Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for the fine work they have done on this bill under difficult circumstances with many challenges.

After September 11, President Bush, I think, articulated our national policy very well by saying that nations are either for us in the war on terrorism or against us. I supported the President then, and I believe we must be tireless in pursuit of terrorists and those who sponsor terrorism overseas.

I rise today because I believe we need to make a change in this bill to fully live up to that promise. I suspect that most of my colleagues know the record of Saudi Arabia; but today I will be offering an amendment that strikes what is arguably, and agreed, a very small amount of money in this bill for Saudi Arabia and says that under this bill there shall be none for that country.

For many of my colleagues and for many Americans, it is intuitive why we

would take this action. They would probably be surprised to learn that even a small amount of funding is going to that nation. We know, for example, as a matter of fact, that Saudi Arabia, far from being a force for peace in the Middle East, has been systematically exporting terrorism. Testimony heard in this Congress said that more than 50 percent of Hamas funding comes from Saudi Arabia despite increasing calls from President Bush to the kingdom to halt that funding. The Saudi Arabian government reportedly pays $5,333 to each family of what they call martyrs killed trying to murder Israelis. And in the spring of 2002, U.S. troops in Sarajevo found in the office of the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia documents that proved Saudi funding of the Hamas terrorist group to enable it to produce a short-range missile called the Qassam. We also know that increasingly it has become clear that there are Saudi connections to 9/11. Far from being a force to help us crack down on those that committed this crime, we all know, frankly, that it took the Saudis more than a month to even freeze Osama bin Laden's assets to fund his terrorist network.

A known Saudi intelligence agent, Omar al-Bayoumi, hosted two of the 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, during the summer of 2000. Al-Bayoumi met the two men in Los Angeles and directed them to a Muslim community in San Diego and even wrote a check for their apartment deposits. The wife of the Saudi ambassador to the United States transferred $15,000 in 1998 and then $2,000 a month to a Saudi resident, Osama Bassnan. During the same period, Mr. Bassnan and another man apparently were receiving Saudi financial support providing financial support for two of the hijackers on September 11.

I would also say that it is very clear that on many occasions when the Saudi Arabian government had a chance to offer true help to the United States of America, they have not done it. We know their record in the investigation after the 1996 Khobar bombing attack. Assistant FBI Director Robert Bryant said at the time that the Saudi government had prevented the FBI investigators from interviewing any civilians who witnessed or may have been involved in the Khobar Towers bombing.

In 1995, the Saudi government prevented us, the United States, from apprehending a Hezbollah leader by preventing us from intercepting a plane that he was on.

Some will argue here today, and I have heard it frankly continuously over the course of the last decade, that now the Saudi Arabia that we see is a different one, they have changed, they have come around. Now they really, really want to help us. In fact, the Department of State, Assistant Secretary Burns, writes a letter today to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) talking about how Saudi Arabia was among the first countries to condemn the September 11 attack. Is that not just terrific given how closely tied they were to that attack itself?

I do not need to remind anyone here that 15 of the 19 bombers of my city, attackers that killed over 2,800 people, were Saudis. I do not need to tell you how they have been exporting terrorism to the Middle East again and again and are doing it today. But yet we still hear from the State Department, maybe if we give them one more chance. Well, I agree. Let us give them one more chance. Let us give them more than that. But there should not be one dime of U.S. aid going for any reason to Saudi Arabia.

So what is in this bill? I believe it is a very small amount, perhaps the chairman could tell me, I think it is $25,000. That is all. What does that money do? It defrays the cost for Saudi intelligence officers to come here and work with our officers in our academies and in our intelligence-gathering community. That is terrific. Let us keep doing that. Let us try to bring them around. But let us not be fooled. Let them pay their own freight for that until they start to act like a nation that truly is going to work to end terrorism rather than to spread it.

It is a shame that we should be providing any funding here. I defy any of my colleagues to come to this floor and articulate a record, even William Burns, the Assistant Secretary of State, arguing so fervently against this amendment, I do not know what the French for chutzpah is, has it that Saudi Arabia has been helpful on issues, including the pursuit of Palestinian-Israeli peace. I would ask the chairman and just inform the House that if he insists on the point of order, I plan to offer the exact same language that the full section has at the appropriate place in the bill, or we can make this the sum and substance of my presentation.

Point of Order

I do, Mr. Chairman.

I would argue, Mr. Chairman, that this is not in fact a limiting amendment. The language that limits is already in the bill. It says none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this act shall be obligated or expended, that is limiting language I have read so far, to finance directly any assistance or reparations to Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Iran or Syria, and then it goes on to say ``provided.'' I am not adding any more limitations than the committee has already added. All I am doing is adding another nation that comes under that limitation. The limiting language, I would argue, is already in the base bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this is the last of the amendments. Let me conclude by offering my thanks to the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for some very fine work.

For those Members who heard the recitation of the amendment and heard that none of the funds shall be appropriated or otherwise made available for Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia or Syria, you might say, how could there possibly be any controversy in that?

Frankly, the question is should Saudi Arabia be included in that list? And I think, frankly, like the previous two speakers, the argument is not why should money be struck, the argument should always be made why should we be providing funding?

You are going to hear from opponents of this amendment that, well, the Secretary of State and the Department of State feel sure, certain, that after years and years of Saudi Arabia exporting terrorism, after clear links to September 11, after connections with them exploiting Wahabism, after efforts continually stymied by the United States to get the Saudis to stop this behavior, we still should provide them some funding because maybe, just maybe they will get better later on.

We have this desire, and it is a fervent one, to find a player in the Middle East that will turn out to be a true ally. We have it in Israel and perhaps some at the State Department believe they have it in Saudi Arabia. But the record is simply different. The record shows that over 50 percent of the funding for Hamas comes from Saudi Arabia. The record shows that the Saudi Arabian government provides cash awards of over $5,000 for terrorists in Israel.

The record shows that terrorists who recently massacred 38 civilians on a Tel Aviv highway were found to be armed with rifles bearing Saudi army markings and serial numbers.

We know, of course, in recent months, thanks to some of the fine work of our Intelligence Community that there are strong connections between the Saudi government and what happened on September 11. We all know that 15 of the 19 bombers came from Saudi Arabia. But we have now also learned that the wife of the Saudi ambassador was providing cash grants to two of the suicide bombers in the months leading up. We now know that a Saudi intelligence agent had been hosting 2 of the 9/11 hijackers. We also know as a matter of fact, absolute fact, for more than a month after September 11, the Saudi government refused to freeze Osama bin Laden's accounts where so many of his assets were kept.

Yet the Department of State sent a letter today saying that Saudi Arabia is one of the first countries to condemn the September 11 attacks.

We have to learn the lesson about Saudi Arabia. We cannot watch what they say. They do a brilliant job saying things to us, millions of dollars in lobbyists each year. We will go home tonight and there will be ads on our TV here in Washington what a great country Saudi Arabia is, all while they fund terrorism. No one needs to be told that in our districts back home. It is something that we all understand.

The audacity of Mr. Burns, the Assistant Secretary of State, to say that my amendment might undermine Saudi Arabia's cooperation in dealing with Israeli-Palestinian peace. They are the foremost, number one funder of terrorist bombings in Israel.

I have one final point. Why are we giving money to one of the richest nations on Earth for anything? It is simply insane. So this is actually a very easy vote and I would encourage my colleague, the chairman, to accept this amendment. All it does is does what is intuitive to all of us. Let us judge nations by how they act.

If the Saudis do turn over a new leaf, if they stop saying the right thing when they come visit Crawford and then going and do fund-raisers for suicide bombers on television, then maybe we can come back later and decide whether we want to give some of our taxpayer dollars to the perhaps richest nation on God's Earth.

To do it today is simply wrong. We have to begin to learn the lessons of some of these nations in the Middle East. They are simply duplicitous. This is our opportunity, and I would point out to my colleagues, this is our opportunity to tell the Saudi Arabian government we expect a change in behavior.

This is our only opportunity to tell our colleagues at the State Department, stop looking for the unicorn, start looking at reality; and the reality is that the Government of Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that we all know oppresses its people, we all know that is among the exporters of the worst types of Muslim teaching that encourages the death of Christians and Jews, let us tell them with this small message that we are not going to have it anymore.

For those of my colleagues who think there are hundreds and billions and millions of dollars in the bill, it is $105,000 in two programs. The two programs are to permit the Saudi government to purchase military training in the United States, something I am sure they can afford, and to provide IMET to Saudi Arabia to ensure continued high level of Saudi attendance at those military things.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

The only state that is being added is Saudi Arabia. The other ones were already in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Weiner

Amendment No. 21: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

prohibition on assistance to saudi arabia

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I do not ascribe venal intent on the part of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) or the chairman. This was switched at the last moment.

But given the idea that a UC is supposed to be something that is done by a consensus, and it is clear there were Members on that side that were shut out, Members on this side, including myself, and the gentleman from Vermont wants to make a technical correction, if the true intent was to create a consensus decision on limiting time, something that I support, perhaps the best way to do this is to do this: Now that everyone is on notice, have the committee rise, in the Committee of the Whole, and simply do a new UC.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee and the full committee for the work they have done on this bill. We stand ready to pass this appropriation bill that contains an egregious error that not only runs counter to a majority in this Congress, but it runs counter to the views of the Attorney General.

The Attorney General, when asked about the COPS program during his confirmation hearing, said, ``Let me say that I think the COPS program has been successful. The purpose of the COPS program was to demonstrate to local police departments that if you put additional people, feet on the street, that crime will be affected and that people will be safer and more secure. We believe that the COPS program demonstrated that conclusively.'' That was June 5, 2003, not at his confirmation hearing.

Well, in addition to Mr. Ashcroft, 224 Members of this body have signed on to legislation that I and others are cosponsoring to reauthorize the COPS program. The COPS program, quite literally, gets the Federal Government off the sidelines in the war against crime, the war against terrorism, and hires police officers in all our communities. This bill that we are about to pass contains zero money, zero dollars and zero cents, for the most important component, which is the hiring component.

There are a few dollars to keep the COPS office up and running to administer the last remaining contracts that are out there, but let us keep in mind what it is that the program has already accomplished: 110,000 cops are on the beat in more than 12,000 communities.

And this is the most democratic, with a small ``d'', of programs in that it is spread almost equally throughout the country. More than 82 percent of the grants under the COPS program have gone to departments serving populations of 50,000 persons or less. Three hundred communities around this country now have police departments that did not even have them until the COPS program was put into place.

Well, not only do those of us in Congress believe in this program, at least those 224 of us who have cosponsored the reauthorization of the COPS program, but the Fraternal Order of Police, the International Association of Police Chiefs, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Sheriffs Association and on and on.

This is our opportunity to fund that program. This is our chance to say that in addition to supporting it and cosponsoring the legislation, we also want to provide the funding for it.

Mr. Chairman, I have the strange suspicion that despite the great success of this program, despite the fact that every day our leaders are standing up and saying that homeland security begins in our hometowns, despite the fact that every day we have a red, a yellow, a fuchsia, a teal alert telling our officers at home they better be on alert, we are eliminating perhaps the most successful anticrime program in the history of the Federal Government. And, today, in this bill, we do precious little to breathe life into it.

I had intended to offer an amendment to move a few dollars, not a lot, but a few dollars into the spending program for the hiring of additional COPS police officers. It had the support of some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who were going to offer the amendment with me.

Let me say there is more that we should do than just reinstitute the hiring program. We should respond to some of my colleagues, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, who

have had criticism of the program. They said that it provided hiring funding, and then it gradually faded away and some departments did not want to hire any more officers. That is why my reauthorization bill would allow them to use the funds under the COPS program to backfill existing officers.

Secondly, my amendment and the reauthorization bill, would it be passed, would allow them to invest in technology, in police scanners, surveillance devices, and the like.

This is one of those instances that, unfortunately, are not too uncommon in this body, where a majority, a strong majority of Members feel that something should be done and a small minority of Members prevent it from being done. This was our opportunity to do it, and I would have liked the opportunity to offer it.

I should point out that my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), is a cosponsor of the bill to reauthorize it; my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), a cosponsor of the bill to reauthorize the COPS program. And were we to have the opportunity to have a hearing, a debate, and a vote on it in the Committee on the Judiciary, I am quite certain it would pass.

Our colleagues on the other side of this building, in the other body, they too have demonstrated their support for it. They have more than 50 cosponsors there as well.

Let this bill be heard. Let the COPS program live to see another day. This is neither a Republican nor a Democratic initiative. Police officers, I would point out, tend to in many, many cases be Republican voters. But that is not what this is about. This is about a program that worked, that had the misfortune of having President Clinton's name in front of it.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and others with whom we have consulted on trying to come up with a way to answer some of the fundamental questions. First of all, I think that we can be of agreement because, frankly, every Member, including the distinguished chairman and ranking member, have said that yes, the total number of dollars is probably not enough and this is going to be an ongoing process to see to it that we do allocate enough money to this because, frankly, we have no choice.

I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky, the gentleman from Minnesota, the gentleman from Wisconsin, and others who have worked so hard to get that number as high as we can get it. There also, I believe, can be no other answer but yes to the question, do some areas have greater costs than others? Are there greater costs in ports of California, in States like New York? I will give Members an example. It is costing New York City $13 million a week to deal with the needs of homeland security. A week. If you drive over the Brooklyn Bridge at 3 o'clock in the morning on a weekday morning, you will find both lanes inside closest to the stanchion with a fixed patrol car sitting there all day, all night, because of the national security threat that exists. That is more police man-hours than many police departments, and that is something that New York is absorbing because of these risks.

Another question that is a little tougher to answer, but I know how I would answer it, is who should decide how homeland security funds get divided? Should it be my distinguished colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations and those of us in this body,

or should it be Secretary Ridge and the administration? I vote for the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from Minnesota and others here in this body, but I think we should keep in mind what Secretary Ridge has said.

Secretary Ridge has said very clearly, in fact, just within the last 24 hours, that he believes that the present way we are distributing the money should be changed. He said ``distributing those dollars according to the old formula, I don't believe we get maximum security for the dollars that are expended at the national level.''

This is continuing the quote: ``I'd like to see the numbers significantly higher than $500 million.''

He goes on to say, ``I think every State should be given a certain amount of money,'' a sentiment that I agree with, ``but at the end of the day, I do believe that there are some communities and regions that need more money.''

Continuing the quote: ``I have concerns about the distribution formula, [where] We just basically send out dollars to States and localities on a formula that doesn't consider infrastructure, doesn't consider anything other than population.'' I do not believe that is where are we at this House, and frankly I do have great confidence in my colleagues deciding how to distribute the money, but we do have to recognize that this is not just a New York City issue, as the chairman alluded to previously. This is an issue that affects about 30 different States and localities all around the country. The gentleman from Texas articulated the needs of his district. Others have come to this floor and talked about their cities and States. The fact remains that there are certain places that unfortunately are more likely today to be targets of terrorist attack than others and have to take steps that cannot be avoided. If for no other reason, many of the trials that are being held of those that are accused of terrorism are being held in New York City. Just the enforcement costs in Washington, D.C. and suburban Virginia, in New York City, in Chicago, Illinois in one case, just those costs are much higher than they are elsewhere. There has been a large increase in the overall basic formula grant, and I think the committee deserves great credit for this. What this amendment seeks to do is take the $700 million that was allocated last year, increase the $500 million to that $700 million. That still provides a $700 million increase in the basic formula grant, and I believe that that is a healthy step.

I, however, want to say in closing, I want to close the way I began, I do believe that the chairman in his colloquy that he entered into earlier has clearly articulated his desire to get the money where it needs to go. I do believe that this is an amendment that gets the chairman and gets our House to that place.

Madam Speaker, it is not usual that a relatively young man like myself can say that I have known someone well for nearly 20 years, but it is in that spirit that I welcome Rabbi David Halpern here this morning and thank him for his thoughtful words.

Brooklyn is full of distinguished spiritual leaders, and Rabbi Halpern stands out as a giant among them. Rabbi Halpern is a past President of the Rabbinical Board of Flatbush, where he served as Chairman of the Board's Membership Committee for 13 years. He is also a prominent member of other Rabbinical organizations and the Rabbinical Council of the United States.

He is widely respected and recognized for his intellect and wisdom, but, if there is one thing that distinguishes Rabbi Halpern, it is dedication not only to his faith, but in particular to his congregants and his community. More than 50 years ago, Rabbi Halpern became the first Rabbi of the Flatbush Park Jewish Center. And more than 50 years later, Rabbi Halpern is still there, and the community is stronger than ever.

Under his leadership, Flatbush Park has grown from a gathering of only 65 families in a rented store into a Modern Orthodox congregation of more than 500 family members. Today, there are thousands of people in Brooklyn and beyond whose spiritual lives were shaped by Rabbi Halpern.

As hard as I try to express what Rabbi Halpern means to this community, the ultimate testament is how many people joined him on his journey to Washington today. Dozens from his community, as well as distinguished Rabbis, are here in his honor, and it is my particular pleasure to welcome Rabbi Halpern's wife Sheila, his son Neil, his daughters Risa and Beth, his son-in-law Dennis and his granddaughter Lauren who are in Washington on this most important occasion.

In closing, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives and our grateful community, I would like to thank Rabbi Halpern for his eloquent words this morning and for his service to our whole country.

Mr. Chairman, something in me enjoys this exercise in self-flagellation by all of the lawyers in this Chamber. From time to time, those of us who are not lawyers in this Chamber, we convene a meeting, and we can do it in the phone booth in the cloakroom; but now we are all so angry at lawyers.

But this is not about lawyers. Frankly, most Americans are neither lawyers nor, thank God, are they victims, so they do not have to go into courts; and that is a good thing. But the groups that do represent victims, that do represent average Americans, almost universally oppose this legislation. Those that represent cancer patients, the American Cancer Society, oppose this legislation. Those who fight against pollution, the Clean Water Action, oppose this legislation. Those who represent seniors, the Gray Panthers, oppose this legislation. Those who represent consumers oppose this legislation. Those who fight against violence against women, the National Women's Health Network, oppose this legislation, because it is bad for victims and it is bad for those who use the system.

The gentleman from Virginia had these great charts. I am going to have to gesture because he would not let me use them. He had these great charts about 35 cents; that is all people are getting. Do my colleagues know why? Because there are millions and millions of victims; millions and millions of victims in that class. That is all that can go around is 35 cents. There

are hundreds and thousands of victims in this class. When you brag that, well, all the money that was left after they gave out these multimillion dollars was only 35 cents a person, that is a subject of how many people there were in that class.

I say to my colleagues, the bottom line is that it is ironic to hear the same people who came to this floor a couple of weeks ago and said, oh, the amount the victims are getting is too high, let us cap it at $250,000, now they are saying that 35 cents is too low. Do my Republican colleagues want to have a minimum? Sign me up. What is the number going to be? I know it is lower than $250,000 and higher than 35 cents, but we have to let my colleagues decide, because a jury cannot handle it. Oh, no. It is too mind-boggling for a jury to handle, because that is nine or 12 people from your district. They chose you, but they cannot figure out if Cheerios was right to short-change millions of consumers.

And let me say one other thing. Let me tell my colleagues one other group who should oppose this legislation: anyone that has the audacity to call themselves conservative. If you think it is conservative to take power away from the people and their States and give it to 1,500 Federal judges who sit in there in their marble chambers, who never talk to anyone or touch anyone, if you think that is conservative, you have it completely backwards. But then again, you do. You have it completely backwards.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by offering a word of apology and concern for the many lawyers in this Chamber. This has been a very bad afternoon for all of the lawyers who have seen their reputations dragged through the mud. And those of us who are not lawyers, the seven or eight of us here, will be meeting later in a phone booth off the cloakroom to discuss how badly we feel for all of these horrible lawyers who have been flogging themselves on the floor all afternoon.

I should also express my sorrows to those victims who use the courts to try to find redress. Now, most Americans are thankfully not lawyers and they are not victims. And we are grateful and thank God for that. But for the organizations who do represent victims, this has been a very bad day, whether it is the American Cancer Society that opposes this legislation because they represent victims of cancer. A bad day for them. It has been a bad day for those who advocate against water pollution like Clean Water Action. It has been a very bad day because they oppose this bill.

This bill is also a setback for those who advocate for seniors who have been victims, for those who advocate on behalf of women who have been victims. All of these groups are against this bill.

This has also been a very bad day for anyone in this Chamber who calls themselves a conservative. This has been a very bad day for you, because for all of the efforts that you put in to returning power to the States, returning power to individuals, this bill does the exact opposite. It says that the people in our local States, the people in our State courts are simply not smart enough to handle these cases. They are simply not sophisticated enough. We trust them to put them in charge of choosing their Congressman, but we do not trust them on a jury. No, that is too big a mistake. So we take out of the hands of about the 50,000 State courts and give them to about 1,500 Federal judges.

This is a huge setback for all of you who support stronger State government.

This has also been a very bad day for anyone who wants to be intellectually consistent. Was it not about 2 weeks ago you voted on putting a cap on the amount that victims can get, and now you come up here with your charts saying, oh, it is terrible how little victims are getting.

There is a reason victims are getting 35 cents, 40 cents, $1, $2.50. It is because there are millions and hundreds of thousands of victims in these cases all chopping up the 5-, 6-, 7-, $8 million claims. So it is a very bad day if you want to be consistent.

Although, any of those who claim about how low the amount that victims are getting, I look forward to a bill on this floor sometime in the near future putting a minimum amount that victims have to get in these cases. By the way, I will vote for that. You can sign me up as a cosponsor.

While I cannot improve the day for those groups, if there are some of you in this body who see that this is a terrible power grab, for those of you who do not mind the power grab against the States, who do not mind sticking it to victims, who do not mind flogging yourself as a lawyer, who do not mind being inconsistent conservatives, there are a couple of ways to improve the bill in case you do not want to be a pig.

If you do not want to be a pig about it, there are two things in this bill that no one asked for, were not in the original version of the bill, and really are an affront to our basic elements of fairness. One is the element that says you can have retroactive effects of this bill, meaning taking things that are presently going through the process, even if they are due to be judged tomorrow, and sending them back; and the second

is the provision that gives mandatory appeal on the certification of a class.

What that will have the effect of doing is that at any point in the process, if someone wanted to challenge the certification of a class, whether it be Enron or WorldCom, if they are in the case right now, even if it is in the Federal court, this will allow them to stop everything in its tracks and go back on appeal.

By the way, for those of you who think that the lower courts get overturned a lot on appeal, it has never happened. It has never happened.

So these are two minor ways for those of you who spend so much time flogging yourself because you are such evil lawyers to be able to vote for this bill and improve it in a minor way. This does not make this a good bill. That is too much to hope for in this Congress in this day and age. But what it will do is make it a little less offensive to those victims who are now waiting for some redress to that grievance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I thank the sponsors for giving me an opportunity to speak.

This is clearly a bill, as the previous speaker outlined, that improves efficiency and hopefully reduces costs to banks. One thing that was not addressed in this legislation, though, is a remaining area of patent unfairness to consumers.

We all know that a check is essentially an article of faith. It is a contract between two people. From time to time, people write checks that they simply do not have the money to cover. They are penalized. They pay a fine by their bank, anywhere in the neighborhood of $15 to $25.

But what continues to be the case in this country, in many banks, in the neighborhood of about 85 percent of the big banks and about 75 percent of smaller banks, is someone who receives the check, who is already out the amount of money that they were supposed to be given, is also charged a fee, a fine. This is patently unfair. It is counterintuitive; and, frankly, it is indefensible. I think we should address this in this House.

Some of the arguments that are raised to defend the idea that the person who gets the check should be fined when someone bounces a check say that there is an added cost to banks when someone bounces a check.

This is true. It is estimated that that cost is in the neighborhood of 48 to 65 cents, depending on what study we see. It is clear that someone should be penalized for that. Frankly, we can argue it is too high, but the person who wrote the check is already getting a $20-some- odd-dollar fine.

Also, there is a relationship between all banks in the system that when there is a bounced check, if the credit union has a bounced check that they have to return to CitiBank, there is a relationship there that they exchange a few dimes to make up for that cost.

The net of all of this is the banking business makes about $6.1 billion of profits, according to 1999 numbers, just on these transactions. They cover the costs, and then industry-wide they make about $6.1 billion. So the idea that the costs are not getting covered is certainly not the case.

Secondly, some have argued that we need to have a disincentive for a merchant who is going to get a bad check. We have to incentivize them, checking vigorously to make sure they are getting it from a legitimate person.

Well, this is the silliest argument. They already have the greatest incentive of all. If they get a bad check, they are out the money or they are out the service or they are out the product that they exchange in exchange for that. That is why we all go to our local diners and we see the checks up, notices up, ``we do not accept checks from this person,'' because they definitely do not want to get snookered a second time. So the idea that they should get a $20, a $15 or $10 fine, somehow creates a disincentive is simply not the case.

A third argument made is that, well, when we are receiving a check, we should be extra vigilant. We should call up to make sure the person has the money in their account. Well, I have news, because of excellent legislation passed by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and others, we cannot do that. We cannot receive a check for $100 and call up the bank and say, listen, I have account number 1751. Do they have $100 in their account? They cannot even exchange that information, so there is no way you as the person receiving the check can avoid that fee.

Some people have said, well, the receiving banks have costs just like the issuing bank has costs. As I mentioned, those costs are already covered.

Then, finally, after we cut through all of it, I have found in my one experience with this, and some industry leaders have said, do you know what, at the end of the day if you make a stink about it, we do not charge. That is not any way to run a railroad.

Frankly, this fee, this fine, this penalty is indefensible. It does not penalize someone who does something wrong, it does not disincentivize activity in any way, and it does not encourage any type of activity that a person can protect.

One of the things we are doing here is making this transaction more efficient. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) said it in the debate on the rule, do we want to improve the efficiency here? That is the rationale. But I think we also have to restore a sense of fairness. This is one open fissure in the law that I look for opportunities to address.

Now, I know that we are here under an open rule and I have the opportunity, but I would ask the gentleman from Massachusetts if perhaps there might be other opportunities to address this inequity.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for those words. Perhaps in the interim we could also inform some of the small business groups and advocates, who are probably the primary victims of these fees, small businesses who are in good faith accepting these things. The larger businesses, the Wal-Marts of the world, probably say to their banks, we refuse to pay them.

But this will be an opportunity. I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to give me another bite at this apple at the appropriate time.

Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that today, as we commemorate Yom Hashoah, the commemoration of the Holocaust here in Washington, DC, that I ask the House to join me in welcoming Rabbi Manny Behar, who gave the invocation this morning.

Rabbi Behar is one of the most prominent spiritual leaders in the Queens community. Since 1992, he has been the executive director of the Queens Jewish Community Council, an umbrella organization for more than 90 synagogues and Jewish institutions throughout our borough.

In this position, he oversees a network of social service programs which include every service we can imagine, from counseling for victims of September 11 to assistance for homebound elderly to food distribution to job placement and training.

Rabbi Behar should feel at home here in the halls of Congress, because before coming to the Queens Jewish Community Council he had a distinguished career working in government. He was special assistant to Queens Borough president Claire Shulman, where he played a critical role in obtaining the historic New York State Supreme Court decision upholding the validity of Eruvim under American law.

During his tenure working for New York City controller Elizabeth Holtzman, he did research which led to the first conviction of an American company for participating in the Arab boycott of Israel.

It is my pleasure to also welcome Rabbi Behar's wife Evelyn, his two sons Moshe David and Nathan Benjamin, his father Moshe, and his cousins, Shalom and Cynthia Brilliant, who

are here today. We wish Rabbi Behar's mom Rivka a speedy get well.

On behalf of the House of Representatives we would like to thank him, not only for his eloquent words this morning, but more importantly, for his service to his faith, his community, and to his country.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a great time for student athletes from Brooklyn and Queens.

Earlier this month, St. John's won its record sixth National Invitation Tournament with a 70-67 comeback victory over Big East rival Georgetown. One cannot help but wonder what they would have been able to do if they had been given the bid to the NCAA Tournament that they deserved.

While St. John's has won many titles in its history, I also wanted to congratulate a school that just won its first, Magen David Yeshiva. This past month, the Warriors won their first championship in school history, defeating Ramaz of Manhattan 64 to 48 to claim the Metropolitan Yeshiva High School Athletic League crown.

In the championship game, Charles Chehebar led the way with 24 points on 10 for 16 shooting, including 18 points in the second half. Not surprisingly, he was the game's MVP. Team captain Maurice Levy added 13 points, making 63 percent of his shots in the second half, and Ralph Cohen also made it into double figures, netting 13 points. Of course many other players contributed to this unprecedented victory, and I wanted to take this opportunity to recognize these young men--Robert Abadi, Jack Beyda, Albert Braha, Albert Dayan, Eddie Dayan, Steven Fallas, Steven Gindi, Ralph Hasbani, Joseph Kameo, Isaac Kassin, Isaac Mizrahi, Steven Orfali, Irving Sassoon, Ovadia Setti.

Under the leadership of Head Coach Morris Dweck and Assistant Coach Danny Mizrahi, this was a particularly emotional win, since the team dedicated the game to the memory of Leo Chalom, a 2001 Magen David graduate who passed away less than a week before the championship game. A crowd of 1,500 recited a chapter of Psalms in his memory before the game, and I am heartened to know that the Warriors' victory was able to bring some solace and happiness to the members of the Magen David community who are working their way through trying times.

On behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives and all of the people of the city of New York, I offer my hearty congratulations to the Red Storm of St. John's and the Warriors of Magen David Yeshiva on their tremendous accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, between 300 and 1,000 people were killed in attacks on more than a dozen villages in northeastern Congo last week. According to witnesses on the ground, the coordinated attacks started with a whistle blow and lasted between five and eight hours. UN and International Red Cross observers say that they have witnessed the results of the killing, 20 mass graves.

Mass killings such as this have become a regular occurrence in the Congo Civil War, which killed more than 50,000 last year. Yesterday, up to one thousand people were killed in the span of a few hours, yet these stories don't even make the front page of the papers here in the States.

How many people have to die before we will take action? How many lives need to be shattered before we will stand up and say, ``Enough!'' How many more massacres can we sit by and watch before we will realize our mistakes?

The United States' failure as a world leader in human rights is demonstrated in our lack of will to stop massacres that have occurred in places like Congo, Kosova, Rwanda, Iraq, and many others. But it is also seen in our denial of those massacres that we know have taken place.

Every year since I was elected to Congress, I have joined my colleagues in the House of Representative to hold this annual vigil commemorating the Armenian Genocide for a simple reason, because there are those out there who deny that it ever occurred.

Eighty-eight years ago, on April 24, 1915, the government of the Ottoman-Turkish Empire rounded up approximately 600 leaders and intellectuals of the Armenian community and executed them. This was the beginning of the mass slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman-Turkish Empire.

We know this happened, and we know how many people were killed and we know how it was done and by whom. Yet the official U.S. government position on this atrocity is that it was not a genocide, that there was no deliberate attempt by the Ottoman Turks to wipe-out the Armenian population.

We here on the floor today know better. And we know that by denying the truth surrounding this tragic chapter of history, we are only providing cover for the next genocide to begin.

The events in Africa last week provide yet another chilling example: If we fail to act, these types of terrible crimes will persist.

Eighty-eight years of denials are enough. We in Congress need to pass an Armenian Genocide Resolution and put to rest this campaign to deny the Armenian genocide. I urge all my colleagues in the House to join with me under the leadership of our Armenian Caucus co-chairs, Joe Knollenberg and Frank Pallone, and cosponsor a resolution to finally put this denial to an end.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, as the debate begins, let us put some myths to rest. We are going to hear a great deal of references to the California law that put in a cap. Since 1998, premiums have gone up 37 percent in California. Nationally they have gone up about 6 percent. So you keep talking about how great that has worked, but frankly it has not. In Florida where they also have a cap, and there are plenty of places around the country that do, they have a $450,000 cap that was put in the last time that suddenly we had an insurance crisis in this country in 1985, 1986. What happened then? Oh, yeah, insurance companies lost a lot of money in the stock market then, too, so that was the last crisis that we had. At the time Florida, they were smart, they asked insurance companies to report back to them the effect of the law. Aetna Casualty reported back. St. Paul, then the largest malpractice insurer, reported back; and in the words of St. Paul they said, quote, ``The new limits will produce little or no savings to the tort system as it pertains to medical malpractice.''

So feel free to keep talking about the examples that we have, but I think that you will find that when push comes to shove, the precedent is that these caps do not lower premiums. They do not lower premiums.

We are also going to hear a great deal of assertion today about out- of-control juries, out-of-control awards, judges who are completely out of their mind when they make decisions. Frankly, Duke Law School studied this notion not so long ago, as a matter of fact, in December of 2002. Here is what they said, and this is a quote: ``The assertion that jurors decide cases out of sympathy for injuries to plaintiffs rather than the legal merits of the case have been made about malpractice juries since at least the 19th century, yet no research shows support for these claims.''

But this is part of what I think is an underlying theme on the other side. American citizens cannot be trusted on juries to decide for themselves. They are not smart enough. Apparently my colleagues believe that juries that are made up of nine or 12 American citizens from your districts cannot be trusted to make these decisions. They simply are not trustworthy. But who are they? They are the same people that voted for you. Why is it you trust them to make a decision about who their Congressman would be and you will not trust them to make a decision about whether or not some medical malpractice case occurred and someone should be held accountable for that?

But there is another current here that I think is even more pernicious. Here we are. We sit in the Committee on the Judiciary. Let us take a look at what we have been doing recently. First, we are coming out after victims of this. This law only applies to you if you have been a victim of medical malpractice. You are a victim, but still we in the House want to take away your rights. Next we are going to take up bankruptcy reform. If you are really poor or you have fallen on hard times, we are coming after you next. But do not get too comfortable, because soon I hear that if you are an asbestos victim, we are going to come after your rights, too. This is who the Republican Party is standing up for in this House.