing President Bush to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against anyone associated with the terrorist attacks of September 11. The measure passed 98-0 in the Senate and 420-1 in the House. The lone dissenting vote was a colonel's daughter and longtime maverick from California -- Democrat Barbara Lee.

"I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States," Lee said on the House floor on Sept. 15. "There must be some of us who say, 'Let's step back for a moment and think through the implications of our actions today -- let us more fully understand the consequences.'"

In the emotionally charged aftermath of the terrorist attacks, Lee's lone vote of dissent brought gridlock to the telephone system in her Capitol Hill office and threats against her life. In the wake of the vote, the Capitol Police assigned a detail of plainclothes officers to guard Lee 24 hours a day.

Lee, whose congressional district includes the liberal bastions of Berkeley and Oakland, is a former social worker who got her start in politics as an aide to legendary progressive Rep. Ron Dellums. When Dellums retired in 1998, Lee won his seat; she was reelected last year with 85 percent of the vote.

Lee, the daughter of a retired lieutenant colonel in the US Army, insists that she isn't a pacifist. Inevitably, however, she has been compared to Jeanette Rankin, the first woman elected to Congress, who in 1917 voted against the United States's entry into World War I and, later in her career, voted against declaring war on Japan in the wake of the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

This is not the first time Lee has taken a lonely stand against military action. In 1998, she was one of only five members of the House to vote against authorizing the bombing of Iraq over its refusal to allow weapons inspections by the United Nations. In 1999, she was the only member of the House to vote against sending US forces into Yugoslavia. Lee spoke with MotherJones.com on Sept. 19.

Mother Jones: I read that you made up your mind as you were sitting in the National Cathedral during the prayer service for the victims. You listened, as so many Americans did, to the dean of the National Cathedral as he prayed that "as we act, we not become the evil we deplore." At that moment, you said, you knew what you had to do.

Barbara Lee: Well, the vote was a very agonizing vote. Like the nation, I'm grieving and searching, in mourning, angry, trying to sort through all my feelings. I think everyone is doing that. And of course the memorial service was a time to really stop and reflect on all those who so tragically died, the victims and their families, and what an appropriate testimonial to them would be. ... And so in that context I was listening to the members of the clergy, searching to try and see if I could find some direction and clarity. You know, in moments like these -- when you're agonizing, when you're uncertain in terms of the ramifications of any very serious actions that you're going to take -- you have to go within, and use your head and your heart, and all the faculties that you have, to try to make decisions. And so, as I thought about that one line in the prayer, I said, "You know, this is the right vote -- you've got to vote no."

MJ: Did you know before casting your vote that you were likely to be the only dissenting member of Congress?

Lee: Oh, no -- I did not know that. Many members have these same concerns. The use of restraint is of concern to a lot of them. We don't want to see this spiral out of control; we don't want to see the cycle of violence continue.

We all agree that we've got to bring these terrorists to justice and to make sure that they're never allowed to perpetrate such an evil act as they did. And so all of us are dealing with that. We know that the President has the authority to go to war under the War Powers Act. The Congress has a responsibility to provide the checks and balances and to exercise some oversight. I don't believe that we should disenfranchise the people of America in the war-making decision-making process. At least minimally, we should be able to know which nation we're planning to attack and have some input into that. We should know what the exit strategy is. I'm not talking about all the details of a war plan, but certainly we should have more than a five-hour debate. To me, that's just not the best way to make public policy.

I'm convinced that Congress's role in this is to look at every dimension of international terrorism and to help develop a strategy to combat it, to stamp it out, and ensure the safety of our country. That's why I voted for the $40 billion [disaster recovery and antiterrorism package]. You know, some people don't think I should have voted for that. But I'm convinced that we've got to secure our airports, finance anti-terrorism programs, and provide the resources needed to deal with this -- as well as to help the communities recover, and the families of the victims.

Some people were calling me un-American and all that. I know that I'm unified with our country. I feel and I know that my actions are as American as anyone else's. I'm trying to preserve the people's right to have some kind of oversight and some say in the cycle of violence that could occur if we go into war without an end in sight.

MJ: Were you prepared, coming off the floor of the House, for what was to follow? I read, for example, that you have been assigned bodyguards.

Lee: I knew when I realized that I was the only "no" vote that there'd be a lot of attention. But it wasn't a calculated vote. It was a vote of conscience. So I had not planned what the consequences were. You know, people are angry, they're frustrated. I try to explain my position, but there are some people who are just angry, and that's understandable. But I believe that many people in our country -- in the way the e-mails, the faxes, and letters are coming in -- are beginning to understand what the use of restraint means. And believe me, they understand when you explain that this resolution gives up a congressional role in declaring war against a sovereign nation. And that's a fact, that's what this does. ... And that does not mean that you don't want these terrorists to come to justice, that you don't want to stamp out terrorism. That's not even a question.

I believe that the fervor and the pain of the moment have caused people, understandably, to react emotionally. And all I'm saying is that Congress should step back. Congress has got to be the body of government that does that. We are not the CIA, we are not the FBI, we are not the White House, we are not the Defense Department. We are the United States Congress; we have our role. And we can't give up that role during a national-security crisis. The President already has his role and his authority to do what he needs to do. We do have a unique position, and our Constitution demands it. And for those of us who love America and consider ourselves good Americans, pro-Americans, waving the flag, we want to preserve that democracy, especially in times of crisis, and we want to preserve civil liberties, and we know and understand that it's got to be balanced with public safety. Because we've got to secure the country, make sure that lives are not lost, and ensure that none of our actions create a spiral that could get out of control.

MJ: Do you feel, after the initial blast of anger, that you're hearing more from people who are in support of your position?

Lee: I think it's changed. We're keeping really good tabs on e-mails and calls. We haven't, of course, sorted through all of them, but nationally they're running, I think, 60, 70 percent support, and in my district we're up to 80 percent.

MJ: Do you think that our civil liberties are in danger in the aftermath of this tragedy? There's talk, for example, of changing the wiretap laws.

Lee: I think that there's going to be a rush to judgment on civil liberties, and a clamping down, a suspension of our democratic rights. And I believe that those who are good Americans would want to see this not happen and that we debate how to find a balance between the public safety and the protection of civil liberties. But if you have a five-hour debate, a rush to judgment, on a bill that Attorney General [John] Ashcroft puts forward, and you don't give the Congress any political support to oppose that or to provide ways to ensure this balance, you're in for a very scary period. We've got to be vigilant.

MJ: Do you think there are enough members of Congress who are concerned about the civil-liberties issues?

Lee: I hope so. ... Somehow the public -- once we bury our dead and get out of this mourning period -- has got to be on the Congress consistently with regard to their input into this. We gave away that franchise in the resolution on war-making powers. But on civil liberties, it's not too late.

MJ: Have any of your colleagues been angry with you?

Lee: Oh, no. Even Republicans with whom I disagree ideologically have told me that even though they really disagree with my vote they at least know that I believe in something. Many very conservative members have been quite respectful. I think that they all are struggling through this. This was not any vote I cast to demonstrate any hostility toward any person or party or the Administration.

MJ: Last Friday night, on the House floor, you cited Wayne Morse, one of two senators who voted against the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which gave President Lyndon Johnson the power to wage war in Vietnam. You quoted Morse as saying, "I believe that history will record that we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States." Then you added: "Senator Morse was correct, and I fear we make the same mistake today." But don't you think that there's a loss of institutional memory on Capitol Hill, that there are Members of Congress who would say, "Wayne who?"

Lee: Oh, yes. So much today is poll-driven. You know, we need people to become empowered at this moment, now that our civil liberties are being eroded. We need people to become more involved in the political process. I believe that firmly.

I wish the press were paying more attention to the erosion of the Constitution and the slippery slope that we're getting into, by giving up the right of the Congress to talk about when and how and where we go to war. I don't think that's been covered enough, and it should be. That's an important right to preserve in a state of national crisis such as this.

The Solitary Vote of Barbara Lee

Wed, 19 Sep 2001 00:00:00 -0700

"We need to step back," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). "We're grieving. We need to step back and think about this so that it doesn't spiral out of control. We have to make sure we don't make any mistakes."

She was walking down a hallway in the Cannon House Office Building. A plainclothes police officer hovered a few steps away, looking very serious. The Capitol Police began guarding Lee on Saturday because of death threats she received after voting against a resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against anyone associated with last week's terrorist attacks. The resolution passed 98-0 in the Senate and 420-1 in the House. Lee's was the sole dissenting vote.

"In times like this," she said, "you have to have some members saying, 'Let's show some restraint.' "

Led by her police bodyguard, she moved along quickly, slipping into her office and closing the door behind her. Inside, the phone lines had shut down under an onslaught of calls from all over the country -- many of them irate, some of them downright nasty -- and her voice mailbox was too full to take any more messages.

"We've gotten thousands of calls and thousands of e-mails," she said. "People are very emotional. . . . They're frustrated and they're angry."

She's 55, a small woman with short black hair. Normally, she has a bright smile, but these days she looks sad, worried, harried. She is quick to point out that she voted to condemn last week's attacks and to allocate $40 billion to fight terrorism.

"I'm just as American and just as patriotic as anybody else," she insists.

She does not rule out military action, she says, but she voted against the authorization to use force because she opposes giving the president the sole decision on when and where to make war. "I believe we must make sure that Congress upholds its responsibilities and upholds checks and balances. This is a representative democracy and it's our responsibility."

War, she believes, is not the most effective way to fight terrorism. "Military action is a one-dimensional reaction to a multidimensional problem," she says. "We've got to be very deliberative and think through the implications of whatever we do."

This is not the first time Lee has stood alone against war. In 1999, during the crisis in Kosovo, she was the only House member to vote against authorizing President Clinton to bomb Serbia. "I'm not a pacifist," she says, "but I don't believe military action should be the only action we embark on."

Fortunately for Lee, she represents one of the most liberal congressional districts in the United States -- California's 9th, which includes Berkeley and Oakland. It's the district that was represented by another antiwar dissident -- Ronald Dellums -- for nearly 28 years. Lee served as Dellums's chief of staff for a decade before she was elected to the California State Assembly in 1990. When Dellums retired in 1998, she won the election to succeed him, and was reelected last year with 85 percent of the vote.

"I would have voted the same way," says Dellums, now president of Washington-based Healthcare International Management. "We need to think this through and ask, 'Are there better ways to do this?' "

"I agonized over this vote all week," she says. "I searched my conscience. I talked to many people. Ultimately, on some votes, you have to vote the way your conscience dictates."

Her agony was exacerbated by the knowledge that her chief of staff, Sandre Swanson, was mourning the death of his cousin Wanda Green, who was a flight attendant on the hijacked United jet that crashed in Pennsylvania.

"I support her decision," Swanson says. "The principle on which she based her decision was that somebody should stand up and say that only Congress has the power to declare war. . . . People say she was unpatriotic. I think it was very patriotic."

"I admire the courage of Barbara Lee," says Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who spent the 1960s in the front lines of the civil rights movement. "She demonstrated raw courage to stand up and vote the way she did. She stood alone -- one against 420. Several other members wanted to be there also but at the same time, like me, they didn't want to be seen as soft on terrorism."

Lewis voted to authorize military action but, he says, he came close to joining Lee in opposition. "I was probably 99 percent of the way there in my heart and my soul," he says, "but in the end I wanted to send the strongest possible message that we can't let terrorism stand."

Lee's vote is reminiscent of the first woman ever elected to Congress, Jeannette Rankin of Montana, who voted against the nation's entry into World War I and World War II. It also brings to mind Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening, the two senators who voted against the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which gave President Lyndon Johnson the power to wage war in Vietnam.

On the House floor last Friday night, Lee quoted Morse: "I believe that history will record that we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States." She added: "Senator Morse was correct, and I fear we make the same mistake today."

Out in Oakland, Lee's vote is the subject of much debate, some of it heated, says Don Perata, the Democratic state senator who represents Lee's district.

Perata calls Lee's vote "wrongheaded" and he isn't impressed with her explanation of it. "There wasn't a lot of clarity there," he says. "I would have cast a different vote. This is a time for a united front in America, particularly in Congress."

But, he predicts, Lee's vote probably will not affect her chances for reelection.

"The district is overwhelmingly Democratic," he says. "There are probably more people who are to the left of the Democrats than there are Republicans."

Also, he adds: "Barbara is very popular here. She's just a very, very nice woman -- and in this business that counts for a lot."

On Monday, Perata says, California talk radio was abuzz with callers denouncing Lee as a communist.

"I was wincing," he says, "because that's not Barbara. She did not cast that vote because she's unpatriotic. She loves this country and its opportunities as much as anybody."

Meanwhile, back in her office on Capitol Hill, Lee was furiously working the phones, talking to constituents and local media outlets.

"I hope that when I get my message out," she says, "people will understand why I did what I did. Whether they agree with me or not, they'll understand that I want to bring these [terrorists] to justice as much as anybody else does."

She declined to speculate on the effect her vote might have on her popularity. "This was not," she says, "a poll-driven vote."

Rep. Barbara Lee's Speech Opposing the Post 9-11 Use of Force Act

Fri, 14 Sep 2001 00:00:00 -0700

Remarks as prepared.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart, one that is filled with sorrow for the families and loved ones who were killed and injured in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Only the most foolish or the most callous would not understand the grief that has gripped the American people and millions around the world.

This unspeakable attack on the United States has forced me to rely on my moral compass, my conscience, and my God for direction.

September 11 changed the world. Our deepest fears now haunt us. Yet I am convinced that military action will not prevent further acts of international terrorism against the United States.

I know that this use-of -force resolution will pass although we all know that the President can wage war even without this resolution. However difficult this vote may be, some of us must urge the use of restraint. There must be some of us who say, let's step back for a moment and think through the implications of our actions today-let us more fully understand their consequences.

We are not dealing with a conventional war. We cannot respond in a conventional manner. I do not want to see this spiral out of control. This crisis involves issues of national security, foreign policy, public safety, intelligence gathering, economics, and murder. Our response must be equally multifaceted.

We must not rush to judgment. For too many innocent people have already died. Our country is in mourning. If we rush to launch a counterattack, we run too great a risk that woman, children, and other non-combatants will be caught in the crossfire.

Nor can we let our justified anger over these outrageous acts by vicious murderers inflame prejudice against all Arab Americans, Muslim, Southeast Asians, and any other people because of their race, religion, or ethnicity.

Finally, we must be careful not to embark on an open-ended war with neither an exit strategy nor a focused target. We cannot repeat past mistakes.

In 1964, Congress gave President Lyndon Johnson the power to "take all necessary measures" to repel attacks and prevent further aggression. In so doing, this House abandoned its own constitutional responsibilities and launched our country into years of undeclared war in Vietnam.

At this time, Senator Wayne Morse, on e of the two lonely votes against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, declared, "I believe that history will record that we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the Constitution of the United States. I believe that with the next century, future generations will look with dismay and great disappointment upon a Congress which is now about to make such a historic mistake."

Senator Morse was correct, and I fear we make the same mistake today. And I fear the consequences. I have agonized over this vote. But I came to grips with it in the very painful yet beautiful memorial service today at the National Cathedral. As a member of the clergy so eloquently said, " As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore."

Rep. Barbara Lee Honored for Work in AIDS and HIV

Fri, 08 Jun 2001 00:00:00 -0700

Rep. Barbara Lee was recognized on Wednesday for her efforts to fight AIDS and HIV around the world.

Lee, D-Oakland, was awarded the Congressional Service Award, which is given out by InterAction, a coalition of more than 165 U.S.-based relief, development and environmental agencies, which work throughout the world.

Lee has worked to pass legislation to create multilateral international efforts to fight the spread of the disease. She was also co-author of HR 3519, the Global AIDS and Tuberculosis Relief Act of 2000, which was signed into law by Bill Clinton and would go on to give $1 billion to the combat AIDS worldwide.

Lee has also introduced legislation that would increase the affordability of AIDS drugs and links debt relief to HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention.

Commenting on the award, Lee said, “I am honored to receive this award, but the real recognition should go to the many organizations and people who are dedicated to international humanitarian, development and relief efforts.''

“The support we receive from organizations, like those that are members of InterAction, is invaluable in our work to combat the HIV/AIDS pandemic,'' she said.